clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i have an amendment at the desk,

and i would ask that it be called up and be made pending. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from south dakota, mr. thune, proposes an amendment numbered 3301. at the appropriate place insert the following -- mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, we enter into this debate about the debt limit today -- and i appreciate the comments of my colleague from new hampshire with respect to the overall picture of our financial, our fiscal condition of the country right now. i think it's important to put that context out there, because we are debating now an amendment, a substitute amendment that the senator from montana is offering. the debt limit increase i think that was originally proposed was somewhere in the $650 billion range. we're now talking about tripling that, $1.9 trillion increase in the debt limit after having just

voted on raising the debt limit before we went out for the christmas holiday to raise it by about $290 billion. so we got this proposal on the floor that would increase the total amount of indebtedness of the federal government, the united states government, by $1.9 trillion. and as the senator from new hampshire very well pointed out, we are looking at deficits now into the forseeable future that exceed $1 trillion. in fact, it doesn't look like for the ten-year window that we do budgeting here in the united states senate that we're ever going to have a year where we don't have a deficit somewhere in the $1 trillion range. we looked at a $1.4 trillion last year, looking at another $1.2 trillion deficit for this year. at some point we just keep racking up more and more debt that gets passed on to future generations and future taxpayers. and as the senator from new hampshire pointed out, admission into the european union, there are a couple of key thresholds. one is debt as a percentage of

g.d.p., which is 60%, is the threshold for admission into the european union. and deficits to g.d.p., which is about 3%, and as he also pointed out very effectively, we are at thresholds here in this country which exceed dramatically the deficit the to g.d.p. threshold that wouldn't even allow us to get into the european union, and we're going to blow by the debt to g.d.p. threshold probably here in the next year, which is 60% debt to g.d.p. my whole point is we're getting in peril ouster tore when it comes -- perilous territory when it comes to the trust that the american people have in the federal government's ability to manage responsibly and exercise fiscal discipline with their tax dollars. and we're also getting to a point where i think those who are acquiring u.s. debt -- and by that i mean we got the chinese, of course, are a big holder of american debt, get to where they start saying, okay, if we're going to continue to buy this debt, we're going to

get a higher return. because the higher our debt goes, the more risk we take on. it is a fundamental rule of economics that we all learn that there is a corresponding relationship between risk and return. if an investor is going to assume more risk, they're going to demand a higher return. what we are doing now by piling up more and more debt is saying to those people who would buy more debt, those investors around the world or here in this country, this is becoming a more risky proposition for you. as we pile up more and more debt -- and so they're going to start saying if we're going to buy that debt, if we're going to finance your spending into the future, we're going to need a higher return. and that means higher interest rates. and of course higher interest rates, when you start seeing federal government debt go up in terms of interest rates, generally what happens is other interest rates in our economy go up as well. you start seeing student loans, for example, homeowners, small businesses all being impact bid

higher interest rates -- impacted by higher interest rates as a result of what happens when you run these kinds of deficits year over year over year and add as much as we are to the federal debt. and we aren't showing any evidence that there is a willingness to restrain that, mr. president. in fact, if you look at just the last year here -- and of course the $1 trillion stimulus bill sort of started off the spending, and then since then we've had an omnibus spending bill, a mini bus spending bill, both of which increased spending year over year at about twice the rate of inflation, sometimes in excess of that. what we've seen between the years fiscal 2008 and 2010 are astronomical increases in the size of the federal government. if you start with the legislative branch appropriations bills, between 2008 and 2010, that covers a couple of appropriation years, you're looking at 17.3% increase. if you look at appropriations for interior and environment,

you're looking at an increase of 21.4% over that time period. appropriations for commerce, science and justice, increase 22.2%. appropriations for h.u.d., increased 29.1%. and the state and foreign operations appropriations bill beat even that. it was increased by 48.7%. taken as a whole, the entire government grew by 16.8% during that time period. when i say that i'm talking between 2008 and 2010 we saw a 16.8% increase in the size of the federal government, and that is just speaking to the appropriations bill over those two years. of course we all know that that dramatically outpaces and dwarfs the rate of inflation and the growth we've seen in our economy over that time period. what's even more notable is that none of those increases, mr. president, included increased funding through the stimulus bill which as i mentioned earlier was an

additional $1 trillion. of course i'm concerned that's going to be built into the budget baseline going into the future and we're going to see our appropriators assume that stimulus money is part of the baseline in spending. of course those appropriations bills don't include the proposed stimulus 2, the bailouts of the banks, the insurance companies companies and the car companies or the $2.5 trillion expansion that would occur with a new health care proposal, new health care entitlement in this country. we've seen this dramatic increase in the growth government, in spending here in washington, d.c., most of which is financed with borrowing. in fact, last year 43 cents out of every dollar that we spent here in the federal government was borrowed. you cannot continue to sustain a pattern of borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar that you spend. in fact, as american families and households and small businesses are having to tighten their belts, here in washington,

d.c. the spending just continues and continues and continues unabated. and what i'm hoping to do with this amendment, mr. president, is to at least demonstrate that as an institution, the united states senate is willing to say that we are going to take some steps, no matter how modest they are -- and i would say that my amendment isn't going to go a long ways toward eliminating this federal debt, but it certainly, i think, demonstrates to the american people that we get it, that we're hearing that they are uncomfortable with the massive amount of spending and borrowing and taxing that's going on in washington, d.c. of course they're going to end up paying for this. they're going to pay for it in the form of higher taxes, higher inflation, in the form of higher interest rates on mortgages and small business loans and student loans and those sorts of things. and so we have a responsibility to demonstrate to the american people that we are serious about getting our fiscal house in order. the most recent example, of course, as i mentioned earlier

of this pattern of expansion of the federal government is the health care bill, which is in the process right now of discussions evidently between the house and the senate and negotiations that are ongoing. it passed the house, it passed the senate before the christmas holiday. i happen to hope that people willdom their senses and defeat -- will come to their senses and defeat this bill and it won't emerge from the conference committee and we can start over and do this the right way, in a step-by-step way and not in a way that expands the size of government by $2.5 trillion. with that being said the expansion includes higher taxes, includes medicare cuts. it also at the end of the day, according to the congressional budget office, does very little for most people in this country to actually reduce the cost of their health care insurance. in fact, what we've seen through the studies that have been done by the c.b.o., the congressional budget office, by the c.m.s. actuary is for most americans

they are going to see at best their health insurance premiums stay the same and if you're in the market, go up. the health care bill is an example of this runaway federal spending. in the latter part of that debate, we got a response from the c.b.o. to a question that was posed by the senator from alabama, senator sessions, with regard to how the accounting is done on medicare. because one of the arguments that we heard throughout the course of the debate is that it would extend the life span of medicare. in fact, when the c.b.o., the the question was posed of them: what happens with this additional medicare tax and these medicare cuts that would be imposed upon providers and on senior citizens in this country, and the argument was always made that this will extend the life span of medicare. and our question was: how do you spend money to create this new entitlement program? how are you going to pay for the health care expansion and still say you're expanding medicare? the answer that came back was that under the accounting

conventions with regard to trust funds and a unified budget that in fact there would be notes put into these trust funds that technically, legally speaking, would extend the life span of medicare. but that those dollars are also being spent on the new health care expansion. and so from an economic standpoint, the conclusion you draw is that you can't spend the same money twice. essentially what they said is you are spending the same money twice. you are double counting this money. so my view is that we have complicated the situation dramatically by this new health care entitlement program, and that's why i think it's so important that we reverse course, go back and start over and do this right and do it in a way that is step by step, that gets at the fundamental issue most americans are concerned about, and that's the high cost of health care and providing access to more americans and providing a high quality of care. i say that as background to get into this debate about the debt limit to say again that i'm very

concerned. i think most americans are concerned about the amount of spending, the amount of borrowing, the amount of taxing that is occurring here in washington, d.c. what my amendment does, very simply, mr. president, is it says that the troubled asset relief program that was enacted in late 2008, which was a $700 billion authority for the treasury to use to help bring stability to the financial services industry in this country, we would end it. we would basically say that job, that mission, that purpose has been served. it's been completed. and in fact, any unobligated funds shouldn't be spent, that we shouldn't allow this tarp program to become a recycling arcs sort of revolving loan fund, a political slush fund, if you will, to be used for all kinds of other purposes. most of the people in this chamber who voted for it, when they voted for it believed that it would be used to bring stability to our financial

services industry in this country. we were told at the time if we didn't do something, we were on the verge of an imminent financial collapse, imminent financial meltdown. many of us supported that at the time with the belief it would in fact be used to acquired the troubled assets on the balance sheets of a lost financial institutionness this country. what has happened is it has evolved into something different. now it's been used to take equity positions not only in financial institutions and insurance companies but in auto manufacturers. it's been suggested by the treasury department, whose interpretation is they can use this for other purposes. we think the statute is very plain about how these funds ought to be used. the treasury has taken a different interpretation. when they chose to extend this program, it was set to expire, by the way, at the end of december of last year. the treasury department chose to extend it. the assumption, i guess, most of us made was that they have designs on how to use those funds. and if they don't, there are

certainly members of congress up here who do. i don't say that as a partisan statement. i think there are probably people on both sides who would love to know there is a few hundred billion dollars available that might go towards some program that they think is important. i'm not saying that anybody's ideas about government programs that might serve a particular constituency's needs aren't important. they are, i'm sure, important in the minds of individual senators. but if we're thinking about the overall good of this country, we have to begin thinking about what we are doing, and this authority that was created under the tarp program, the $700 billion, is if we don't shut it down, going to be used for all kinds of other ideas, all kinds of other purposes. and we saw that most recently with the stimulus 2 bill that was proposed in the house of representatives. they wanted to use tarp funding as an offset to pay for the new stimulus bill. we've seen proposals to use it for small businesses.

frankly, i think we need to focus any efforts that we make to create jobs in this country on small businesses because, after all, small businesses do create two-thirds to three-quarters of all the jobs in our economy. but, frankly, the tarp program wasn't designed to do that. the tarp program had a specific statutory purpose. that purpose is being adulterated and used in different ways. and i happen to believe, and i hope a majority of my colleagues here in the senate will as well, vote to end this program and to not allow it to be used and misused and abused in a way that creates greater liabilities for the american taxpayers, creates more debt and more borrowing, because after all, that's what it is. le a.t.f. anthologyo is -- authority is dead. what it means is when tarp authority is used, we go out an borrow the money and basically we add to the federal debt that we continue to pileup. and so the end tarp program and

there's an acronym for everything around here. the end tarp program is erasing our national debt through accountability or responsibility plan or end tarp is what my amendment embodies. and basically we believe that we ought to as a -- as a body -- as an expression of our willingness, again, demonstrate to the american people that we can get our fiscal house in order vote to end this program. i just want to illustrate, if i might, mr. president, what i'm talking about here in sort of more graphic terms. this is a pie chart that shows the whole $700 billion that was authorized under tarp. what the blue represents is the $545 billion that the latest information we have has been spent or at least committed. and that was as of january 6, 2010. what this side represents is the

unobligated funds. it is a combination of both the authority that was not used. that was about $155 billion and payments that have been made back into the fund and that's about $165 billion. so you've got about 00 - -- $320 billion in round numbers of unobligated authority in tarp. what my amendment simply would say is this amount of money cannot be spent. we would end tarp and instead of allowing the program to continue through october of this year, at which point, incidentally, mr. president, they don't have to shut down the spending. the spending can continue to go on, the program in effect would shut down in october of this year. but we believe this unobligated money in here, we ought to not spend. and when we don't spend it, it's money, of course, that we don't have to borrow. that reduces the overall amount of the federal debt that we have and the amount of debt that we're passing on to future

generations. again, this is a way i think of sort illustrating of talking about what the amendment would do. the blue represents the amount committed or spent since january 6th, this is the amount that has not been used, authorized, but not spent, has been paid back. unobligated balances in the tarp fund of $320 billion. it is a fairly straightforward amendment, mr. president. i hope that a majority of my colleagues here in the united states senate will vote with me. -- with me to say to the american people that we hear you. we don't believe that using this program in a way that wasn't intended, that further aggravates a very, very serious fiscal situation for this country and ought to be allowed to be continued. the american people, i think, have made it clear that they're tired of the bailouts. there was a "wall street journal"-nbc poll showed that 53% were unhappy with the government's current role in the private sector and 36% are

opposed to the government's intervention by taking a majority take in general motors. despite the original projections that when tarp was signed into law, that we were going to be made whole and this would generate additional revenue for the -- for the american taxpayers. i think we now know that the estimates that are coming forward suggest that we're going to lose money and so the -- the amount of money that was authorized for this program we're not going to get it all back. but the one thing we can do right now is cut our losses by making sure these unobligated funds do not get spent. they don't go on to the federal debt. they don't go on to additional borrowing. when you're borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar you spend here in washington, d.c., we need to start exercising fiscal discipline, and i hope my colleagues will vote to support this amendment. my understanding is, mr. president, that there will be a vote sometime tomorrow on this. i hope to have another opportunity to speak to it tomorrow morning. i wanted to late amendment down.

make my colleagues aware of it and encourage them to support it. thank you, mr. president. i yield back the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: frankly, i think that the -- the fundamental question facing us is: are we going to pay our bills? that's really the question for us today on the amendment offered by the senator from south dakota, i expect that the chairman of the banking committee, senator dodd, would have something to say about that when we come back into session tomorrow. but the fundamental question we're facing with this amendment up to today, the basic debt limit extension amendment is: are we going to pay our bills? if we've incurred obligations, and we have as a country, are we going to pay them? are we going to pay our bills? that's the basic question. are we going to live up to our commitment, pay our bills? now, the discussion here quite

correctly -- not correctly. the subject has moved over to, well, gee, aren't our deficits too hard. have we spent too much as a country compared to the revenue we're taking in? and, yes, our deficits are too high. there is no one who would argue that point. our deficits are too high. they are what they are partly because of the recession that we're in, subprime mortgage crisis that somewhat prompted all the problems that we faced as a country. you know, a lot of loose lending by lots of institutions that -- packaging of -- of obligations of loans into -- into -- and securitizing those loans and all the fees earned by banks and so forth, pretty soon all of the mortgages became if not worthless, at least not worth very much at all. and the country has consequently faced the recession by and large by a lot of loose thinking -- a lot of loose financial thinking in the last couple of years.

beginning with the subprime mortgage crisis. we are who we are. and we're trying to work ourselves out of the recession. the basic question is: are we going to pay the debts that we're obligated in are we going to live up to our commitments? the senator from new hampshire, the ranking member of the budget committee, quite frankly talked about our debts being too high and he raised the prospects, gee, very soon certain countries may charge us more on the debt that we're borrowing, want to charge the premium because they wonder if they can trust the united states' obligation to pay its debts. i don't know whether or not that's true. i don't know when that may or may not be true. that's a very speculative question. i just don't know. a lot of people have very informed opinions on that point. but i do know something that's absolutely true overwhich there's no debate. and that is if we default on our

debts, then we're going to find the economy's going to collapse. i do know that as a fact and i think every member of this body knows that to be a fact. we must extend the period -- we must extend the debt limit so we can pay our debts. it's pretty simple. but in the mean time as a congress, clearly, we have to work to get these deficits under control. we have to do both, frankly. we have to extend the period in which the -- expend the debt limit increase so we can pay our debts. if we don't extend it, if we don't raise it, we cannot pay our debts. we have to raise it. we have to work to get the deficit under control. there's no doubt about that. one good way to get the deficit under control is to pass health care reform. the congressional budget office, which we all think is doing a pretty good job, even though they frustrate us a lot. by and large we agree with their

conclusions. the congressional budget office has said that the health care bill that passed the senate would reduce the deficit b by $132 billion over the first 10 years. that's a reduction in deficits. that's going to help reduce the deficit so that all of this talk -- and it's very proper talk about the size of our deficits would be slightly less urgent once we start reducing the budget deficit. i'm not standing up here to say that health care reform is -- is going to -- is the total solution here. i'm only saying that it reduces the budget deficit, according to the congressional budget office, by $132 billion over 10 years. now, the congressional budget office goes even further and says the next 10 years the health care reform bill that passed the senate will reduce the federal deficit by betwee between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion. reduce. reduce the federal deficit by

between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion. now we're talking real money. now we're talking about the significant -- more than significant reduction in the deficit. now, i've heard some numbers flying around here, just not too many minutes -- several minutes ago, cost $2 trillion and this and that. mr. president, that's not true. that's not what the -- that's not what the congressional budget office says. the congressional budget office says, as i mentioned mentioned, $132 billion reduction in the deficit in the first 10 years and betwee between $650 billion and $1.3 trillion reduction in the deficit in the second 10 years. that's what the c.b.o. said. i don't know where the senator gets his numbers, but not from imlo c.b.o. the c.b.o. -- not from the c.b.o. the c.b.o. conclusions are what i stated. i urge us, frankly, to keep our heads screwed on straight and our feet on the ground.

let's, you know, decide that we have to do what we've got to do and that's pay our deficits, pay our actual debt and find ways to reduce the budget deficits. and i think all of us can agree that that's something that we have to do to default on our -- on our national debt is certainly no way to run a government. we're supposed to be responsible people around here. and, clearly, it would be irresponsible for us to -- to -- to not act in a way that -- that prevents a default on our obligations. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: i suggest that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, i'm going to speak a little bit about the amendment offered by the senator from north dakota, senator conrad, cosponsored by

the senator from new hampshire, senator gregg. it's not offered yet. i'm not totally certain when the amendment will be offered. i think it will be offered. i'm going to speak on the amendment now but if we're ready to enter a unanimous consent agreement as to the proceedings of the senate tonight and tomorrow i'll stop my -- my presentation, so we can enter that order. as i said, mr. president, under the previous order the amendment by the senator from north dakota, senator conrad, and the senator from new hampshire, senator gregg, proposing a fiscal task force is in order to the pending measure. yesterday evening the vice president met with a number of interested parties, including our colleague, the senate majority leader, the speaker, the senator from north dakota, and others. i was that the meeting. yesterday evening that group discussed a fiscal commission to be created by an executive order. i want to distinguish that effort, that is, that effor effr

the president to create a commission from the executive order from the amendment that the senators from north dakota and new hampshire propose in the bill. i support the president's efforts to create a commission by executive order. and i oppose the amendment to be proposed by the senators from north dakota and new hampshire. the difference is that the executive order would preserve the senate's regular order. the amendment on the other hand, would create a fast track procedure to short circuit the senate's regular order. let me take this opportunity to share with my colleagues a number of respective groups have been saying about the proposal in the conrad-gregg amendment. on january 14th, the chief executive officer of aarp, otherwise known as aarp, wrote to senators about the conrad-gregg commission. as my colleagues know, aarp is

the nonpartisan organization that represents 40 million people age 50 and older. aarp is the nation's largest membership organization for people 50 and over and has offices in all 50 states. listen to what aarp says and i quote -- "we urge you to vote against an amendment to be offered by senators conrad and gregg to establish a fiscal task force and to instead focus on addressing the challenges of the nation's long-term debt to regular order." end quote. aarp goes on. they say -- "we oppose providing fast track authority to a task force. it will function with limited accountability outside the regular order of congress and with an exclusive focus on debt reduction." quoting further, au pair -- aarp

says -- "the issues to address including the revenue gap, health care costs, long-term solvency of social security, are among the most fundamental challenges we face as a nation, and as such, they are issues that congress itself through its regular order should tackle." end quote. aarp recognizes that doing things the normal way is not always easy. quoting again, aarp says -- "we recognize that these issues test regular order as has been demonstrated by the long and difficult debates surrounding health care reform. simply because these issues are difficult to address is not reason enough to abdicate the responsibility congress has to act." further quoting -- "however, an open debate is essential in a representative democracy to resolve issues that have as broad and deep an impact on its citizenry as changes to medicare, medicaid, social

security, and the taxes." au pair -- aarp focuses on the human costs, they say. quoting further, -- "a task force that is directed to identify proposals to restore the nation's long-term balance sheet cannot do so without regard to the impact its recommendations would have on individuals. broad, deep cuts to the nation's health and economic security pillars, medicare, medicaid, and social security, could reduce long-term debt, but would do so by shifting significant burdens and risks to older americans and millions of others who rely on these benefits." aarp recommends in particular that social security be excluded from the commission's deliberations. aarp says -- "we urge that social security not be considered in the context of debt reduction.

this program does not contribute to the annual deficit and its long-term solvency can be resolved by long-term adjustments if they are made sooner rather than later." mr. president, that is true, it is very true. social security does not contribute to the annual deficit, it does not. if one looks at the long-term prospect of social security, it's in healthy shape for 50, 25 years. it is not an imminent problem. it does not add in any way significantly to the national debt. and here is how aarp concludes their letter. aarp says, quote -- "given the significance of social security and medicare to the well-being of nearly all americans, aarp believes a full and open debate is essential to ensuring the development of balanced solutions. as such, we oppose any legislative proposals that bypass or short circuit the protections offeredded by regular order to reach debt reduction goals." that's what aarp writes. mr. president, i ask that the

full text of aarp's letter to senators be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, aarp is by no means alone in taking these positions. on january 7, robert canelli, our former congressional colleague and now president and c.e.o. of the national committee to preserve social security and medicare, wrote to white house chief of staff rahm emanuel. the national committee to preserve social security and medicare is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing millions of members and supporters nationwide. for more than 26 years, the organization has fought the interests of older americans. here is what the national committee to preserve social security and medicare said --

"the national committee strongly opposes the fiscal commission legislation authorized by senators conrad and gregg." the national committee is also focused on social security, arguing that it is inappropriate for such a commission, and they wrote, and i quote -- "incorporating social security into such a commission would signal to american seniors that the president is willing and even eager to cut social security benefits. ultimately, older americans will accept changes in social security." i repeat that." ultimately older americans will accept changes in social security only if they have a voice in the decision and feel confident that changes are solely for the purpose of improving and strengthening the program. for this reason, social security solvency should not be taken in the context of a fiscal commission." end quote. turning to the specifics of the conrad-gregg commission, the national committee wrote, and i quote -- "the legislation would effectively remove nearly every

government program, including the federal tax system, from the legislative jurisdiction of congress. by fast tracking the commission's recommendations through congress with no allowance for amendments, the conrad-gregg measure would prevent congress from exercising its legislative responsibilities with respect to social security. enacting legislation that would push through changes of this importance to millions of americans, especially seniors, without the opportunity for members of elected congress to amend them ultimately disenfranchises the public and undermines the legitimacy of the political process." end quote. later in the letter, the national committee wrote, and i quote again -- "the national committee strongly believed that decisions related to complex programs such as social security, medicare and medicaid and taxes, should be made through the regular legislative

committee process. such a process allows each program to be considered separately by substantive experts based on program solvency and policy goals." end quote. that's what the national committee to preserve social security and medicare writes. mr. president, i ask that the full text of the national committee to preserve social security and medicare letter be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, as well, on january 13, the president, secretary treasurer and executive director of the alliance for retired americans sent a letter to all americans on the conrad-gregg commission. the alliance represents retired union members. they wrote, and i quote -- "the alliance of retired americans on behalf of its nearly four million members throughout the

nation writes in opposition to the bipartisan task force responsible for fiscal action act of 2009, s. 2853. we oppose attempts to attach it to debt ceiling or any other legislation. we cannot support the bill's fast track means of implementing fast changes to programs such as social security, medicare, medicaid, outside the regular legislative process. the alliance talked about how the process would work, and they wrote -- "under the legislation, jurisdiction for major and long-term changes to programs including social security, medicare, medicaid will be turned over to 18-member task force made up of 16 members of congress and two administration officials." i might say, mr. president, that i think that's been -- well, strike that. i will continue the quote. then the alliance wrote about what's wrong with the process, and here is what they wrote -- "regardless of the expertise of task force members, the

recommendations would be crafted behind closed doors and subject to a fast track up-or-down vote by congress. forcing changes to these critical benefit programs by eliminating open debate or amendments is an undemocratic way to address the future of such programs. the alliance contrasted the new task force process with the existing committee process, and here's what they wrote." currently congressional committees of jurisdiction consider changes and improvements to these vital programs with an opportunity for due consideration and debate. these committees with their broad based and detailed knowledge of the programs under their jurisdiction are the proper forums for considering any changes in social security, medicare and medicaid." end quote. then the alliance concluded, and i quote -- "we strongly caution against a process that would bypass the regular legislative process in favor of an expedited fast track process that leaves room for little accountability

and almost no room for input of the american people." end quote. that's what the alliance for retired americans writes. mr. president, i ask that the full text of the alliance for retired americans letter be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: what's more on january 12, a broad consortium of organizations, 56 in number, wrote to all senators to express their concern for the conrad-gregg organization. among the organizations signing this letter were the afl-cio, campaign for america's future, common cause, moveon.org, political action, the national organization for women, people for the american way, and the seiu, and many others. this broad consortium of organizations wrote, quote diagnoses -- we write with the strong opposition to conrad and

gregg and others to create the commission to override the normal legislative process and replace it with expedited procedures prohibiting amendments and limiting debate. if the conrad-gregg proposal were to become law, it could dramatically change by self-critical measures benefits and services so vital to american families." end quote. the consortium of groups continued about the need for responsibility, and they wrote -- "americans, seniors, women, working families, people with disabilities, youth, young adults, children, people of color, veterans, communities of faith and others expect their elected representatives to be responsible and accountable for shaping such significant, far-reaching legislation." end quote. the consortium of groups continued about the problems with the commission. here's what they say. quote -- "the american people are likely to view any kind of expedited procedure where most members are sidelined to a single take it or leave it vote as a hidden process aimed at

eviscerating vital programs and productive investment." end quote. the consortium of groups once again focused on problems with allowing the budget commission to change social security wrote -- "an american public that only recently rejected a privatization of social security would undoubtedly be suspicious of a process that shuts them out, shuts them out entirely of all decisions regarding the future retirement system that served them well in the current financial crisis." end quote. and the consortium of groups concluded, quote -- "we urge you to act decisively to prevent the creation of such an extraordinary and undemocratic budget commission." end quote. that's what this consortium of groups from common cause now to the people for the american way of rights. i ask the full text of the consortium letter also be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: and it is not just progressive groups that oppose the conrad-gregg amendment. on january 15, a broad

consortium of conservative groups sent what they called -- quote -- an open letter to u.s. senators urging opposition to the conrad-gregg bipartisan tax spending reform commission. this consortium, this conservative consortium said, quote -- "on behalf of millions of taxpayers, small businesses, families, senior citizens, and shareholders represented by our respective organizations, we urge you in the strongest terms to oppose and vote against the bipartisan task force responsible for the fiscal action enacted in 2009 sponsored by senators kent conrad and judd gregg. be it in stand-alone form or as an amendment. these conservative groups explained their motivation. in their view, they said -- "as written, the conrad-gregg proposal could lead and would lead to a guaranteed tax increase." end quote.

these conservative groups concluded as follows. they said -- "we urge you to oppose and vote against the misguided plan when it comes before you." among the signatories of this letter are the american conservative union, americans for tax reform, the american shareholders association, the competitive enterprise institute, councils for senior citizens against government waste, and the national taxpayers union. mr. president, i ask that the full text of the consortium letter be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: and also on the conservative side, on december 29, 2009, "the wall street journal" editorial page, no friend of progressive causes, published an editorial entitled "the deficit commission trap." the editors of "the wall street journal" wrote -- "we only hope republicans aren't foolish enough to fall down this trap door." end quote.

mr. president, i conclude by saying people on both sides of the political spectrum have very grave reservations and urge opposition to the amendment to be offered by our good friends and colleagues senator conrad and gregg and hope we do nmr. er and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ey lasting lasting quorum call:

mr. baucus: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensedh. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of more than business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h. con. res. 228 at the desk and just received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 228, concurrent resolution providing for a joint session of congress to receive a message from the president. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider

be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that h.r. 1854 be discharged from the senate committee on energy and natural resources and they b and then bd to the committee on environment and public works. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill the clerk: s. 2939, a bill to amend title 31, united states code, to require an audit of the board of governors of the federal reserve system and the federal reserve banks and for other purposes. mr. baucus complorntionz i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day.

mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the presiding officer of the senate be authorized to point a committee -- to appoint a committee on the part of the senate to join with a like committee on the part of the house of representatives to escort the president of the united states into the house chamber for a joint session to be held at 9:00 p.m. on wednesday, january 27, in the year 2010. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. baucus: mr. president, i suggest further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. thursday, january 21. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the senate proceed to a period of morning business for one hour equally divided and controlled

between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. that following morning business, the senate resume consideration of h.j. res. 45, the debt limit. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: mr. president, there are three amendments pending to the joint resolution. we hope to reach time agreements on those amendments, and, therefore, votes are expected tomorrow. senators will be notified when any votes are scheduled. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

department briefing with spokesman p.j. crowley. topics include ongoing u.s. relief efforts to victims of the earthquake in haiti and concerns about iran nuclear program. this is half an hour. we will wait for the elder statesman. [laughter] the distinguished elder statesman of the state department press corps and get himself properly situated. good afternoon and welcome to the department of state. obviously you heard from the secretary a short time ago about

progress being made today in haiti and obviously our concerns about the aftershock that he has referred this morning. nonetheless, just to tick off a few things we have 43 urban search and rescue teams still on the ground in haiti that continue to have ongoing operations including 17 continue to operate at the hotel montana, and to date there have been 122 persons rescued including very recently 43 by the six u.s. teams. as of 8:00 this morning a total of six bills and 174 americans have departed haiti.

we continue to track and have files open on roughly 12,300 americans for whom we have information they were in haiti at that time of the earthquake and we have accounted for roughly 7500 of those so far. we have a total of 33 confirmed american fatalities to date including one member of our state department family. the secretary talked about the importance of working with the government of haiti regarding adoptive children and orphans. so far the issuance of visas and humanitarian parole 146 children have come to the united states and we continue to work with the orphanages in haiti on a couple hundred additional. she mentioned that the u.s. ns comfort has a right which will

significantly augment the infrastructure for the administration of medical care. i think the military continues to do an incredible job at the airport. history for example there were 153 airlift flights and there were some questions about the composition but yesterday for example 115 of those flights non-military 38, were from the department of defense. so that gives you a kind of sense of the rhythm of the airport. and i think as the military announced yesterday are hoping to open today another airfield outside of port-au-prince. we have a c-130 flights operating out of the airport in the dominican republic and they will continue to work and have operations under way at eight

ports, is a continuing to expand our opportunity to bring needed assistance in tahiti. it is our estimate at this point that minister has been returned to about 80% of its strength before the earthquake and roughly 50% of the haitian national police are currently on duty. just a couple of things. the secretary will meet in a very few minutes with the honorable prime minister of montenegro along with his deputy prime minister and foreign minister read the discussion will include the integration efforts, contributions to isaf, roel of all reform and montenegro's contribution to stability of the western balkans

region. george mitchell has arrived in israel having stopped in hysteria and lebanon, and with that i will take your questions. >> of the figures you said you had files on 12,000 -- >> within our crisis database we opened files on 12,000 -- >> does that mean there are 4800 americans missing? >> that means that we've not yet been able to account for 4800 americans. for whom we have information that they were in haiti of the time. >> so they are missing? >> we have not yet confirmed -- >> amine -- you're talking about almost 5,000 people. >> they could be sitting in their living rooms. in other words people in the united states have provided us information to that i've got a

loved one, i've got a friend in haiti. the gap may simply be people on the ground in haiti have not seen the need or have been able to contact the united states embassy. so we have not yet accounted for them. i wouldn't necessarily say all of them are missing. >> before the figure for a total number of americans was about 45,000, right? >> right. >> so if you got -- if you evacuated 6,174, they're seems to be a big disconnect -- are you sure all 45,000 were actually there or do you think the numbers closer to 12,200? >> once again the composition of the american community in haiti includes a substantial number of people who had dual citizenship.

so and since they have chosen in many cases to live in haiti the man not have seen the need to contact us. so yeah, the secretary has said we remain concerned about the welfare of all citizens in haiti including our own citizens and we are doing what we can but i wouldn't draw any specific conclusions from the fact is substantial number have not yet contacted the government. >> i'm just trying to get a handle -- >> i don't think -- we offer those figures to give perspective. you asked us about them. i wouldn't say at this point we are able to draw any significant conclusions from that. >> use if there were still free u.s. officials on accounted for. can you give an update on that? and i have other questions as well. >> that remains the number. sprick and i want to ask about a usa today story quoting an army

major with the u.s. second saying they've given the army strict instructions not to hand out any aid on security whether that was accurate. >> it's not. >> a couple of things on the three accounted for. is that included in the 4800 or is it 4803 to be precise, i'm just trying to be precise. >> i'm sure it is included. >> one more on that, so three not accounted for, does that mean the one was accounted for the woman who died? >> we still have three official u.s. government persons for whom we have not yet accounted for. >> just a couple on the distribution of aid and prioritizing flights. today there was a u.s. military briefing by some military officials and basically they

were -- there were questions about prioritization of flights and why certain medical supplies that a lot of doctors were clamoring for more on getting on the ground and they pretty much said that it was speed is prioritizing the flights and they are specifically basically you have the final call what flights get in and what flights get out. now the u.n. says that isn't exactly accurate, that you and the union together along with the haitian government are given a prioritization of what types of flights need to get in and then the u.s. military is calling the shots on which specific flights get in and win. which is it? >> i would say collectively usaid working with the haitian government and the u.n. on a daily basis we are setting the broad priority for what we need to bring in today based on how we assess the situation on the

ground and as we've detail on a given day it might be water here, food fair, medical assistance, and then that determines the priority in which since as we are still in a situation where there are far more aircraft that would like to fly to haiti on a given date and we of slots available to be accomplished that and then once we set the priorities we apply those priorities to the every of people applying for slots to be able to fly in and as we have worked this with the haitian government you now have noticed to the airmen that says apply for commission and based on that, so now in terms of the mechanics in any particular time, that is controlled by --

if an airplane is not taking off than it might be because for this particular day we are looking for a different cargo. but once the airplane is airborne if it has diverted it is usually because for some reason on the ground we can't accommodate their plan and the particular moment. >> to follow-up questions on that. first of all are you satisfied the u.s. military control in the airport is carrying the priorities as expressed to them by you, the haitian government -- >> u.s. military is doing a remarkable job. >> are you satisfied they are carrying out priorities in terms of bringing the specific flights you need? >> i've said nothing that says the application, the priorities is an issue. >> and can you speak more about doctors without borders? there seems to be confusion what is coming on with their specific flights. they claim even as this morning they've been diverted five

times. >> i defer to the folks down south i do not know. certainly we are welcoming ngo partners playing a valuable role, doctors without borders has a long and proud tradition of working on these. we have them on the ground and we are working with them on a regular basis as to why they've been diverted. i am aware of two of the five but my impression is it was just because you had challenges on the ground at particular timing of the flights. it's certainly not because we do not admire, respect and want to see doctors without borders play a significant role in the operation. >> and one more, i promise. just moments ago on the u.s. medical aid call one of the gentleman said we were asking about the delay of medical supplies throughout the country, and he said that while fi who is

helping to kind of quarter made donations coming in the distribution of medical supplies throughout the country is being run by the haitian ministry of health and i'm wondering given that everybody has acknowledged that the ministries are under capacity and taxed and i understand they are one of the better ones in shape, but still there is a very serious lack of capacity. is that slowing the delivery of medical care? i know there's a desire to have the haitians in front but is the lack of capacity on the haitian minister of health deleting the delivery of medical supplies? >> we have to be careful about nomenclature as we've said many times we are working through the government of haiti and the u.n., and we are working from a fully coordinated plan the haitian government has a role in determining how you want to set the network. >> can be physically distributed

than? >> the only thing i would tweak there is clearly what the international effort is doing here is substituting for the capacity that the government of haiti clearly lacks given the current circumstances and impact to your eqecat not only on the haitian society but on the government of haiti. that said, we are working to support and help bring up for capacity existing medical structures in haiti as well as bringing in and putting out field hospitals, various entities including the united states have brought so it's a combination of things. so i would think, i would infer should the government of haiti continue to make decisions relative to support for their own medical facilities inside the country i can certainly see where they have a role, but i certainly also from their

priorities the flow of medical supplies and care is being done by the international community on behalf of the gun from that t. -- haiti. >> can you tell today if there's any restrictions on the u.s. military distribution and are they allowed to handle and can you spell it out? >> of the story is misleading. why don't we talk afterwards. >> it from subject? >> [inaudible] >> we are still on haiti. >> two points, one, the chief yesterday called on the global community for a marshall plan and haiti and second for haiti as help was concerned the secretary of india says if there is any kind of message from the secretary as help in haiti's concern and will.

>> the secretary was asked a similar question upstairs and considerable task in front of us and the need for the national community to come together and raise the necessary resources to rebuild haiti, said it tested in the process will happen next week with the preliminary meeting in montreal. the nation's put out a call for funding for the first tranche of the rebuilding of haiti so this effort is already underway with their you want to call with a marshall plan i'm sure we will come up with a way to describe this overtime but no doubt is going to require some assistance for the community on a sustained basis going forward. as to whether this will come up in secretary gates discussions and india i will defer to the

department of defense. >> if the u.s. asked in any way any kind of help from india? >> that is obviously a decision for the the front of india and i am sure that it will give every consideration. >> [inaudible] -- medical list of countries and you can tell which one. >> related to the aid to you have an update on the dollar figure amounted on the material and supplies from aid? >> let me see if i can get that for you. >> i guess it's more of the money question. today some people on the ground saw they were not sure if it was human or usaid trucks taking large parcels out of the bank, and i was wondering if you are being asked by the haitian government to secure the cash reserves because i know there is a concern about looting and the building may not be that secure. >> i can't characterize what someone on the ground saw, but

certainly one of the goals he has put forward as early as tomorrow it hopes to open 40 banks for a brief period of time perhaps apt for hours which would be a major step in terms of trying to stabilize the population. so that is something they have on their list of things they hope to accomplish. >> but you don't know anything specifically about taking out large cash reserve for security? >> i will refer to my colleagues. >> i have to ask yesterday the 82nd airborne to hold our correspondent on the ground and they were authorized to distribute food. today this morning they were so i'm wondering if you know -- >> i'm only passing lee familiar with that story but i think the issue was not the ability of a soldier to actually literally distribute food to needy people. the soldiers and marines are doing that throughout the today.

the issue that generated the question was the method of delivery, and we have gone back and forth. we have tried various ways to put the issue behind the story was whether a particular operation should be accomplished by airdrops or some other means. and it was the judgment of usaid that air drops one of the appropriate method to use for that particular application. that is what was communicated between so i say in the misleading sense that the story suggests that aid was telling the military don't distribute food. that was misleading and inaccurate. >> a quick really to follow-up on the airfield, the question has been asked of the military why haven't you tried to build them and improve air strip next to the main one the malae and c-130 sprigg i asked that question of air force people on the ground and they said its decision of the patient from it. is anyone at the state

department raising this issue? >> i suppose one thing -- we are one week into the operation, so as you are trying to bring the kind of materials you've seen on the ground and, ken, you were there the other day, how you bring in the kind of engineering the year to be able to build an auxiliary air strip that would be the kind of thing you could contemplate if you have access to a port and you could bring in a ship that has lots of engineering deer but he would tie the capacity of the airport which is your lifeline in bringing food or water so i think again to the credit of the military we have taken the basic operation and expanding it beyond what anyone might have envisioned when they first put eis on their part one week ago. we are looking at other options and sell some point in time, there is a feeling that further infrastructure is necessary and can be done in a timely way my

gut feeling would be that kind of operation at this time would in fact be the kind of situation that would seize up the rest of the distribution of life-saving supplies to the haitian people. >> change of subject? >> okay. i've got to go up -- >> in light of the white house announcement the president descending general jones to moscow today i wonder the polish defense minister has said that missiles are going to actually be deployed 35 miles -- >> is this about haiti? [laughter] >> no, different subject. patriot missiles, 35 miles away. i'm wondering since this is actually the russian territory

whether you expect the talks on start which are supposed to be the reason for general jones trip to moscow if that might complicate things with the russians who are clearly not happy about those. >> i think our ongoing -- we hope to restart the negotiations here after the holiday break the next few days. we've made progress. it is in the interest of russia and the united states and the world to see the completion and ratification of a follow-on start agreement. i don't think that we have lots of issues in the relationship. i think both countries have pledged their leaders, president obama, president medvedev, it is being conducted in good faith and i do not think that will come into it. >> the palestinian president has proposed that obama administration negotiates the

final borders of a palestinian state with israel. are you ready to represent that in such a way? >> we want to get into the formal negotiation. it's been suggested by a variety of parties that if we were to do so establishing permanent borders might be the first thing of the top of the list. but we think that needs to be accomplished within formal negotiations. >> [inaudible] -- start here in this country? >> i said start negotiations will resume -- >> second one on the visa, he is allowed to apply for one now, is that so and also adam, the rationale and would he be given a visa if he applied? >> the secretaries signed an exemption to ramadan and the authority comes from section section 212d3b of the immigration national act with

those exceptions in place the next time professor ramadan or habib plus he will not be found inadmissible on the basis that led to the denial when he last applied. good guidance done by a good lawyer. [laughter] without going into specifics on visa applications i think the secretary's view is these individuals have applied for visas in the past and then denied in the past as we look at we do not think either one of them represents a threat to the united states and should they apply for a visa they will still be subject to the other standards that apply to any who applies for a visa to come to the united states and in the

secretary's judgment is consistent with president obama's outreach to muslims around the world. we want to encourage a global debate. we want to have the opportunity potentially to have islamic scholars come to the united states and have a dialogue with other faith communities and people here in our country. >> because your wording was so precise i just want to make sure, so you're saying those two grounds which they were denied -- does the u.s. government have any reason to believe of the applied now they would not get the visa? >> i would flip that around. if they apply for a visa in the future we will a doggett de visa -- evaluate the vis-a-vis all of the criteria for entering the united states with the exception of this particular section.

>> can i just ask q. generally every time we ask about visa or most of the time you won't discuss them. it is a privacy issue. what gives the? >> in one particular case this was a matter of an ongoing court case so there is a public record about it. >> i realize that, but this goes to, i mean it really is a complete a double standard basically the rule i think is you guys will talk about the visas and side the privacy act unless it suits your purposes and to be honest with you it's inconsistent and frankly it's kind of ridiculous you guys will pick and choose which visa, whose application you want to talk about. so, maybe you could take that

under advisement and see what the people in consular affairs have to say about it. >> the associated press is interested in less information. okay. >> interested in more. i want more information on visas. >> the site is set to be your meeting with campbell and basra. can you substantiate that and give us any more information? >> she is visiting washington and he will be meeting with senior officials here at the state department including deputy secretary steinberg assistant secretary campbell, ambassador stephen wadsworth and special envoy to him. i think those consultations will happen tomorrow. [inaudible conversations]

white house press secretary robert gabus today addressed to the potential impact of republican senate candidates ghats brown victory in massachusetts on the health care

bill. brown, when the special election to replace senator ted kennedy vowed to vote against health care legislation, meaning there would be 41 votes in support of a filibuster. this is just over one hour. [inaudible conversations] >> the president apparently -- >> what you guys want to talk about today? >> i don't know, a small collection in the northeast. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> go ahead. >> present told adc it looks like he's suggesting that you guys coalesce around the things people agree on in the health care bill and he mentioned insurance reform, cost containment and a couple of the

things to read does that mean that the approach to the white house has settled on in reaction to the election last night is to scale back the bill? >> jennifer, with the president talked to abc about to take a step back on health care, doing health care, he didn't do it just because it was a hobby, he did it because traveling around the country he heard from families come small businesses and large business is how the current system was simply on sustainable. it was a priority than and it's a priority now. we are working through the best way forward. as the president continues his commitment to get health care reform done. >> it seems you guys have settled or are getting closer to selling on the way forward.

>> again i think a lot of those conversations are ongoing. there are as you mentioned one half we talked yesterday about other paths -- >> i didn't mention it, the president did. >> right. spec i didn't mention it because -- >> you're channelling -- no, i didn't mean to imply it was your question. it was based on something the president said. there is a number of different ways to do this. again the conversations are ongoing. >> braking the bill went to pieces, is that ruled out or still on the table? >> again i don't want to get into delineate and expect to say there are different paths forward and i think we will get an opportunity in the coming hours and days to know exactly what that is, but we mentioned yesterday health care continues to be a priority of the presidents. yesterday it was a year ago and

it continues today. >> one quick thing to follow-up, since obviously abandoning health care is not one of the options what are the immediate plans for recalibrating the message or intensifying the message to explain better to the american people what he planned to do? >> first and foremost, and again this was something we touched on yesterday, the president talks about this in his interview and i think you heard some of us talk about this this morning, the anchor and frustration in this country about where we are economically is something we heard and saw last night in massachusetts. the president heard and saw last month when he traveled to pennsylvania and he will hear it in ohio. we've heard it for several years. the president i think even takes it further than that.

>> -- explaining the health care bill and why it's important -- >> this is as i just want to a more fulsome answer, how about that? again i will say this, jennifer, i don't think, and i think it would be inaccurate to just baliles the results of yesterday's down to one issue. >> it is an issue. >> i agree it certainly is an issue but the candidate that one last night said it wasn't just one issue. a thinker and frustration the american people have at the fact a lot of work has been done and they don't necessarily feel like their economic lives have put rest in the past year is understandable. as i said yesterday that is what brought candidates barack obama a year ago today to be inaugurated as president.

we will continue to have him focus on the economy and jobs. continue to focus on dealing with problems that he felt at talked about during the campaign that existed or have existed for quite some time that we haven't addressed. a lot of that again is job growth, it is a foundation for economic growth going forward that's not predicated on consumer spending more housing prices. all of those things the president has worked on and will continue to work on moving forward. i think the american people expect that of their president and congress and that is certainly what they will get. yes, ma'am. >> the staff regan to the results, is there a wake-up call for some people who said --

>> i think everybody -- i think there are a lot of people that bear the responsibility for some aspect of what happened last night, right? >> [inaudible] >> yeah, we talked yesterday i said to the president was surprised. he didn't expect -- i don't -- i certainly put myself in that category, not expecting to lose that sent dee dee to a senate race. there's no doubt we are frustrated by that. i think everybody there's some responsibility. certainly included in the white house. but again what i talked about yesterday and i talked about here today is i think the ander the president addressed more than a year ago to get elected

and the anger that we have seen throughout this year is similar to the anger that we saw last night. i think we have -- again, we have seen that far longer than in the election. we've seen as i said yesterday people that are working longer, working harder, more productive and watching their wages fall. they are watching their jobs move overseas. they are watching their families not have the same opportunities that the date and they are feeling insecure about their own future. i think that is a wake-up call for everybody in this town. >> what does that mean for him as he is preparing the state of the union, having meetings to discuss the things? are you looking at what you're doing in a different way as a result of this looking at anything in a different way?

>> he will undoubtedly address the results and what they mean in the state of the union. the agenda the president was going to focus on and is going to focus on in the coming year jobs, fiscal responsibility, many of the things that he's talked about over the last several weeks will be what he focuses on during the state of the union and in the coming year. we still have a lot of work to do to get our economy back on track. >> is the added urgency to get a near term jobs bill? >> i would simply reiterate what we talked about before which is everything -- we need to do everything possible to create an environment where the private sector is hiring again. we understand the depth of the

recession, the more than 7 million jobs that have been lost in the to your period of time, as we have a lot of work to do. the president laid out some ideas in december and believes those ideas still should be taken of now and he will talk about that in the state of the union. ..

all of it takes up every, a little bit of every part of his day. now, again whether, whether we have to do a better job making sure people understand that, we certainly there that responsibility. but, i can certainly assure the american people that that is the chief focus of the president of the united states. >> with the economy and yesterday when i asked you about health reform, it seems like the white house thinks that the issue of disconnect that the american people have with the white house in terms of their disapproval of the president's handling of the economy and health care reform is not that you are doing it wrong but that you are not communicating

effectively. and my understanding that right? >> look, i'm not saying that is the only thing by any means. i would certainly again take my share of the responsibility as i am sure many would, in ensuring that people have a clear idea of what the president is doing each day on that. you know, look, jake some of this is not dissimilar to when you go back to the last really deep recession and you look at the president's approval ratings for ronald reagan during 81 and 82. i mean, you know, it is not surprising to anybody here and i doubt surprising to anybody in the country that there is anger and frustration with 10% of the american people unemployed and when you add in those that are unemployed but have stopped looking because they are unemployed for so long that

number only gets greater, so again i think you hear the president say quite clearly that he is among those that are frustrated. we would all want to see us get our economy back on track faster. the president believes that we have taken some necessary if that times unpopular steps to do so. you don't get credit for taking those steps and polling-- you don't get credit for what would have happened, which is fine. but i think the president at the end of his interview says he is more optimistic about our country and about our economy today than he was a year ago, because again if you think about where we were a year ago we were in meetings talking about what this the series of the banks go under, what are we going to do-- i mean these were high opening

experiences. we all remember from the first jobs report, we were watching the economy shed jobs at a rate that it previously been on scene. >> just in terms of the politics of this, what does the president's plan on doing? you have talked a lot about the anger out there and the frustration. and the president continued when he wasn't in boston. what are you doing to convince these people who are angry that they need to trust the president entrust the democratic party because obviously many of them are turning away from the democratic party and the president. >> again i think that is in many ways the result of, that anger is now pointed at us because we are in charge. rightly so. look, i think the president's focus on jobs in the economy is

one. i think we will have clearly financial reform is going to take and play a bigger role in what happens legislatively in the next several months. insuring that we have on this rules of the road going forward, that we are not rewarding excessive risk, that we have an independent agency that protected and looks after consumers. you saw the president discussed last week insuring that taxpayers are paid back in full for what was lends to banks in order to stabilize the financial system. i think both of those along with jobs, will be a big priority for this president. >> yousaf this part of that that the president went back to 2008 heard the american people about

economic pain in the following ways it said representative. why did deese bensen much time in 2009 on health care instead of even more time on jobs, more time on wall street performance all the things people worry about? >> we started wall street reforming got that through the house which is no small accomplishment. look, the president again as i said earlier didn't take on health care reform because it was a hobby. he took on health care reform because when we are talking about wages people were losing wages to health care. people were watching their incomes decline because their premiums or increasing. families were struggling with the loss of health care, so their economic concerns that brought the president to dealing with health care. so, i would not put and under-- i know the president would not put-- i don't want to silo

issues because i think if you are talking about the economy and jobs were talking about health care, you are talking about education, if you are talking about a host of things that go to that security that the middle class clearly hasn't felt in many years. >> there's no doubt they are interconnected but six or eight months ago there were people who had questions about he had too much on his plate and how we emphasize this thing so specifically he could have less summer done a scaled-back bill lucky is talking about today. he could have done that last summer. >> i think the difference that is true on this is that the president would tell you if there were an easy solution, there would a have been done or b it would clearly be identified is not adequately addressing cost containment, deficit reduction, all of the aspects that are currently in different bills that passed the house and the senate.

insurance reforms, a host of things that within health care are interconnected and have to be done as a broad package. >> how much as factors does the president, does the white house put in terms of the loss on margaret coakley being abed candidate and how much percentagewise is there referendum on him on his leadership? >> i don't want to get into the blame game. i said earlier i think we all bear some responsibility. i want to the percentages, as tempting as that might be, but look, again, we were, again there was a surprise and the frustration here, and i think we all have some responsibility on that. >> the last thing on that, in terms of what the call it a referendum or not anthony weiner a democrat in the house is saying that partly to blame year's presidential leadership.

the president did not exert himself enough on health care that he sat back for munson let this play at on the hill. how do you respond to that? >> again, and we certainly talked about this before. i certainly just don't agree with, i don't agree with the notion that we wouldn't be here words not for the president wanting us, even though it was hard, even though people said it couldn't be done in even though it looked unsellable at times, i honestly don't believe and i don't think anyone in congress would tell you that they would believe we would be at this point where it not for his leadership. let me get around and i am scheduled today. >> a follow-up on that, on the presidential leadership and health care. now that we are adding new stage in health care reform and i don't know if you would be willing to say this after the drawing board but is the president going to exert more leadership now? is he going to take control of

what is happening or is he going to continue to refer to congress? >> i will give you a similar answer that i did today and i don't honestly believe we would be where we are. i don't believe we would be this far in the process were it not for the president being nonsmall liam vault. >> do you skancke will become more involved in the leadership function? right from now, here's what i want. >> i will say this. i think he will continue as he has, both with him, with coming and with key staff here play a very active role in the process, yes. >> on the bigger picture do you believe for this the president believe the massachusetts election was a sign that the white house needs to change course on its agenda? >> i think that, again i think,

i don't, i neither want to under or overread. i don't want to boil it down to one thing or one issue. i think that is to oversimplify a lot of different factors that go into how people make voting decisions in the outcomes of the elections. i will tell you this, i don't believe the president thinks that we should stop fighting for what is important to the middle class. that we should stop fighting for an economic recovery or that we should stop fighting for what we need to do to create an environment for the private sector, that we should abandon-- no doubt there will be call to abandon financial reform, that there will be calls by some to abandon the notion of wanting taxpayers to be paid back for their loans to wall street.

i don't think the president would agree with those. >> deasy this election as a watershed moment in any way or the president from this moment on is going to have to ratchet down his expectations for what he can get past? >> look, again the president hears and understands the anger. it is very similar to what he heard and understood, has heard and understood for many years. it is important to the president that we continue to push forward on the priorities of fighting for what is important to the middle class. >> some say the president is in denial, that he just doesn't understand that this is really a major moment, the virginia election and the new jersey election. >> again, i think you will hear in the interview later today that he hears and understands

what is happening. again, it is not flip. it is a lot of what we heard in iowa. it was a lot of what we heard in the general election. it was a lot of quite frankly he heard in the u.s. said it. i think it is another iteration of that. and i don't dismiss or downplayed that at all. i think it is an important moment. i think the president would tell you it is an important moment for us to come together and work on our problems. there is no doubt about any of that. >> the president has had a speech with session of congress and there have been townhalls and press conferences and internet and web addresses, and the number of statements. as a possible the american voters have spoken and they did not want this health care reform? >> mike, i hesitate to read something out of an election that the candidate who won the election says he does not read out of that.

either by persons or by issue. so, there are, are there aspects of the health care reform that are more popular than others? undoubtedly. but, i don't-- we know this mike, there were people yesterday that got a bill for their health care inside go up. that is true today. that was true a year, two years and four years ago. if we don't deal with this problem we know this. tomorrow, and next year and a year after that that problem is going to continue. watching what we spend on health care from a federal budgetary perspective will continue to increase and it will encompass a greater percentage of our budget every single day. people would get kicked off their insurance because the insurance company decided what they have is actually a

preexisting condition that they fail to report when they got the insurance. all of those things will happen. all of those things impact middle-class and working-class americans and the president believes that is part of the economic anxiety that is taking place in this country. >> the president has said several times the last six months that we have got to do this now meeting september, october or december. if we don't get it then we will be waiting a long, long time. is that still correct? >> mike, you will know that the legislative pacing of this town is different, but the closer we get to an election, right, that the games that are played here are kicked off far earlier and far more as we get closer to even numbered election years. i think the president strongly believes there is a time to do this yet. >> this year? >> yes, that we can and should

give health care reform done. >> so, i am hearing reports from the hill this morning that some congressional members are talking about doing a scaled-back health reform bill, you know not something that is comprehensive but something that will have more immediate benefits for the middle class like the preexisting conditions thing going to affect immediately. with the president considered that a victory to have a scaled-back health reform bill as well as comprehensive? >> what i said earlier to ed is, the concern is that a narrow bill addresses a narrow group of concerns yet doesn't make, doesn't come it doesn't make progress on all of the issues that we have talked about so insurance reforms are important. cost-containment is important. so there are a host of things,

again, there are discussions that are ongoing here on the hill is dimensions about what the best path this forward, and those will certainly, those will certainly continue. you do not get a whole new set of questions. that was a tricky little maneuver. >> you just mentioned when you were mentioning things that are part of the insurance reform our cost-containment. do you think that measure has to cover a large number of the uninsured in order to be successful? >> i certainly think-- i did not mean the two that i listed were the only two. there are certainly accessibility issues. there is affordability issues. there is closing the donut hole for seniors in prescription drugs. there is a host of things. >> does the bill have to include a large number of uninsured to be considered a success for the white house? >> i think the best path forward is being discussed.

>> ewald say whether it has to be that? >> again-- >> i'm just trying to clarify. >> the best path forward is being discussed. the president believes and has believed that we have to address this issue broadly, that again, you will hear him say that focusing, focusing on the only part of the larger issue only focuses on the narrow issue. >> in the interview you seem to walking back the president's comments. you seem to clearly embrace a scaled-back version of the bill to the effect of, maybe we can do a bill on the things that are popular. there are a lot of things that are popular. so i am wondering-- >> so that isn't that something that would interest the white house? >> again, i am not opening or closing the door on a host of

things. they are working through with the best path is forward. many people have been working on it since the beginning. mark. >> i will be the 41st vote against the health care bill. why doesn't that tell you people wanted that? they want to kill this bill. >> i don't think that is the only reason people voted for it. mark, he did not run an ad on health care, right? he supported in massachusetts a health care bill, not dissimilar to what the president has supported, said on the trail he would vote to repeal that, right? and again, quote him in saying there were a series of issues that he talked about. was that certainly one aspect of it? of course. again, i don't want to overread

based on-- i will say this, mark. i'll bet you can find three to four republicans that took part in this race that will likely give you three to four different answers on what was the most important thing, so you know, i don't want to say that i have a greater insight into that or lesser inside. i think, i think to simply boiled down one issue as all encompassing and one race would be to wellaver read what happens. again, i want to be clear, that is not to not understand there is frustration and anger out in this country. there is. >> does that anger and frustration embrace the health care bill? >> i think there is certainly-- there are certain aspects of the health care reform bill that are less popular. absolutely. >> you said that you are leaving

the door open to any and all options, so just to clarify you are leaving the door open to a stripped-down bill that would-- but that would just be limited to insurance reform? >> i am just checking. sorry, go ahead. >> that would just be limited to insurance reforms? >> again, the reason i tell you i don't have the broader answer to the path forward is they are working on it, so i guess i would say, don't read too much or too little into that we will have-- that is being worked through. >> what is the status on talks about a debt commission? will the president signed an executive order? >> we have talked about the number of ways to address and deal with our medium-term and long-term fiscal problem.

that is one aspect of what has been discussed. i know there is-- there is a vote in the next few days likely on this on capitol hill. it has been discussed, but nothing has been structured or no agreement has been reached on that. >> when you talk about the en route their associated with double digit unemployment, obviously some of that has to do with the fact that americans are saying that taxpayer dollars going, making wall street whole again. do you think that the president and the white house and it's administration as a whole have been consistent enough in its message to wall street this year? >> house so? >> that the american public are convinced that the white house isn't too cozy with the banks and to wall street, that they think the white house and the president is putting just as much effort into making main street will again as it does the banks? >> i think it's the last folks on wall street, they certainly

would tell you, i certainly saw a number of blind quotes throughout the morning of wall streeters saying that our policies and being tough on wall street have backfired. >> last week with the-- >> i think last week, and-- i think there are people on wall street that did not become upset at us starting last week. look, i will say this. undoubtedly, the frustration in this country of watching those that cost the acceleration and the wreckage of this economy through excessive risk-taking, that they were then reported four, then they were bailed out for is a source of enormous frustration and enormous anger. a big percentage of what i think people have heard last night and

over the past year, undoubtedly. i think they have not fully felt the recovery plan that the president passed. and i think it will, it will take in all honesty, an improvement in the job situation for people to feel that. we have got, if you look at, if you just look at what the bill did, as a result of that legislation for the first time in four economic quarters we have positive growth. now, we still are losing jobs, so i think when you couple the two, the frustration and the anxiety and the anger about personal situations, unable to get loans, while we watch bankers get bonuses, while we watch-- wild the money that was

loaned isn't paid back in full, absolutely. i think that makes them mad. it makes the president met. i think that is a big part of that anger and frustration. >> so knowing implement is lagging on an intellectual argument, people understand that but it is-- what more can the president do to empathize? >> i think it is, i think it was-- the american people want to see action and they want to see jobs. i think that is what the president spends a lot of his time working on. it won't come fast. it took a long time to get where we have gone economically and it is going to take some time to climb out of that.

the graph of the sheer depth of the recession that we have shown here a few times means there is a long long way to go and a lot of work yet to be done. >> there has been a lot of talk about what yesterday's election will mean for the health care reform effort and other issues before congress. now, and i would like to ask you what it will mean for the energy bill, cap-and-trade for financial regulatory reform, for the creation of the debt commission and in particular what it will mean for the republicans to claim that you are not willing to work with them, that you have excluded them from the process and now do you know longer have the 60 votes in the senate. that you would have to reach out to them? >> the president has reached out to them wendell. the president will go speak to come i forget the day the house republicans later this month. i have use this example before

but it is a good example so i will use it again. the president, the last time the president talked to house republicans was to talk about the recovery plan. before we get into the car to go to capitol hill we were beating a press release about how the leadership in the republican house committee or caucus were opposed to the plan. i have said this before, there are a series of-- between the white house and capitol hill. almost all of them are in both directions and it takes, it takes too willing part is to be able to do this. >> today, we are going to have to work together so given that it takes too willing partners to do this-- >> we are certainly willing. do you know i watched

mr. mcconnell and his voting score was 95%. talk about being bipartisan. and interesting message. i am happy and i know the president would be happy to work with them, but then again, they have got to want to work. test it be more than something that occupies seven seconds on television or two lines in a print story. cassady hartsfeld. it has to be, why are you going to filibuster the defense spending bill only to vote for an 88-10? is that bipartisan? is the productive? >> energy, what about cap-and-trade? what is the big problem with the energy bill? are you willing to compromise? >> there is a process working in the senate right now that is a good segue to your earlier question. this isn't a bipartisan effort. this is a tripartisan effort,

right? you have got in independent in joe lieberman, you have a democrat in john carried that are working to reproposal on comprehensive energy legislation. i think, look, if we can get momentum behind that then the answer to that would be yes, because he would have representatives of democrats, republicans and independents. >> yes, answer yes on the cap-and-trade part of it or answer yes on the kerry mccain and lieberman question? >> i guess i am adding those together because what they are working on is that measure. on financial regulatory reform, this is something that certainly the president wants to work with the republican party and others on, understanding-- but i think

the president has to have been people on capitol hill need to understand the president is not going to compromise because lobbyists tell somebody that we shouldn't have an agency that protects consumers. that is something the president is not willing to give up. >> and on the debt commission, with the president accept legislation, legislatively created declamation the would have teeth and the ability? >> i have to look at it, but obviously some sort of commission to deal with that is one of the things that we have looked at. >> but you would not rule out a legislative commission? >> no. >> a number of questions i have attempted to ask without hands. >> go ahead. >> in his speech, acceptance speech acknowledging scott brown that he was going to reach out

and vote with bipartisanship,-- >> i know that the statement i put out including senator elect brown, i will check on anything specific on that. >> you talked a lot about the anger among the public. wind as president obama get angry? that might be part of the-- he offers a colm and cool in cerebral approach to some of these things. is there any sort of thought to showing a little bit more of that inger himself? >> i have seen it. [laughter] look, i think many of you all in writing this story last week about bank fees mentioned the president seem exercised in several of the statements he gave about our failures across

government to deal with flight 253. i think when it comes to bank fees and bank bonuses-- i can assure the american people there are things that get him going. look, you know i see the president pound on the desk for the sake of political theater. i think what is more important than anything is understanding the frustration out in america, that the president has seen and having that frustration and anger guide policies that will give the middle class back up on their feet with a sense of security. that is why the president reads letters. that is why the president again in no i will speak with voters about their anxieties and concerns. i think you know, they are

plenty of examples that people will pound on the desk and not get something done, so it has to be more than just for the theater say. [inaudible] given that some of the problems the guise of had surrounding elections and not done so well on that score, any plans the president has to try to bring mr. buff back in to folk gibbon he is finished with this book now? >> i have not read his book yet, so no. the president talks fairly regularly with david. i know that it is somebody whose advice and counsel he both six regularly and believes david is an exceptionally smart adviser, who understands the type of thing you are and frustration he

has seen. i don't have anything specific on that except i know he continues to talk to david regularly. >> can you talk about the anger and frustration that president obama carried into office and that is now carried into office by part of that anger and frustration clearly was an anchor of the partisan nature of washington and the president campaigned on a promise of bipartisanship, which he has been able to-- so, in terms of the results of this election, in essence as a judgment on that failure are people now angry at him for failing to fulfill this promise and on health care specifically will he invite the republican leaders of the house and senate into talk to them about health care or will he pursue a course of bipartisanship that basically involves moderates like olimpian snow? >> on your first one, i think the president, the president would be the first to tell you

that the pace and changing the way washington works, he is not satisfied. we have been able to do some things. derrick bin progress some things like earmarks, not enough. there have-- we have instituted a very tough ethics rules for those that serving government. unl get, you now know who comes into the white house to see people in the white house for the first time in the history of this country. the pace of that change the law is not that satisfied to the present. in terms of that bipartisanship though, i think again, this has to be, it has to be more than one person talking about it. >> an invitation to mcconnell?

>> he says in this interview that if there are constructive ben substantive ideas about how to move health care reform along, obviously he would like to hear them but what he doesn't want to do and i don't think what anybody has any interest in doing including republicans, go back to where we were last summer, right? remember when senator grassley said even if i get what i want the can't vote for it. i mean i don't know what you do then, right? but you can talking you can meet and you can extend a hand but if what you construct working with the other party, the other party is that none willing to support comment you can't, that is an example of just being unable to come you can't do that. to be fair there has been credit card reform, children's health insurance, there have been a

series of pieces of legislation passed by this president that enjoyed bipartisan support. [inaudible] >> again, if there are those that have again, part of this cheryl is you have to come and you have to be, you have a lot of health care stories, right? do you sense that the people that you were discussing have moved off of beared universal opposition to health care reform? >> i am not answering the questions. >> no, no, i understand. >> let me ask you about something else the president said last week to house democrats. republicans want to campaign against what we have done by standing up for the status quo and insurance companies over american families and businesses that is a fight i want to have. does he still feel that way today? >> absolutely. if you are going to decide-- we

are going to have legislative debates going forward. we are going to have a debate on financial reform. we are going to have debate on bank fees. people are going to get to decide whether there for the banks or whether they are four americans getting paid back. they are going to get to decide whether they will side with the lobbyists on killing a consumer agency or those that want to support it. on health care come if you are going to get a chance to decide whether the minute the president signs that bill into law, an insurance company cannot discriminate against a child who cannot get health insurance because of a preexisting condition. you are going to have to pick between an insurance company and that child. those are decisions, that is what elections are ultimately about. >> i know you have said you don't want to over interpret the massachusetts results. >> we may have exceeded that,

but yes. [laughter] >> did you hear barbara boxer say i think every state is now in play, absolutely. what do you think? >> i think that-- i think that campaigns are run for a reason. i think that you have to come and nobody in this country is going to be given a seat in the senate or a seat in the house. you have got to go out and work for it. you with that to go out and earn it. you have to talk to the american people about what you are going to do for them and you have got to convince them that you were there to work on their behalf. i think that is what 2010, i think that is what many of those elections will be about. >> you agree?

>> whether if you actually look that deeply into some of these places where they are not they are in play, they are targeting magicians that can look into that. to think that, do i think the american people are hungry for a washington that deals with their problems? instead of dealing with the concerns of lobbyists? yes. do i think the american people want the bickering to stop and the solutions to start? yes. if that puts more seats in play then the answer to that would be as. >> the question on the-- >> you talked a little bit about bipartisanship but specifically on health care, starting over and writing the bill with republicans, i mean is that an option? >> we did that. go back in look at the finance committee. i don't know how long max baucus

spent with senator grassley and senator enzi and others. i forget the number, there are 160 different amendments that have been adopted by republicans and to the senate bill that ultimately passed the senate, so the input of those that want input on, the legislation, that, their input and inprint is there. >> just one other quick question. yesterday when i asked the difference between 59 and 60, it turns out that one is very important particularly on an issue. >> i thought you were going to tell me i was wrong and that would be offered. >> i'm pretty sure that is accurate, particularly on-- republicans can slow walk or defeat say being too liberal. >> that wouldn't be being bipartisan though what it? >> so are you guys going to

change the way you go about the nominations? how is this going to affect your strategy? >> again, i think obviously the difference, the difference in having that 60, if all you do is keep those that are your party and those that caught this with your party you have got, you would see the number it takes to filibuster. i don't think though that the american people, i don't think one of the messages of the many that were sent word for this place to grind to a hault. i don't think that's nominations that are important, i don't think that the american people would say, the best thing is let's just up the whole process. now, don't quote me on this. i mean, there are stacks of quotes from republicans on

judges just a few years ago on filibusters, on nominations, on the need for that process to go forward. it would be awkward for me to stand in the play of what they had said previously. >> d'este suthers nomination-- >> i think what you saw him say today in stepping back was it is clear that the job of coming age of great importance, the head of the tsa, was clearly held up by a partisan political argument. i don't think the american people, there is no result in any part of yesterday that can be read to believe that injecting partisan politics into keeping people save and insuring that when they go through and get on an airplane that that is

done safely-- and there is no message that says let's inject some politics into that. >> the president likes to analyze and he had one very big bite at the apple and health care address to a joint congress. is unlikely people were fined the notion of what is achievable and time for the state of-- union-- >> marker i have no doubt regardless of what happens between now and the 27th, that the president will talk about health care reform in the state of the union, whether that is to nudge this process to finality, whether it is to talk about what has been done and what he has hopefully signed, i don't envision any scenario in which she doesn't spend some part of that speech talking about it. >> robert, just to clarify, is it fair to say right now that

the senate bill as it passed is dead? >> i don't remember saying that. >> i am asking. >> i don't think that is the case, no. >> you think although the president said in an interview he did not want congress to try to jam it through he is not opposing the idea of the house passing the senate bill? >> let me be specific. he said very clearly that we should not-- there is no intention by this administration to go back through the senate in the absence of the will of the massachusetts voters in selecting senator brown yesterday. there is no, there is nothing, no plan here to have something go through the senate before he has seen it, before he is sworn in. >> but he is not saying let's not toss with the senate passes?

>> his comments are specifically attracted towards the notion that some people have suggested that we, the democrats might try to read something to the senate in the interim of certification in swearing in and that is simply not the case. >> robert, just two. >> hold un. >> you lost control there in the middle. [laughter] building for years. >> president bacon is famous the known for staying the course and president clinton is differently known for attacking toward the center and focusing on the economy and i guess if president obama were to use either as a model which would it be, or both, or neither? >> look, i think there are

certainly, the short answer is likely elements of both in terms of i think the president will continue to focus on the economy as president clinton did. i think as president reagan, as you just said in your reagan example, the president ran on a series of issues and concerns that the american people have. they continue to have. one of them being the economy, so i think at this point that wouldn't break it into one of the other. >> since much of the president's schedule is planned-- >> just because he is allowed this to mean we bomb get to you. >> sins much of the president's schedule is planned months in advance could you tell us if any of the 13 democrats u.s. senators running for re-election in november have invited him to campaign for him?

>> i can assure you the schedule is not planned nearly that far in advance. the 13 democrats up for re-election? well, we have announced the trip to nevada. i don't know what the, if there is a political component to that. we have been too, we have certainly been to those states before. i can certainly look fury list. i don't have the a schedule. >> on all the nations who have sent help to haiti, could you tell us which if any were muslim nations? the usaid can certainly talk about this size, the scope and the origin of the help that has come to help pay the. >> robert, on the issue from the podium you had said that this white house takes some of the blame. also president obama in the

interview, he said that the american people feel remoteness and detachment. >> give me the whole-- can you just-- >> i am going to have to go back. basically the president, he was talking about what happened last night. he was talking about the election and things of that nature and what happened in massachusetts and primarily but that the question comes then, what about the white house message and what about the fact listening to the american public, where does all of that play and is there going to be any kind of change there and will there be a shake-up here? will he be bringing in new people to help deliver the message of properly it to the american public so you don't have this later on this year? >> i know of no staff changes, april. none that i am aware of.

i don't recall the exact phrase, but part of the interview. i think at the end of the interview the president talked at length about, that look during this first year, there were values that the american people have always had. institutions, whether it, whether those institutions were on wall street or whether those institutions were on-- that fail to live up to the values of the american people, the gap that existed between those value sets had to be and needed to be addressed. that gap had to be closed, and that is something the president has worked on then something that the president will continue to seek to make progress on in the months and years to come. >> let me give you the quote. it says that people will get it and i think that you know, what

they ended up saying this feeling of remoteness and detachment where do know, these technocrats of pier, these folks were making decisions. maybe some of them are good, maybe some of them aren't but do they really get us, and what we are going through. >> i think what the president is talking about is a frustration towards washington writ large. howard you going to have come out or-- you have to create a government that understands and addresses the problem, the problems and concerns of the american people rather than addressing the problems and the concerns of just one segment of the population, just those that are lucky enough to be represented by a lobbyist, just lucky enough to have a big piece of legislation in front of congress, so what i talked about

their in closing that values gap, that the president discussed. >> to follow on two things. will the lyon be prepared to take large numbers of haitian refugees and-- [inaudible] it took so long for the rest of the world to get there. >> look, in terms of again i would point you to usaid and dod in terms of, i think many countries were able to get resources in quickly. understanding, understanding you had massive devastation. you have an airport that is probably taking on 627 to eight times the number of flights that normally it took on. i think that all of those have been involved from international

perspective have, and everyone has done an extraordinary job in hearing and seeing what is happening on the ground. and responding appropriately and accordingly. in terms of-- are you talking about-- >> permanent asylum for thousands of people. , from katie to this country? >> we have discussed tbs here. that we have not seen the formulation of the mass migration. i would point you to state to get the specifics about things like orphans. >> thank you. two questions. the first is you use the phrase wake-up call about the election last night. i think you acknowledge that was a wake-up call.

usually wake-up call meetings then do something differently, so what will this white house, what will the president be doing differently after hearing such a call? >> again, continuing to focus on and having people understand an agenda that is focused on jobs and getting this economy moving again. [inaudible] >> the frustration didn't start last week. the frustration didn't start last month. hold on. when we go to ohio, we are going to talk to voters. we are going to talk to real people that have lost, some of them may have lost their jobs since the massachusetts election or maybe have even lost their jobs since massachusetts called a special election, but the

circumstances that exist in this country have caused angry and frustration about their economic situations isn't new. >> if you are simply going to do the same thing you did before-- >> again, i am not going to over read what happened in one place as happening everywhere. and i know the president will ensure that everyone has a very clear idea of what he is working through. >> another question a little more specific. a few days ago senator dodd was reporting in "the wall street journal" that he was considering dropping the consumer protection agency. he is obviously a democrat and not the republican. is that something the president but actually gets angry about it has to convey that sentiment? >> well, senator dodd was here yesterday as the guide

suggested, and the president addresses this morning in his interview that financial reform has to include a consumer protection agency. that is what he is talked about for quite some time and that is what he continues to want. >> several times the president was surprised or frustrated of the election in massachusetts. is it surprising that he is surprised? he is the head of the democratic party and aware of the state of politics in the country. we have had virginia, we have had agers the both of which were backed by democrats. yse surprised? is he a little out of touch with-- hency been inadequately briefed? >> we addressed the first question yesterday when people are asked this oppressive and care about people like you, 70% of the people say yes.

i list myself as being surprised that we lost the senate seat in massachusetts. i hope that is not a surprise that i thought we would win that race. i think many people, many people thought that. i would like to be up here discussing a different result. [inaudible] >> i think he would count himself among those like me that was surprised. absolutely. understand that we got here, the surprise and frustration did not set in some time around 8:30 yesterday. that surprise and frustration has happened over the course of many days leading up to a surprising and frustrating result. thanks guys.

[inaudible conversations]

>> relief efforts continue in haiti a week after the seven-point earthquake struck the country. this is a look at the world food program's efforts in that nation including an airlift in santo domingo. the images from haiti are heart-breaking-- homes, hospitals, and schools destroyed; families searching for loved ones; parents trying to feed their children. but we can all do something. we can help the american red cross as it delivers the food, water, and medicine that can save lives. donate $10 by texting "haiti" to 9-0-9-9-9. visit redcross.org or call 1-800-red-cross.

thanks for your help. 6' 8, 8 1/2, can do it all. i mean when i say do it all and do it gracefully. i mean with the greatest of ease. >> benji will, so his game and personality were -- wilson, his game and personality were electric, a future star in the nba until one morning when everything changed. get an inside glimpse at the man the nfl mayors have chosen to lead them in -- players have chosen to lead them in the fighnewtive rgaient. 'll uce emar ith. >> t our stin >> and a truy th abou inws tvie'

hello and welcome to this edition of net impact. we've seen nfl commissioner roger goodell and nfl players association executive director demaris smith exchanging pleasantries through the media and have even been in front of congress as the two sides attempt a collective bargaining agreement and as they do so the atmosphere will get more tense. we know goodell he's within on the job three years now but who is this man that the players have chosen to be their voice in this turbulent time? here's comcast sportsnet's mid- atlantic's jill sorenson. >> for our last practice we could play head coach. >> yea! >> we do head coach.

>> reporter: this is fun for demaris smith the executive director of the nfl players association by day and a coach for his 10-year-old son allen and his baseball team in silver vince, maryland, by night. >> tag -- in silver springs, maryland, by night. >> tag him! >> reporter: the intensity and passion you see here is smith's day job as union smith named the successor to the late and edge legendary gene upshaw in march, the man everyone calls dean has not slowed down. >> i've been on the job six months. i've probably been on the road three and a half, four months solid. >> reporter: he was seen as an outsider to get the job with former players as the front runners. his background as a trial lawyer was far from the experience of an nfl player. >> i definitely think that's a positive that he was an outsider, you know, guy coming in, he doesn't have all the connections or, you know, any preconceived notions of what

was happening before and, you know, can he come in and kind of look at things clearly. >> i'm very confident. i'm confident, that you know, he can get things done, whatever that may be. he's presented himself in such a way and i think he's broken it down to the players in such a way that we can understand it. >> reporter: as much as he's an outsider d. is a d.c. insider having grown up a stone's throw from fedex field. >> you come out of the room in d.c. and get smacked and then you're injected with burgundy and gold. >> reporter: on his resume counsel to then deputy attorney general eric holder and he also served on president obama's transition team. >> business worldwide in some way, shape or form always touches washington. it's one heck of a sports town. so yeah, those are things that are inextricably tied to who i am. does it affect what i do? probably. but hopefully affects it for the better. >> reporter: with the possible lockout on the horizon demorris smith has made it a priority to

visit each team to help them understand the process. >> this was in one of the file drawers in our office and it slowly but surely i'm going through every drawer, every cabinet. >> reporter: why? >> a great deal of our history on what we have done internally to be a stronger union is there. the one thing i'm blessed about is gene was an incredible note taker. here on the back he'd clearly written out in longhand a speech that i don't know whether he gave or was going to give, but the most interesting part at the bottom is you see it in quotes, the nfl has always been willing to take a short loss for a long term gain. >> reporter: in the midst of negotiations or perhaps because of them d. and the union have made national headlines on a regular basis. >> as executive director, my no. 1 priority is to protect those who play and have played this game. to me it is probably a little bit of a combination of half

negotiation, half trial lawyer. i mean both of those things are things that are in my dna for some way, shape or form. i think about my grandfather in the pulpit. there's probably a little bit of that, too. as a result, i'm really not afraid of my question. i want guys to be actively involved. truth be told, i probably lean on them in a very hard way, but this is their union. it's not my union. it's their union. >> reporter: always in the line of fire demorris smith is used to the heat. >> i thought that was a -- 17-year-old ben benji wilson was a rising star, a young basketball phenom with a definite nba future. in fact, in 1984 wilson was the no. 1 ranked high school basketball player in the nation. he'd been described as a magic johnson with a jump shot and kevin garnett with a better handle of the ball and a better

perimeter game. luke stuckmeyer of comcast sportsnet chicago shows us wilson's wizardry on the court. >> reporter: chicago may be a football town and baseball crazy in summertime, but at its core in the city basketball is a way of life. we're not just talking about the m.j. glory days. we're talking about the kids who built their games here like isiah thomas on the west side and more recently dwayne wade and derrick rose on the south side, but 25 years ago somebody else owned these courts in chicago, a skinny silky kid with a smile named benji. >> and center for the wolverines a junior, 6' 7, no. 25 ben wilson. >> if you haven't seen him, you're in for a treat, 20 a game. >> i would go and i want to be successful and i do what it takes to be successful and that is when i go home i study and

do my work and go to class. >> kind of corny stuff. >> well, it works. >> reporter: everything seemed to work for benjamin wilson, but especially basketball. >> wilson two. >> reporter: born and raised on the city's south side, he was the middle of five brothers and it wasn't long before that orange rock was the fiber of his life. >> looked like bruce lee with two basketballs. he approached the basketball hoops. just unbelievable what he could do with that ball three fingers pawning the ball like this. >> reporter: and with ben and his ball around the wilson's neighbors were always up early. >> the neighbors used to be furious about being woke up in the morning because he was always dribbling the basketball and one of the next-door neighbors mr. robertson said benji was the alarm clock to get him up and go to work in

the morning. >> reporter: by 16 wilson could still play like a point guard but now he soared like an eagle with his new 7' 3 wingspan. >> bankston drops it down to wilson for a turnaround. >> we used to imitate ben when he shoots his jump shot. it was like he'll shoot it and then put his wrist back like this and run down the court but everybody used to emulate him in high school. that's how big he was in high school. >> reporter: and everybody wanted to be around him. benji's game and personality drew in friends and admirers from all over including the nba. >> ben wilson steps in, scores. >> 6' 8, 8 1/2, can do it all. i mean when i say do it all and do it gracefully. i mean with the greatest of ease. i mean and it looks so pretty when he was doing it.

i mean it was smooth. it was silky. it was just you had to -- he had that camera that captured that moment. i mean he was that type of player. >> wilson slide down the lane. >> reporter: as a junior he was a starter on a lineup full of seniors. benji was third team all state and the wolverines went 30-1 for the 2a state title. that put simeon on the map. >> i think he helped push simeon into a more global nationwide type school, basketball power. i remember our senior year, you know, we thought we were world beaters, we could go anywhere and play anybody any time. >> reporter: after winning the state championship in the spring of 1984 ben kept improving stunning scouts at the nike all american camp.

he left as the first kid from illinois to ever be ranked as a no. 1 player in the entire country. >> he was clearly, clearly benjamin wilson was the no. 1 player in the country. no one came close. >> reporter: ahead how benji wilson's life changed in less than a second. >> ben's thumb was rising and then at midday. >> reporter: a horrific crime on these streets in chicago is remembered 25 years later. the images from haiti are heart-breaking-- homes, hospitals, and schools destroyed; families searching for loved ones; parents trying to feed their children. but we can all do something. we can help the american red cross as it delivers the food, water, and medicine that can save lives. donate $10 by texting "haiti" to 9-0-9-9-9.

visit redcross.org or call 1-800-red-cross. thanks for your help. benji wilson's future seemed secure. just a few years in college before fame and wealth would schuler follow in the nba -- would surely follow in the nba, but it wasn't meant to be. instead there was a tragic turn of events and now 25 years

later benji wilson has never been forgotten. let's get back to his story. >> reporter: ben wilson had it all, sizzling basketball skills and an electric personality, but on november 20th, 1984, it was a gray cold fall day a on the like this one and on vinsenz avenue right in front of simeon high school the day was about to get even darker. >> the old guys, they've served their times and lived their lives, when the sun is eclipsed or the sun is rising it's so different. ben's sun was rising moving towards midday and then it became midnight at midday. >> reporter: at 12:37 on november 20th ben wilson was walking with his girl friend and mother of his 10-week-old son brandon. they were a block from the

school. he liked to gather at a small store around lunchtime but benji bumped into two freshmen from calumet high school on the sidewalk. they pulled out a .22 caliber handgun and shot him twice, one bullet piercing his aorta and the other tearing a hole in his liver. >> to this day i still don't know the story. i've never tried to seek out the story because the only person that could tell is it and while the chaos continued at simeon benji's brothers were miles away with a sibling connection that still haunts them. >> i was in library class and i heard somebody say i got shot. i got shot.

i was in library class and i was like i'm going crazy, but then i thought about cain and abel when cain slew his brother and the most high said where's your brother? i heard his blood cry from the earth. right there something let me know that he got shot. >> and as a matter of fact, i had a dream two nights in a row before he died, somebody or something tried to tell me, had a dream that night benji was dead. next day i had a dream benji was dead. at that moment i heard my brother's voice say i got shoot just like i said to you there, came to me like. so this was something there and i was like what the hell's going on here? my mama always say you want the most high to talk to you, you got to be in a quiet place and i was in the library class at

the time my brother was shot and i heard him. when i found out, i went be serk. >> fo ery as a

we seen ben on the floor by himself. that's what brothers do. >> they weren't supposed to. i don't like to talk about that but they had to see him. >> they was telling us that he's in stable condition and kenny allen pulled the sheet back and we saw him. we had to see him and we knew he was gone. >> reporter: early the next morning the day his senior season was supposed to start ben wilson was pronounced dead at the age of just 17. even president ronald reagan called the family to offer h

is dead. >> involved in extraordinary young man. >> he was gunned down. >> it's not how long you live. but how well you live. >> then i seen my brother in that casket. oh, tried to wake him up like man, you ain't dead. get up, man. get up. get up. you ain't dead. get up. then seeing those two guys who did it. >> did you know ben wilson? did you know him? >> reporter: after the shooting cousins billy moore and omar dixon were taken into custody charged with murder and attempted robbery. moore was later sentenced to 40 years for pulling the trigger

and dixon 30 years as his accomplice. on the day that benji died his simeon teammates decided to play their first game of the season without no. 25. earlier in the day students sobbed at simeon simply overwhelmed with grief, but benji's mother stood tall in the gymnasium. >> so today i speak in love of all of you who keep benji's memory and dignity and be strength v and strength and love alive -- strength and love alive. >> reporter: the wake was held on the gymnasium floor and 8,000 people came to see benji lying in his no. 25 jersey. the line stretched blocks

outside of the school, mourners waited seven hours. >> i still have dreams about him like, you know, he came back and he was able to play again, but just dreams. >> sometimes i sit down and, you know, when i'm going through things, you know, i speak, you know, just like i would to my grandparents, you know. hey, benji, how you doing, that type of thing. i just can't forget about him.

this is very emotional. >> reporter: still an emotional story 25 years later. there are some updates to this story. at the time of his murder benji wilson left behind a 10-week- old son named brandon. well, brandon would go on to become a talented high school prep basketball player himself. even played some college basketball at the university of maryland eastern shore but he would leave after his sophomore season according to a school official and as for the two young men convicted of this horrific crime, william moore is still in federal prison for wilson's murder and omar dixon would tack on additional charms when he was arrested for aggravate -- charges when he was arrested for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon in a separate attempted murder case. let's move on. next summer south africa will play host to the 2010fifa world cup but it was back in 1995

when they hosted another world cup that changed the country, a game of rugby that united 42 million south africans. now clint eastwood's new movie in vic us brings this amazing true -- invictus brings this amazing true story to life and sat down with matt damon is yuntr rep on ma ond sporth r tochan wor >> l s ouiny. rep onat inciple that the movie invictus was born. obviously you're a big sports fan yourself. what did sports do you think has the ability to unite people like the way we saw in this movie? >> weah, spare iqued ted o ite and ela was

actually quoted as saying that. i guess there's something about getting, you know, 60,000 people in a space together g fotly sa thou kople ss tcoun caion peooss the . s cawas thiste >> b me paect faces the daunting task of a vide h afogetin the wake of apartheid. what struck you about this story that made you so interested in wanting to do it? >> that it was true. i couldn't believe it when i read it and i called clint and i said i can't believe this stor ther

fog. as hand th wad thint make no e. leas pre, it kes teso me repomandout th of e taint rugby team. francois is a pretty big guy. how did you get ady ay >>gr world ere obly t th beey so >> sou i am

i am gs d, spiroem. epor lm'stitle us rto aem t mandela used as a sou inspn anngthg near i because the country didn't fall into civil waby l e tionhould have and it's a decision that every single person in that country made. still to come he's a big and bad offensive lineman in the nfl but what are his keys to success off the field?

take a look at san francisco 49er eric heitmann and you'd never know that off the field he's a pianoman. here's comcast sportsnet's bay area's brody brazil to show us. >> reporter: this is the side of eric heitmann people know, an offensive lineman for the 49ers since 2002. and this is the side most would never expect, at 6' 3 315 pounds he's got the frame of a football behemoth with the hands of a beethoven. >> my mom made me take lessons about 10, 11 years growing up as a kid. right around when i started playing football, football became more of a focus for me

and piano you put on the back burner a little bit. it was always secondary for me, always a hobby but something that i always kept up. >> reporter: inside his home today heitmann employs both a piano and keyboard setup inner it connected with the apple program garage band. it is here where the stanford graduate composes his best work in the form of cinematic sound scapes. >> my style is more of a movie classical theme sounding stuff i guess i would characterize it. >> so dramatic it plays well essentially. it's dynamic. >> yeah. i'd like to think that. you guys can be the judge. >> reporter: while football is the profession and composition is the passion, it's the music that gives eric an escape from life when he needs it. >> i'll be home sunday night or after a big game and maybe there's something you need to crank out on the piano to kind of relieve some emotions or something. i use it as an escape. it's a good way to kind of release frustration or whatever

emotions you're feeling at the time. it's something i've done for so long, you know, i've played for so long i don't ever really want to let it go at this point. i enjoy playing and i'm going to keep doing it as long as i can. >> reporter: it's only natural to expect eric's musical endeavors will outlast his football career, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's planning for a future behind the keyboard. >> you never know. we'll see at some point maybe if there's something you can put out there. i'd love to get in a recording studio at some point, maybe not for profit, just something i could show my kids at some point. i'll continue to do this for as long as i can. >> reporter: brody brazil, comcast sportsnet. >> he's pretty good. his team's not doing bad either. that's going to do it for this edition of net impact. i'm your host and for all of us thanks for watching, see you again next month.