look at those alternatives, is we can get into an unimproved air field, but now it's how do you get capability through those air fields. so from our initial estimates with our focus and knowing that we were going to be able to get port capability in -- and we didn't have any engineering equipment to be able to construct a field like that, because our efforts have been focused on water and food and those kind of capabilities with a limited capacity that we had there. we chose to focus on that because bringing in that heavy equipment would have diverted capacity from food and water and medicine. and we just didn't have the ability to do that. so we chose to bring in those other capacities and focus on getting those out as quickly as possible and using the other capabilities we had around. so we've considered it, but because of the length of time, because of the effort required to do it and because we weren't

certain how much capacity we would really realize there, we have not pursued that. . . it is taking eight or 12 hours for a teeming go through to port-au-prince. as the open of in the seventh part, that will congest the road in the bit more.

has the look to the other cities, we will have to air of a seventh of it. that was in an earthquake damaged ozone. it is not as successful. there are still limitations on the road. it will move equipment and people across those lines of communication. >> are you going to run that by using helicopters? >> we would do that because it is close enough. we do not have the capacity to do for those locations in the dominican republic. they are just too far away. they would take away from our ability to move water and food and supplies to distribution points. >> nbc.

you said that the numbers are still fluid. is that specifically for military operating costs soared as the also include -- is that just u.s. military? could we have more clarity on that? >> i really cannot be any more clarity on this. i'm still trying to get my arms around it. >> i want as one of the thing. you mentioned the 82nd airborne. have there been any incidents that the 82nd has been called in to support yet that you are aware of? >> the security situation remains calm. you see i slid instances of criminal activity, the team, and some violence. overall, the situation remained

calm. i was in haiti a few days ago. i talk to the general of the united nations. his estimates remain that the commander has the same estimates. and a lot of the security is involved with making sure that distribution points and vehicles going there, because of the needed the population, do not get a lot of people are around them and cause a chaotic situation. all of the organizations want to have it measured. that is what we found in all of the places. we get food to as many people as possible. we have had no incidents. our focus is supporting

humanitarian assistance. they have the role of providing overall security and stability within the region. efforts are very court made it in very close. -- are very coordinated and very close. they provide capability across the country. >> i understand that it brings a lot of capability. it took a couple of days to get there. if you watch the news, asia's people wasting away -- it shows people wasting away in port-au- prince. why then not making a greater instance to establish hospitals? >> the "comfort" took a lot of time. it was not ready to sail.

we had to man it. we had to give people there and then take time to get it down. there is a lot to capacity. it takes time to get there. as you look at the logistics, there are a lot of other nations to provide a capacity. we did not look at this as only a united states mission. there is an international mission. we will all work this capacity together. as we are going into this, focusing on the difficult in their nature of the capabilities we had to get into countries to the airfield, we chose to focus on the capability. the department of health and human services had capability on

the ground. they have mobile teams in or out providing care, medical care, the route the region. this is a concerted united states effort. >> last question. >> we are all being as this by our editors. how many u.s. ground troops are in haiti now? how many do you expect by the weekend? >> right now there are 2000. let me make sure this number. 2676 u.s. military personnel on the ground in haiti. there is a little bit more than that if you but get the 22nd. they are not sure all the time.

by the weekend, we expect to have 4600 personnel on the ground. >> does that include the 24th? >> no, that does not include the 24th. they will be arriving the next day. we are still looking at where the specific requirements are that we need. the security environment is calm, remained stable. we are giving assistance to other parts. we were not sure what the demand is going to be. we are still evaluating the situation. we are seeing what kind of capability we are going to really neat. they do bring increased

capability. they give us an increased capacity to move humanitarian supplies. >> you said they will becoming the next day. what day is that? >> that is on sunday. >> can you say how many are afloat? >> 10,000, 445. >> would you like to make in the closing remarks? >> thank you for your time. this has been a concerted effort. we see the need is great. we are not satisfied with the capacity that we have been able

it is not because we have not tried. everything that we could move toward haiti as quickly as he could get it has been moving in that direction. that capacity will continue to grow in the future and to make a huge difference in the coming weeks. thank you for your time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> for a look a what congress is doing, we turn to the congressional black -- caucus. úxñ

>> r. prius -- our prayers go to the united states and vinson's and all those who have been affected by this catastrophe. those have lost loved ones, who were injured, in node the congressional black congress -- caucus has his early work with the haitian and american community. many of us have traveled to the country multiple times. during the current crisis, we will continue to work closely with the obama administration. it will provide whatever assistance it can to the ongoing relief and recovery efforts.

i want to thank them for their immediate response. we are supporting your work to assist those affected by this calamity. i want -- a limit conclude by saying that today we just [inaudible] we passed a resolution that sets forth not only our response in terms of our solidarity with the haitian people in committing ourselves to whatever it takes but also for a long term and sustained effort. it to help haiti recovery.

this was resolution that is the together in a bipartisan way. i have to think our speaker nancy pelosi. also, mr. hoyer and the republican leadership for working together to put together a very positive, strong, and good resolution that passed on a bipartisan basis. let me ask congressman payne to come forward. he chaired the global and health committee of the foreign commanders -- foreign affairs committee. >> thank you very much. let me thank all of you for being here. today we stand in solidarity with the people of haiti.

since the earthquake, the congressional black caucus has held emergency meetings regarding haiti. we are getting a sense of the effort on the ground in order to take this information back to our congressional district and our constituents. there has been activity with in their congressional district. most members -- we are moving expeditiously in making sure that information is disseminated to our people. we want to thank the information disseminated by the department of states. we have been able to hold conference calls and a regular basis.

following is a the earthquake, members immediately organized special orders regarding haiti on the floor of the house. elevate to take some time to commend the efforts of all of the humanitarian response that is currently under way. they sent $2 million to haiti. it is the generosity that will be rewarded. we will hear later from chairman rangel who will speak on charitable donations to be credited in 2009. there is a decision to grant

temporary protected status to haitian nationals as of january 12, 2010. we are pleased to hear that haitian children being adopted into the united states had become a priority. we would also like to see humanitarian patrol for our citizens families. we will hear further from that in a minute. the congressional black caucus is still diligently working on any debt relief from haiti. congresswoman waters will be very specific. she has been active in haiti for many years. we express our sincere condolences to all of those affected. we will continue to do what is necessary here in washington for the short term goals. we note that there will have to be a long term road map.

we are in the process now of unfolding the road map as the move along so we can have a new haiti. >> of 12 thank you for the extraordinary efforts on behalf of circumstances. all my colleagues agreed that there is not enough sorrow that can be expressed to the people of haiti. the announcement regarding temporary protective status comes at an extremely critical time, as all of us know.

it becomes important in my view to coast and then supplying all the members of congress with the information. at the pump -- i compliment again for it they are doing with these matters. aliens who wish to apply for tps must fly for temporary protected status. people need to know that it is a form i821 with an application for employment authorization, which is the form i-765. \ normally, when a matter of this kind takes place, the federal registry is where you turn and it normally takes six

months. as of yesterday, it is now posted in the federal register. haitians to eligible -- and it is estimated between it is 100,000 and 200,000 -- of those persons are now eligible today to apply temporary protected status. the application requires a $50 fee. all of us in the congressional black caucus have requested to do everything they can to waive the employment authorization document which carries with it a $340 application the. we have made the necessary requests and hope that it will be forthcoming. it is a complicated amount of information. as all of us are seeking

information, this is the full set of documentation with reference to the status and the events leading up to it. i intend that all my colleagues that this information. thank you of very much. information is key. for the haitian community, we will do everything we can to provide you a call of the information that we can. i wish to thank the international community for their efforts and the collaborative efforts on the ground are beginning to do the necessary things for recovery and relief and for the long term. we cannot lose focus on where we are and where we need to be five years from now. one person on it, the republic of congo. three days ago, i said it down

in jerusalem. the first thing he said to me was, i know you are here with a heavy heart. please note that i will -- that our hands are in the air. i expect that the same thing is happening in turkey and other areas where there is extraordinary expertise that is moving in the direction of helping people. thank you very much. thank you for all of the efforts to you and your staff have performed. >> we have been joined now that our witness who is our leader. he will now come forward. thank you again for your leadership. >> thank you. i know that you have gone through the latest mission --

legislation. there'll be other legislative initiatives. i just want to say that speaker pelosi has asked me to coordinate the activities so that we can fund everything from the various elements. that is so we might have a coordinated effort in this regard. we did it with katrina. i look forward to us really doing what is necessary to leave the various issues there. i have heard from a lot to be about whether or not we are [unintelligible] we have asked the speaker not to approve it in the near future. we will buy first for each member of our caucus, the entire

caucus, to sit down and decide how their various committees can respond to this event. then we will coordinate all of that. there will not be one any time in the near future. thank you. >> i would like to as congresswomen clark to come forward to talk about family. she is an officer of the congressional black caucus. she hails from the caribbean american community. >> thank you. thank you for your long-term leadership. i want to also applauded this and bring you the resolution,

expressing condolences to the solidarity with the people of haiti in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake. this legislation sends a unified message to the haitian people that we stand with them as they prepare to rebuild their nation. i also want to think chairman rangel and mr. cliburn in working quickly to get hr4262. it to allow individuals to donate to the haitian crisis and claim an itemized deduction on their 2009 tax return. i represent the largest concentration of haitian americans in the united states. this has hit home for me. my heart continues to go out to my haitian sisters and brothers as they endure this tragedy. i also express my deepest sympathy for their families,

many of whom live in the 11th congressional district in new york. it has been very hard time for families or tracking down loved ones in the country my office has been overwhelmed and inundated with calls to try to find their loved ones. many of them are hoping family members are still alive and safe despite the many images of destruction they see in the media. it is also amazing to see the response of people volunteering their services and eager to help those in need. in brooklyn, there are mobilizing goods to help their sisters and brothers in haiti. we have seen the same response from this communities and others across this nation. nurses and first responses --

responders have reached out, offering help. thanks to the assistance of the american red cross, we are able to mobilize a group of translators to help with recovery efforts. volunteers will assist and translate to medical professionals. there is an amazing sense of family across this entire nation. the one issue i have been asked is the growing concern as we continue a recovery effort in haiti in our most vulnerable population, the children. the children's fund reports that haiti has an estimated 380,000 children living in orphanages and may anticipate the never will become higher due to the devastation brought on by the earthquake. we are getting estimates as high as over 1 million children.

that is why i applaud the department of homeland security secretary in announcing a parole policy which will allow already adopted orphaned children and those in the pipeline to be adopted from haiti to enter the united states. this would ensure that the children receive the care they need as part of the u.s. government ongoing support to international recovery efforts. children have been legally confirmed as orphans are eligible to enter the country and of being adopted by u.s. citizens. children love them previously a identified by the dutch and service providers are eligible [unintelligible] they have been matched to u.s. citizens. while it is a wonderful step forward in helping the children of haiti, we must not forget the

children of haiti to of the orphans have relatives in the united states. these children are all alone in such an unstable and by men. i believe we have an obligation to green knight -- to reunite the children with their family in the united states. it must be done. more must be done to identify those. i want to thank everyone for the ability -- for being the great support to our haitian brothers and sisters and our global community. we have made our presence known. >> thank you very much. but to introduce members of the bc who are here today. congressman our grain from texas.

congressman [unintelligible] the congressional black caucus has 18 subcommittee chairs much of the works on haiti falls into the subcommittee and many of the members. i would like to bring forward maxine waters who has worked many years on haiti. all are focused on legislative efforts that are being led by congress.

i would like to think the leader of the congressional black caucus for her foresight and her wisdom. she has organized the congressional black caucus. we have a task force on haiti. we are not as responding to haiti in this difficult time. we have identified this as one of the ongoing issues that we must always were gone. i am very proud of the members, some from florida, who see haiti as an extension of their issues. many have decided that one of the things we must always do is pay attention to the poorest countries.

we have been able to respond in so many ways. when this little curly was hit with three or four hurricanes -- [inaudible] it destroyed the agricultural land. it destroyed 83,000 properties. the roads and bridges were washed out. we went to work right away. we spend time there. we spend time at the presidential palace. we understand that our work must be in " ongoing and long term.

it was about the support for democracy. we understand one of the simplest the most important things we can do to help haiti is cancel the multilateral debt. they cannot begin to recover from the earthquake while continuing to make payments on debts owed to malta letter of institutions -- multinational institutions. even before the earthquake occurred, and debt payment had a tremendous burden that is interfered with the government. haiti worked hard over the past several years to qualify for

debt relief. in order to qualify, the government had to successfully developed a comprehensive, poverty reduction strategy under the direction of the imf we gave great support to that. they provided $81.2 billion in debt relief last june. haiti still owed 664 million in debt to a multilateral financial institutions. $474 million to the banks. $39 million to the world bank. $30 million to the international fund for agricultural development. the imf offered haiti a new $100 million loan for earthquake recovery efforts. new loans that will add to their debt is not what haiti needs and

this critical time. we are encouraged to learned that the imf manager express support for canceling all of haiti's debts including the new loan. we did for to working with them to do so. we are also encouraged to learn that the world of bank also may be considering cancelling haiti's debts. i am introducing legislation to require the united states treasury secretary to use the voice and influence of the united states within the multi natural financial institutions to cancel all of haiti's remaining debt. we are calling on all of our colleagues to support it. canceling the debt will free up the country's resources, allowing it to begin meeting its immediate and long-term needs. debt cancellation is critical

for their future. it is a critical component to the overall aid. i want to thank all of the early responders. i also want to thank president obama for coordinating the international efforts on behalf of haiti. i'm so proud of hillary clinton for her quick response and the fact that she got on a plane -- one of the army planes -- and went to haiti not only to reiterate to the haitian people that america stands with them in profound ways [unintelligible] she talked with the president. she told him about our support. i am just very proud that even know what we have done is not perfect, it can never be.

each day get a little better. today we pulled out a 70-year- old woman. those stories go on and on and on. we will remain in the leadership. we will keep this on our agenda for many years to come. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. we will not open for questions and answers. -- now open for questions and answers. in additions to members on the committee, we have several members on the appropriations committee. congressman jesse jackson is meeting with usaid administrator.

one of the question should be directed to him so he can tell you about it. >> talk about the role that u.s. troops are playing in haiti. more are coming by the day. the can down the trail, what role they play in haiti? >> i want to add my accolades to the chairwoman and a cross- section of members you see here. this is a microcosm of every single member of congressional black caucus. it really tells us what are the needs and parameters of release that we should be focusing on. the congressional black caucus has been called the conscious of the conquerors -- congress.

yesterday, there was a dialogue between different media persons, cnn and in other media person, who read this book truth to power. the haitian people are patient. the haitian people are nonviolent. the haitian people are grateful. the haitian people are in devastating conditions. they are begging for the world to support them. i am gratified that the team of president obama heard that. as relates to our soldiers, we are always grateful for their presence. i would suggest that they would manage to get supplies to doctors who are in desperate need. the question of security we should address again. we should look to the behavior

and working with the government in providing our support in a way that does not indicate that we are on camp. i think it is very important that we give credit to those who have come to provide safety and security. we should recognize the haitian people. i believe that we should continue to keep our voices for recovery. there should not be a date in the near future for ending the issue of looking to rescue. many five-year old have been rescued. i think it is important that we continue to do that. the other thing that i want to indicate is that many of us across the nation provided rescued through of airplanes of

doctors and nurses to cayman and did 150 surgeries'. we must continue collaborating in working on those issues. the security question is not one that we should put on the haitian people as it is needed because they are in a situation that they are violent. that is not the case. i hope our armed forces can be there. >> chairman rangel has joined as. >> thank god of the country is [unintelligible] we are glad that all of you halvw some interest. this is really not a black problem. this is a human problem. the direction the country takes

impact is as a group of people. one thing the ways and means committee has done is to make certain that those people want to give will not have to wait until next year in order to get the deduction. they will be able to deduct from their income tax this april anything that they contribute toward haiti before march. any donations that have been given by phone, we will make certain that the phone bill will add to the contribution. thank you. i'm sorry i'm late. thank you for coming. >> the tax deduction, is that automatic? does the require legislation? >> it requires legislation that has been passed. it has overwhelming support it requires legislation to allow

you to deduct beshear -- deduct last year. >> are there any plans for a congressional package? i've heard about attaching something to a more supplemental bill. what do you hearing on this front? >> i have talked with the chair. we are meeting with the u.s. aid to administrator. we have not made this decisions yet. we believe that this is going to involve an investment. haiti has been neglected for many years. given the latest catastrophe, i think it is one too warm -- it is going to give us a new aid package for direct a question about the military.

the united nations will be the core urbanization that will remain -- will be the organization that will maintain public safety. they will remain there. it has been a heavy loss. they lost a number of troops from jordan and france and brazil. the they will be reinforced their will take care security. the u.s. military is still in with emergencies. we are hoping the army corps of engineers will state to deal with bridges and roads in deal with the whole question of this. one other thing we may look at is a program where perhaps there

could be a massive employment program and hiring many people there to do rebel control. -- rubble control. there may be a way we can create opportunities to the haitian people fiber to of the cleanup with the new cities being created. you are going to have to have the disposal of garbage. you will have to have the whole sanitation cleaned and so forth. that is where we are thinking in terms of trying to create some sort of wpa situation that could create employment. >> i chaired the subcommittee

on monetary policy. we also have jurisdiction over the international financial institutions. this is not something new to the congressional black caucus but it we will hold a hearing very shortly that will bring in the heads of all the international finance institutions. we can talk to them about this. we want to understand that this is a long-term plan. we will be talking about the institutions to create a plan for haiti's rehabilitation. we will build things that have to happen. there is also the payment of those. we need all of the institutions

working with the united states and others said the record a this. we need to make sure we reconstruct 80 so we didn't have this kind of devastation. >> this of the air final question. >> negotiators were complaining about the lack of attention to haiti. you could be hit by one or two more hurricanes. are you confident that the level of support is there under this presidency? >> based on the response to this crisis compared to the previous crisis under previous

administrations, i am confident that this response will be robust. it to be adequate. we are pushing forward. we passed the resolution today with only one no vote. we have to be confident and optimistic that moving forward that there is a silver lining. >> tonight is ed something important. president clinton had already been appointed to be a special on boy to haiti. that means that haiti was on the agenda. president clinton has been done and then started to look at ways by which they can get investment in haiti and create business

opportunities for patients. there is an adept in my mind that the administration sees it as an ongoing effort. >> cheryl mills has been phenomenal and keeping us involved and engaged in their response efforts as a high official liaison. >> i think it goes far beyond the united states of america haiti did not get in this condition without the help and conspiracy of european countries. we have allowed that to happen. it is such as the question of guilt. it is having done a job in saying never again. i think it is more than just our responsibility. >> i have already been invited to a meeting. when i get there, i will

certainly be talking about haiti to put that on the agenda with the parliament. it is a growing and our organization. >> thank you very much. let me convey my gratitude. oftentimes these meetings and get us off the radar after a crisis. we hope you will continue to follow what takes place in haiti in keeping on the public's mind. this has been a phenomenal response in terms of our country responding immediately. we want to make sure that the response is there. the media will be important in that effort.

>> president obama proposes new banking regulations then reaction to today's supreme court ruling on finance rules. later nancy pelosi and minority leader boehner talk about health care legislation. on "washington journal" tomorrow, we will find out more but the meeting between president obama and the mayor of arizona. you can call limit their questions about the supreme court decision today. we will be joined by new york times writer to discuss poverty

and unemployment. it is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> each year, the washington center brings thousands of students to washington, d.c. 6 there is the workings of our government firsthand. they will discuss politics, government, and their futures. >> president obama today announced proposals aimed at risky practices by the banking industry. john by members of his economic team and house financial services chairman barney frank, he speaks for about 10 minutes.

>> i just had an important meeting with my advisory board, paul volcker and bill donaldson. i deeply appreciate the council they have offered as we have dealt with a broad array of economic challenges. over the past two years, 7 million americans have lost their jobs in the deepest recession our country has known in generations. rarely does a day go by that i did i hear from folks that are hurting. we are working to put our economy back on track and put america back to work. even as we dig our way out of the holes, it is important that to not lose sight of what put us in this mess in the first place. the economic crisis began as a financial crisis banks and financial institutions pursued

reckless risks when the dust settled, the irresponsibility was over and several of the oldest financial institutions collapsed or were on the verge of doing so. credit dried up. jobs were vanishing by hundreds of thousands each month. we were on the press this of a second great depression. to avoid this, and the american people who were already struggling were forced to wrest the financial firms facing crisis largely of their own creation. that rescue was deeply offensive but was the necessary thing to do. the stabilize the financial system to help avert that depression. over the past year, my administration has recovered most of what the federal government provided. i propose a fee to be paid by the largest financial firms in

order to recover every last dime. that is not all we have to do. we have to enact common-sense reform that will protect american taxpayers and the american economy from future crises as well. while the financial system is stronger today than it was a year ago, it is still operating under the same rules that led to the collapse. these are rules that allowed firms to act contrary to the interests of customers, conceal their exposure to debt, to benefit from tax their insured deposits winemakings but it investments and to take on risk so vast that opposed risk to the entire state. that is why we are seeking reforms. we intend to close loopholes. it is like credit defaults love. it could cause a meltdown.

we need to make sure does not take down the economy with it. never again will the american taxpayer be held hostage by a thing that is to the depot. it is central to the it legislation that has passed the house under this leadership. it is working to pass in the senate. as part of these efforts, i am proposing to additional reforms that i believe will strengthen the financial system of preventing the future crisis. they have put taxpayer money at risk by operating hedge funds and private equity funds.

these firms have taken these risks while benefiting from special financial privileges that are reserved only for banks. our government provided deposit insurance and other safeguards. we do so because sustained growth. that includes lower capital. it is not appropriate. we can use that money to trade for profit. that is especially true when this puts banks and the direct complex.

we simply cannot accept risky bets setter subsidized by taxpayers. we cannot allow shareholders to make money on these operations for the taxpayers foot the bill if the bank loses. i am proposing a simple reform, which we are [unintelligible] banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profits. financial firms want it, that is something they are free to do. doing so responsibly is a good thing for the market in the economy. they should not be allowed to run the hedge funds and private equity funds while running a bank backed by the american people.

in addition, as part of our effort to protect the crisis, i am proposing that we prevent further consolidation of our financial spigo. the same principle should apply to other financial institutions in today's economy. the american people will not be served by a system that shows just a few. that is an outcome we will avoid. my message to both parties is that we have to get this done. my message to leaders of the financial industry to work with this. we have seen an army of industry lobbyists to try to block basic

common sense rules of the road. if these folks want this fight, it is a fight i am ready to have. it is only strengthened when i see a return to old practices from some of the firms that where reforms. i've seen bonuses at some of the firm's complaining they cannot lend more to small businesses or keep credit card rates low. it is this kind of irresponsibility and makes it clear there reform is necessary. we come to a terrible crisis. we cannot return to business as usual. that is why we will fisher was repays that people for the bailout. that is why we will pass these

reforms. thank you very much, everybody. >> press secretary robert gibbs was joined by austin groovy and gave more details about the president's plan. this is 40 minutes. . .

that would apply to only hedge funds, only private equity funds and proprietary trading not for any client-related business. it is clearly not nearly as far as glass-stiegel. >> what about this is going to put them to disadvantaged do based -- banks overseas?

>> we want to do this in coordination with our allies. you have seen england move in similar directions and a small number of firms that this would apply to, and these rules would apply to the foreign subsidiaries in the u.s. >> this is a proposal to stabilize the financial system, to remove some of the excessive risk-taking and put it on a firmer foundation for shareholders and all americans. we think what this will do long term. >> what are the realistic chances of this actually becoming law? are there some who believe this is about the strategy of populism, beating up on wall street?

>> financial reform is making its way through congress. the president believes that proposal to lay down new rules of the road would be an important aspect of our agenda this next year. we cannot continue to operate in an atmosphere that does not set new rules and regulations for for how our financial system operates so we get in the same situation we found ourselves in in september of 2008. i say to this is a common-sense proposals to ensure stability of the financial system. >> is there bipartisan support on it? >> i certainly would hope so. the economic team will talk to members of congress, particularly on the committee's

in which the senate has to deal with this legislation. there is concern about this topic -- concern for what the president's proposal addresses. >> on that part, i would also highlight the support we have seen -- nicholas brady calling for a similar thing. john reid -- the former ceo of citibank. this has not been a partisan issue. it is more of good policy. >> one the administration revealed its fraud proposal, i am wondering what happens between then and now. i know there were criticisms you were not addressing -- too big to fail. >> i would say two things -- the issue of financial risk taking,

too big to fail, and the broader regulatory effort is totally central. it is central to the house bill, which specifically authorizes regulators to be able to do exactly this regulation on scope, on skill, and the size of institutions. over the last year, members of the president's economic advisor report have been infrequent and constant contact with the economic team, and the president in the fall fought about these issues quite a lot, worked with the representative in drafting the bill. i think another factor has been you saw coming out of the rescue the government provided a safety net to financial institutions that they used, and they have in recent months started making considerable profits off their proprietary trading for themselves -- not their clients, and that is

certainly a factor in convincing a lot of people we have got to make sure issues like that are not going to be pervasive going forward. >> why did this president take this action -- why didn't the president take this action months ago when there was populist anger, and some of the president's greatest allies were saying, do something now? now it looks like political expediency. >> i am here only to talk about the policy matter of this. we have been thinking about this as an economic team -- tim and larry and the rest of the economic team inconstant contact with other experts -- have been in constant contact with other experts. these are central to the paper put out. they grow naturally a lot of things in the house bill, and i think you have seen the actions of these banks. >> to address one aspect of your

question, these are issues that have been discussed for months. the notion some hall that -- financial reform is going through the process. we do not have anything for the president to sign into law. this is still very active legislative issue -- not having proposed it six to eight months ago, we are still dealing with the issue of regulatory reform. that is not done. that continues, and this is part of that proposal. >> the dow dropped 200 points after the announcement, led by bank stocks. i am wondering how you walk the line between being tough on wall street and not wanting to alienate those who create jobs. >> as we discussed based on different proposals, i am not going to comment on the

individual daily fluctuations of the stock market or the fluctuations daily of stocks and the factors that might or might not drive them. in what i said to chip, this is a proposal to add some stability to our financial system, to help shareholders, to help taxpayers, to help all of those involved provide that long-term financial stability, so what the market does in reaction one day or the next is not for me to comment on. what the president is focused on as part of financial reform is set in a series of rules for the road going for the provide the stability in our financial system we lacked only a few years ago. >> i think the question about timing and the fact this was not included six months ago -- the

underlying hypothesis is that scott brown was elected to the senate on tuesday. there were a lot of angry voters. you said yesterday -- i want to ask you how the administration would appeal to angry voters. volcker has been talking about this for months, but was it hastily added to the schedule? >> this is an issue -- i have been in meetings about this dating back several months. the president had a fairly conclusive conversation moving forward on this before he left for christmas. it is obviously a complex proposal, and we wanted to get that part of it right, but this is not something done as a result of anything that has happened this week. this is the result of what has happened over the course of many years in allowing, as often

said, the rules of the road in many ways to be gained in favor of the type of firms we try to seek today. >> there are 22 in the world. what prevents the larger financial firms in the u.s. from once again becoming and not competitive with financial organizations? >> i would say, remember, this is not going back to glass- stiegel. one was about what risky activities banks would be able to do for their own accounts, and the second was about limiting the with the fdic currently limits deposits, and

no one they can be so large it exceeds their national deposit threshold that they would expand and build upon that to a broader definition of liability, and i think we have seen from this crisis, you do not want to be in a circumstance in which all the power is concentrated in a very small number of institutions, so i think that is logical. i do not believe either the broad regulatory effort the president has described for these individual components within it will make u.s. and financial institutions and competitive in the world financial market. we saw in this crisis, not to have sensible rules of the road deeply undermined public trust in the capital markets and threatens the collapse of almost all the big financial institutions. >> what is different about what the president is proposing and

what senator mccain is? >> mccain cannot -- is literally going back to glass-spiegel. the president can forbid underwriting securities or investing in securities by any commercial bank. this is not that. this says a bank cannot own a hedge fund, cannot own a private equity fund, but can do trading with its own account that is not related to the client's business. we want to get back to the fundamental nature of the bank, which is serving its clients, rather than investing for its own profit. it is substantially different and grows out of what is in the house bill and what is in the regulatory white paper on page 32, were central to it is the notion of limiting risky activities and trying to protect the system.

>> is proprietary trading with customer benefits still allowed under this proposal? >> yes, and if it is quiet-base, they would be able to do training or a bunch of other functions as a bank as long as it was for a client. >> the president mentioned the volcker rule. he did not mention anyone else. mr. volcker has been an advocate of this for a long time. why did you just seemingly decide to listen now? >> as we outlined, this is not a brand new issue. it is true he talked to the president about issues like this as far back as the financial regulatory speech the then presidential candidate stephen the spring of 2008. >> nobody seemed to be listening.

>> nobody seemed to be listening? >> i agree. remember, the first time the president talked about a looming financial collapse was a speech around labor day of 2007 at the nasdaq on wall street. i remember the. i remember a lot of people being worried about a lot of issues and people not paying attention to the then-presidential candidate eliminating our looming housing crisis and some things he expanded on. regrettably, some of which we saw in fruition in 2008. >> the idea has not always been embraced. >> you saw chairman volcker at the meeting as well.

i would say the idea of reducing risky activity, protecting the system as part of a broader reform -- we're going to end too big to fair -- was specifically allowed an authorized in the house bill, that they could consider these things, and when you add on top of that that we have seen a microcosm as they cannot of this rescue -- the american taxpayer provided support, and you see some of these financial institutions using cheap money they can get to do proprietary trading for their own profits. we have been talking with the german all along, and i think the economic team came in well. >> was he the engine for this?

>> he was the engine. we have been talking with him and members of the advisor report for the entire year, but the whole economic team. >> in addition to the political end of, a lot of people are saying there are simpler ways -- in addition to the political angle, a lot of people are saying there are similar -- simpler ways to do this. but you are dampening a tenuous economic situation. >> i guess i disagree. this is not punitive in any way. this is done because we believe it will contribute to the soundness of the financial situation in the economy. we must get to the point where people can trust the financial

system, or it cannot succeed. in this circumstance, it is clear, and we have said in the outlining of the policy that with all our regulatory reform efforts, there would be efforts so everyone can adjust, but i think the fundamental argument, which is perfectly sound and perfectly in keeping with the house bill, that we want to try to get banks back to relating to clients and not taking excess -- excessive risky activity, i do not think we can wait on that. >> whether the proposal to pay taxpayers back or to stabilize the financial system, both of these things are things the president has thought about for a long time, spoken about

before. in addition, i am reminded of the banking. you are talking about a fee over 10 years, dwarfed by bonuses on wall street's. are the same firms saying the bonuses on wall street threaten the stability of our newly- growing economy, or is the sum they they started saying. i have not heard that from them before. the proposal the president makes might put the economy on a firm foundation, but to a ensure that we never faced a crisis we did in september, 2008, and we never have to take the action taxpayers had to in 2008,

unloading hundreds of billions rigid lending hundreds of billions of dollars to cover risky losses. a good portion of the last couple months we spent talking about these issues almost every day. >> president obama ruled out telling the banks know more bailout on my watch. >> there is not a technical answer to that question. that is absolutely what is behind the regulatory effort to end too big to fail, that if you are in a circumstance where you have adopted the program we are putting forward so there is no to big to fail, consumers are protected, we have got regulation of credit defaults swaps. when you have that, when they

mess up, they died. >> this is creating a condition where that does not enter into the equation. we did not get to this point because of something that did not result in their actions, right? making a series of risky housing loans, putting those insecurities, cutting those of hundreds of ways and selling those in order to make money ultimately causes a tremendous bobble but first, resulting in a financial crisis taxpayers have to come fix. if you remove the front of that equation, you never get to the back end. that is why the foundation of stability is important for long- term economic growth. it will help our economy. it will help taxpayers and shareholders have confidence in

the system they can invest in, and they know it is the result of greedy risk-taking. is it going to cause somebody sitting in this area to watch their housing value plummet by some significant percentage overnight, not because of anything they did but because of a risky investment made? >> let me say how proud i am of robert gives financial analysis of that. >> [unintelligible] >> that is the point, exactly to get away from that. in the proposal we are putting out today, it is precisely to get at the function that because there are explicit government support for commercial banks, they should not be able to use that to turn around and invest for their own profit.

they should be doing things to facilitate their client business or serve their clients in some way. >> is the best way to insure -- the best way is to ensure the senate and house has very strong -- pass very strong reform. if that passes and the president is able to sign it, we go a long way to ensuring we never have this conversation again. >> could you elaborate about funds and talk about what you're doing and the money that is largely knocked regulated the mud people have been blaming that, too. >> in this proposal, what it is saying about hedge funds is that commercial banks cannot own or invest in hedge funds or private equity funds, because this is frequently putting them in

direct conflict with their clients, and if they are the owners in these funds, if they do well, they are profiting when they are able to attract a large amount of capital. that is the relevance. on hedge funds in general, one key point in our regulatory white paper and is coming out of the house bill that we hope to pass in the senate is the function that as you start to did be enough to manage the system that there be controls on liquidity and capital but also for the types of products if it is over the capital -- over-the- counter derivatives, were you have risk of contagion, that you get those out in the open.

i think we are addressing the fundamental systemic risks associated with hedge fund derivatives. >> hedge funds do not have the revaluation. >> yes, and no. under our proposal -- thousands of hedge funds have failed over the years with no impact on the rest of the system. if they mess up, they die, and that is the answer. they did not receive a bailout. the point is for any institution too big to fail, our regulatory white paper is how to eliminate systemic risk, put in tight regulatory requirements so they can fail if they mess up. >> how you define excessive risk-taking?

>> we will obviously be working with regulators, but it is nothing like pornography, and i will say in this proposal today that builds on the wider themes, it is defined as owning a or investing in a hedge fund, doing proprietary trading not related to client activity that is just for your own company'. >> what about fannie and freddie? i have not heard the president mention them in any of these financial proposals. why is that? >> i do not think it is accurate to say they have not been mentioned. it says they are going to work on the broader market as the hole, which includes fannie, freddie, and a broad expanse of

things and what we do in the mortgage market. it was not mentioned today because it is not a commercial banks. >> since the white paper, nothing? >> i do not have a comment on the specifics. >> often you have taken pains -- [inaudible] >> the spirit of this, which is trying to eliminate some conflict of interest and which is about trying to limit the amount of subsidy or backing from the american taxpayer getting translated into their bottom-line profit. those are themes they tried to pass back in the depression, but the specifics of glass-stiegel,

underlying securities -- underwriting securities are no longer in the current financial system, but they pose the most risk. i think if you reimpose glass- stiegel, you would put restrictions on financial institutions that would put them in a difficult spot. in the current financial system where financial institutions are more broadly defined, we want to eliminate conflicts of interest where we can. we want to eliminate these cross subsidies, but we're not going back to the 1934 rule because on a technical level a thing that is not right. >> the president is calling for banks to be cooperative of financial regulatory reform. at the same time, over the past

few weeks, the president called them greedy, imposing what some call unfair burden as if punishing them. how you get them to cooperate and support the proposal when some of the things the president has proposed over the next few weeks may not be favorable? >> i wish they would take a broader, expansive view of. i wish back in 2007 -- the president said, it does not make you anti-capitalism to be for more robust oversight of financial markets, because we fundamentally need trust in our financial institutions for them to succeed. if we do not have them,

financial markets will fail. that is exactly what happened. people could not trust the numbers they were getting. i think if the financial sector takes a step back and look set the unbelievable amount of direct and indirect public support they receive -- not because the and ministration wanted to help banks, but because we wanted to prevent the next great depression. i think paying back the losses is not a punitive measure in the legislation, and it is totally reasonable, and trying to eliminate conflicts of interest and situations where government taxpayer guarantees are going for them making profits for themselves -- in the long run i think is in their interest because it restores trust to financial institutions. >> following up on that, don't

you anticipate a major fight on this, and how would you compare that to the opposition? republicans have said they are against it. my question is, have you talked to republicans on the hill already were the institutions themselves to get a sense of whether you can sell any of this to them or whether you can come out lock, stock, and barrel. >> i am not a legislative strategist. i am just a policy guide. if you look at financial regulations for things like this, they include very respectable policy from both sides of the aisle. this is in no way a strictly partisan issue on policy.

>> you have examples of those who believe this is in long-term financial interest of this country. i think supporting this demonstrates that clarity. i would say you heard the president discussed there is a massive lobbying effort to derail or water down financial reform. i think it is very clear many of the circumstances that existed two years ago are still possibilities in our financial system. we have to do all we can, and the president will insure we do all weekend to change those rules going forward. i do not doubt there will be some that oppose this. there will be some in the

financial committee. there will be some on capitol hill that will, but putting a measure of stability back in our financial system -- if we want to go back to the type of bailout congress approved in october of 2008, let's keep the rules of the road the same, but if we want to take that step forward and ensure taxpayers and shareholders and our economy is protected from excessive risk- taking, let's get a new road map for those rules. >> are you anticipating and preparing for a major political battle on this as well as -- >> i do not doubt that -- before we broke for christmas when some of these activities were being loaded on, the scores of lobbyists were called on capitol hill to generate activity in opposition to financial reform.

i have not sensed a retrenchment by those lobbyists on this issue, and i think special interest -- in order to be able to protect the good that they have, will do all they can to derail what is good for the american economy. >> the president does have relationships with some of these bankers. did he call them and speak to them to give them a heads up that this was coming? did he calculate it would be better to pick a fight? >> no, we calculated it was better to ensure we had different rules of the road. that we turn a corner away from the type of excessive risk- taking that got us into having to ask the taxpayers to loan bank hundreds of billions of dollars. >> what did it have been better to get some kind of fly in from

the institution itself, or did you figure that was not going to happen? >> i will let them decide where they come down on this proposal. that is for them to decide. the president has talked to them in the meetings he has about getting on board on financial reform. they're going to have to decide, but the president has been firm we have to change the rules of the road going forward. >> has the president concluded the banks are not on board in much the way you concluded earlier this year the republicans are not on board? >> this was based on misstatements republicans made that they were not on board.

i have not seen what banks have said about this. i am not sure the analogy is clear. >> on one policy matter, there are 8000 banks in the united states, and the vast majority of those do not relate in trading that is not client-related. >> glad to see you. i was talking to your buddy last month, and he sent his greetings, and he said it is going to be about 250,000 to 300,000 jobs in the next six months, and i am just curious what your responses to the in relation to the recession. >> jamie is a friend, and i have

known him for a long time. i try to stay out of this business. i know the president has been putting tremendous focus on job creation. robert knows that every day we are thinking about these issues. he does not believe 10% unemployment is acceptably. we're going to keep pressing as hard as we can on those jobs issues. >> i am not good at masth. that is why i am here. i think that is greatly in excess of the number of jobs lost over the course of the recession. that may include a greater number that are traditionally unemployment. >> he did give the calculation

right. >> that was completely unnecessary, right? >> one last question. >> are there concerns about the health care bill because small businesses are a job creator? >> you have heard the president say repeatedly, the economic team is continuing to work on ways to improve primarily the flow of capital and lending to small businesses. i think you will hear the president talked about that in the state of the union address. we know hiring is going to take place and a lot of different firms when it comes back, but

the primary job creator is small business. we have to continue to create an atmosphere through different proposals the president has laid out to create that environment for private sector higher. that is what the president has worked on and what he will continue to work on. >> [inaudible] >> there is no doubt that the president has heard from many of them -- small businesses being crushed by health-care costs that increase everyday. >> the president may not have given a heads up, but didn't secretary dieter meet up with some of the bankers last time? >> i did not know the answer, but we can have somebody come in. >> the policy team we have

talked to, everybody said the consumer organizations, consumers, landers, everyone. >> when did the economic team decide on this, and when those the president sign off on this? >> i think the last time was before christmas. we talked about this event i think the week and a half ago. >> will you move it back, or was it always planned to be separate? >> i am sure the president will highlight this in the state of the union, but the even logistically got scheduled a week or a week and a half. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> up next, reaction to the supreme court ruling and campaign finance rules.

house speaker nancy pelosi and minority leader john brynner talked about the status of health care legislation, and a senate hearing on the shooting investigation. >> wednesday, president obama delivers his first state of the union address to congress, laying out his vision for the future of the country and its plans to deal with issues such as unemployment, health care, and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. wednesday night. our coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. you can also listen to the president's address live on your iphone. >> the supreme court handed down a landmark ruling on campaign finance laws. in a decision in the case of citizens united versus federal elections commission, the court ruled against legislation that limits spending on activities.

you can read the opinions on our website at c-span.org. we asked a reporter for details on the supreme court's ruling. >> joining us, aaron blake of the hill newspaper. is this a major change to campaign finance law? >> i do not think there is any way to read this now. the initial reaction was a split decision, but really this opens the floodgates for corporations to spend money like individuals can in politics now, so that was the big take away from this. we're waiting to see what the finer details are, but right now it looks like more money in politics, more money for corporations, and depending on where you're standing, that is it good or a bad thing. >> what are they saying about the existing mccain/final blogs. >> it upheld the exposure requirements -- the existing mccain finals laws.

it upheld the exposure requirements, but the main thing is it took away the limits on how much these corporations can spend, and it also allowed them to spend the money not just for their action committees but for their general treasuries, which takes down a barrier between the corporate side and the political action side on a lot of these corporations. >> you write about the distinction between individual and corporate distinctions from a constitutional standpoint. why is that significant? >> the court said once somebody becomes a corporation, they do not leave their political speech freedom behind. they said the difference was individuals were able to spend whatever they want, and of course, that was created that way because congress did not want the appearance of corruption or actual corruption

to take place. the court ruled on limited spending by corporations did not necessarily lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption, so that as a key point here and one i think a lot of future cases are going to look back on. >> you use the term floodgates, so what do you think this means in terms of spending in the 2010 election and the head in 2012? >> i think 2012 is going to be the big one, because there is going to be a lot of legislation, a lot of legal battles over this decision. we're not going to know exactly what it means. this is a framework by which we can work. people are working very hard on this, but we do not know where it is going to lead except for increasing the number of corporate money in these elections, so that is pretty much what we can expect to increase as this goes along. >> read his work at thehill.com.

thank you for joining us. >> attorneys who argued both sides of the citizens united case reacted to the decision. this is 20 minutes. >> mitch mcconnell -- and was one of the lawyers who argued in the supreme court. this is an extremely triumphant day for the first amendment. they may spend money on electoral or political matters. this decision is a long time coming, and as the opinion of justice kennedy makes clear, it involves the reversal of two prior opinions, one involving senator mcconnell, and one of

few years before. the core of the dog -- of it all is that the rights to head -- to participate, to be heard about matters political, social, and the light is one in which the public at large -- and the like is one in which the public at large has into interested in -- has an interest in. there are views which the first amendment protects, and that applies to corporations, as well as to individuals. as justice kennedy pointed out in court today and as his opinion points out, this is a significant protection for media corp. as well as all other corporations, because there is no way the court is going to treat media and it is any different from anyone else.

corporations either have rights or do not have rights. the decision today is as firmly and unequivocally that corporations -- and i am sure unions as well -- have the right to bring this debate in the political process, so this is -- and the right to participate in the political process, so this is a triumphant day, and we're very pleased. >> [inaudible] >> we have no idea on and on the ground level of how big a change. 26 states now allow unlimited corporate expenditures and contributions, and there has been no broad, sweeping change in the politics in those states as a result, so it is possible this may be more of an

ideological a significant day than a practical one, but maybe not. we may have significantly more corporate involvement and union involvement in the political process. from my perspective and senator mcconnell's perspective, that is a good thing that is what the first amendment is about. if you really believe the public ought to have a chance to hear all views and make up their own minds, there is no reason to limit the category of people or institutions. thank you all very much. >> [inaudible] >> it is not my wife. >> i am president of citizens united.

i am extremely grateful and humbled by today's ruling of the supreme court. this has been a long road for us. it has been a long time coming. this is a monumental day for citizens united, for our board of directors, who are encouraged to support me, for our members, who supported over the years. we have been working on this case since 2004, and i know the last year -- but it took a lot to get to this point. it is a monumental they -- monumental victory for citizens united and more importantly, for the first amendment and the fundamental rights for people to pull it -- participate in the political process and the marketplace of ideas -- whether you are an individual, a corporation core rock -- a corporation, or a union, you can

participate in the election process, and that is an important thing. we worked really hard over the years to try to talk directly to the american people, and i think the american people are smarter than politicians give them credit for, so when politicians and the incumbent politicians -- the incoming class tries to protect themselves by passing laws that make it more difficult for people and organizations to precipitate in the process and for folks around the country to stand up and speak, it is an amazing thing, so i think just the election on tuesday shows the voters are smarter than politicians give them credit for, so i am really excited about today. i want to take an opportunity to

thank a few people. ted olson, matt mcgill, and gibson are not here today. i am heartbroken they are not. they are at the trial right now and could not make it here, and i am heartbroken they are not here. they mean more to me then they know. for them to put this case at the forefront of everything they are doing and pour their hearts and souls into this case is incredibly humbling for me. ted olson has been a dear friend. we have known each other a long time, so for ted to argue this case not once or twice for citizens united means a lot.

our vice president and general counsel of this case's hand for the next many years -- held this case's hand for many years, and believed in it and believe in what we were trying to do, and now today is the culmination of that. floyd abrams and mitch mcconnell -- sometimes we do not know what is good for us, and having floyd be part of the team and arguing the case last time was a tremendous honor for us and brought a lot to the table below of the current senator recall be part of this case was a terrific asset to us -- and i think having senator mcconnell be a part of this case was a terrific asset to us.

michael executive producer -- they are tremendous supporters to citizens united over the many years we have been friends, and i cannot thank him enough for standing by me through this. jim baca, our first lawyer who helped us get to the supreme court. he is one of the foremost first amendment lawyers in the country, and then again -- most importantly, the members of our organizations, the members who across the country, the over half a million members who support us day in and day out in our board of directors. it is an incredible honor to have their support, and of course, my family -- my wife susan, my dad is here today. it is a great victory for us. i know it has been agonizing for us waiting for this decision,

but it is an amazing thing to have lived through it for years, and to be told by the bureaucrats at the federal elections commission you cannot do that. you have no first amendment rights, and i think today is a wonderful day to tell the folks at the federal elections commission that they work for the people and the people do not work for them, so i am really honored with this outcome. it is a tremendous victory for the first amendment and for our organization, and thank you very much. i am happy to take any questions. >> [inaudible] the corporate offices have the same rights as people? >> i do not know exactly what

the opinion says just yet, but it is a great day for every person in america -- whether you own stock in a company, whether you run a mom-and-pop grocery store, and by the way, when we put in those several thousand dollars in corporate contributions that this case ended of ending on, they were just like that. they were from individuals, small restaurants, liquor stores, dry cleaners -- people who incorporate for the protections because of the litigious nature of this country at this point, so what we tried to do was speak for them as well, and they had no actual voice because a lot of people in this country are individuals. cross is very much. >> i am bob edgar -- thank you

very much. >> i am bob edgar, and i am here with my colleagues who think this is not the triumphant day, other than for wall street and for business interests. i am president of public calls working with public citizen and a whole group of people outraged by this decision. it is the super bowl of bad decision. corporations are not individuals. there are some of them larger than countries. we need to recognize money has influenced the debate in washington for too long. all you have to do is look and the housing crisis, the investment crisis, the banking crisis -- even the health-care debate was already tainted by how much money has flooded into the system. corporations and unions already have the opportunity to put money into campaigns through

political action committees. they have already spent a ton of money. with this decision today, it simply quadruples the opportunity for more money to flow in, and my guess is what you're going to discover over the next several years is that the elected officials in the house and senate are going to end up serving special interest even more than they do today and not the public's interest. we need citizen-owned the elections. we need average citizens to participate. we need voluntary opportunities for people to contribute. our founding fathers never intended money was going to be included in this amendment, and remember, this decision was 5-4, and we believe what the supreme court has done today is they have shown their political activism at a time when they ought to be thinking about what is important for the public and

the public's interest. my colleagues will also have a comment to make. >> i am the president of public campaign. fundamentally, today's decision is not a victory for the ordinary people in american politics. the court has taken the side of wall street and other deep pocket interest and their billions of dollars which now can drown out ordinary people in the political process. we have seen from tuesday's election in massachusetts that americans are tired of business as usual in politics, but this is a triumphal decision at the supreme court for business as usual. if you do not like washington gridlock. if you do not like the voices of ordinary people being drowned out, you should be against this decision. the real question is what congress does. will they take steps to increase the voice of ordinary people in the process? that is their choice, and their decisions will either correct

this decision. we need to see which side they are on. >> i am with the campaign center. a few years ago we defended the bipartisan campaign reform act, and i agree with my colleagues that today's decision is a disaster for the american people, but more importantly, to as lawyers, it is also one of the darkest days the supreme court history. let there be no mistake. today's decision is one of the most destructive campaign finance decisions in the history of the united states supreme court. the mask of judicial restraint is off. john roberts and other justices who joined his opinions today have unlace unlimited amounts of corporate money and potentially the money from foreign countries into our election process. that can only be a disaster for democracy. hopefully, there is room in this

decision for congress to fix a lot of what the supreme court did today, but make no mistake. today's decision shows a lack of respect for judicial principle, and we're going to do something about it. >> we will take your questions. >> you don't have a question? anyone? >> thank you. >> what is your understanding of what legislation might be possible? >> there is a lot of legislative opportunity we think will be put forward. our organization has been working on a voluntary public finance legislation. we know the president, while he did not take public funding for the presidential campaign, knew that system was broken. we anticipate that will be a piece of the fix, but there will be other opportunities once

the decision is carefully analyzed and reviewed to figure out how you can look at the decision and work around it. i did nothing until the supreme court changes its mentality. .

what does this look like going forward? do you expect to see more attack ads by corporations?

do you expect to see direct endorsements by corporations? >> i think the fundamental thing make elections more expenses -- expensive. the best defense you have is raising even more money, and that sends members of congress carrying back to raise more contributions and find more money. that is the last thing we need here in washington. congress' spending more time finding deep pocket cash -- congress spending more time. >> looking at the votes that are cast, a congressman they do not like, and a district that normally has 500,000 or $1 million in the campaign, $5 million, $10 million, and recycle elected officials or bring on elected officials who are simply puppets of that corporation rather than serving the constituency.

>> i would also add that i think one affect of today's decision on future elections is that the amount of corporate welfare that can be spent, just take the fortune 100 companies. they had something like $15 trillion in revenues, a trillion dollars in revenues, during the last election cycle, and several hundred dollars million in profit. imagine what kind of that money would do, and off the spending $10 million or $15 million against that candidate or for that candidate. does not make sense that candidate is going to be beholden? you can forget about the senator from nevada and the senator from minnesota. it will now be the senator from microsoft or the senator from some other corporation on the other side of the world. >> liasson calling cards if you want to get in touch with us. there are several things that

are going to be held on the technical aspects of it, and one of them will be from the organization at 12:00. there are others that are going to be analyzing that. the key for taking that. >> now, more reaction to the court decision from congressional democrats. new york senator charles schumer announced looking at the decision on campaign spending. he was joined by congressman chris van hollanen. this is 50 minutes. >> ok, good morning, everybody, and i am proud to be joined by my colleague and friend, senator chris van holland. good morning to him. we are each taking the lead in

our respective bodies for this case. this morning, the supreme court announced its opinion. while my staff and i are still reviewing the opinion, this much is clear. the roberts court has turned back the clock on our democracy but over a century. this disastrous decision paves the way for a free and unlimited special interests spending in our elections. with a stroke of a pen, the court decided to overrule the 100-year-old ban on corporate expenditures and override the will of millions of americans who want their voices heard in our democracy. now, robber barons can act like parasites, striking at the very roots of our democracy. at a time when americans are worried about too much influence, this opens the floodgates and allows special interest money to overflow our

elections and undermine our democracy. today's ruling, despite -- decided by the slimmest of minorities, guts our system of free and fair elections. the bottom line is this. the supreme court has just predetermine the winners of next november's election. it will not be republicans. it will not be democrats. it will be corporate america. our system of government is the best in the world. this allows average citizens to engage without believing they are corrupt. but this opinion had gone unchallenged would permanently have tainted future elections. and having corporations to spend at will on elections, which the court has just allowed, would have on to influence on elected officials. the money spent by departed interest would dwarf the voice of america.

i have not seen a decision that more undermines campaigns, and this is maybe three or four decisions. we will -- we will regret the day that this decision has been issued. at a time when americans are so worried about having a say in washington, this brush's those worries aside. did this precious those aside and says -- as brushes those aside and says, "we will take care of new" -- this brushes those aside. i stand here today along with congressman van hollen to say that we will not let this decision go unchallenged. future candidate, will be an underdog against big business interest. as chairman of the senate rules committee, which is the committee with jurisdiction over these issues, i am announcing that we will hold hearings on the impact of this decision within the next couple of weeks.

at the hearings, we'll explore what potential legislation could mitigate the severe damage and this decision has on our democracy. chris and i are committed to pursuing legislation implement the ban on corporate spending or at the very least, modify it in a significant way. we cannot, we will not allow corporations to unduly influence elections and cast a shadow of corruption on our system of government for a tough it is imperative if you believe in this democracy to act and act now. we will. >> thank you. chuck. >> i am pleased to be here with my friend and colleague. a look forward to working with -- i look forward to working with him to make sure that we do everything possible to make sure that this decision does not stand. this is a very sad day for american democracy.

this is a fairly radical, radical decision coming out of the supreme court. the court that said the perspective precedents. -- a court that said it respected president. -- precedent. this throws out decades of precedent designed to protect citizens and the integrity of our political process against the big money, and special interests. this will open the floodgate a flat and checked and unchallenged -- left unchecked and unchallenged. as my colleague senator schumer said, this is at a time when we need to be reducing the amount of interest with special interest money. this takes us in the opposite direction of where america wants to go. it will allow the biggest corporations and the united -- in the united states engage in the buying and selling of elections. if you look at the staggering figures of the fortune 100 companies and the revenues they have and profits that they can now unleashed directly in these -- unleash directly in these

elections, it has the potential to totally up and our system and corrupt the process in a way that i think should alarm every american citizen. just think of some hypothetical. as my colleagues said, we are still going through the court decision. imagine a ig who just received millions of taxpayer money being able to turn around and spend money to advertise against people who did not want to provide them with money or disagreed with their agenda. think about the biggest firms on wall street at a time when we are trying to hold them accountable. they can take money and defeat those who call for greater transparency and accountability on wall street. think about corporations, u.s. corporations, whose main financial interest and majority profits come from investments in places like china.

and other places around the world, and where their profit margins are attacked not to how well americans are doing but how others in other countries are doing and having them spend money in our election. here, to influence and to benefit their process against the interests of american citizens. this is a scandalous decision. this is a decision that equates for the purposes of expanding money in elections that says -- expending money in elections that says that corporations equal individuals. i think it is un american. -- and the un-american decision. -- and the un-american decision -- aan unamerican decision.

means, a staple be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today. i look forward to working with senator schumer to explore every option to make sure that we cannot turn back the clock on decades of precedent that was designed to prevent big corporation special interest from correcting -- from corrupting the political process. >> so much for the justice roberts view of modesty and following precedent. he turned back the clock 100 years on one of the most vital parts of our democracy. ready for questions. >> senator scherman? -- senator schumer? >> yes? >> do you have any information or indication from senator mccain or anybody from the other side of the aisle that will help you get the 60 vote potential? >> we talk to both senators mccain and feingold and we will be working with them. we have not gone into specific details because we have to wait we do we had to wait for the decision to see where to -- and

we had to wait for the decision to see where to go but senator mccain and senator feingold have expressed interest in getting involved. >> what other options to you have to constitutional link to go there are many options and that is what we are going to explore. -- what other options do you have to constitutionally go? >> there are many options. we have been looking at this for days and months prior to today. there are various options which i am not going to go into now. there is the corruption issue. there is the shareholder rights issue. shouldn't shareholders have to say something before corporate treasurers are used for this? there are others, as well. >> in this political climate, will it be tough to get anything passed? i think on this type of issue, -- >> i think on this type of issue, you might find some bipartisan support.

>> what is the danger given that democrats on the hill has pushed health care reform and that regulatory reform which insurance companies and banks do not want, what doess this mean -- what does this mean for democratic candidates in 2010? >> but is it that the democratic congressional campaign committee has raised increasing amounts of resources from grass- roots and from people from throughout this country who have a little extra money and want to participate in the political process. we have seen that grow over the years. special interest money already threatens to overtake some of that the grass-roots support and this decision obviously increases and expense the -- and expands the opportunity for special interests to influence the outcome of elections. we will be sending out the alarm to citizens as we work to try this killed this back to let --

to try to scale this back to lead -- let them know that their democracy is at stake. that may rally more grass roots support. you really do have a situation where there has to be a wake-up call for every citizen that they cannot allow big corporations to call the shots on these elections. and so, we are going to be working very hard to get the word out. we have had to fight these special interests in previous cycles. as you know, there are other forums in which some of this body can already get into the elections. this essentially allows corporations to mainline those monies into these elections. and so, there are two ways to deal with that. one is to work the way senator schumer and i have been doing. one is to identify ways that we can respond legislatively. this is a bipartisan issue. this should be a bipartisan

issue. this is a question of making sure that every citizens' voice is not drowned out by corporate action. this is a call to people across the country who cannot want -- who do not what -- want their democracy to be taken over by the biggest special interest groups in the country. >> most people think of things run by the sierra club or the national right to life which are associations. those sorts of advertisements. this there a way to carve out corporations separate from those and allow the interest groups? >> no. the entire point is that you cannot differentiate. you can mainline directly from corporate treasurers on to the campaign field without limitation. >> i imagine that many people would not mind having those groups being able to run ads. >> they can do it. those groups can do it. it is not changing things for those groups.

and, you know,there are corporate groups that do it to but there are certain petitions that have always been out there. this just brushes away all of those limitations. >> can you give an example of a candidate about what type of ads in volume of ads this effect. >> you have a member of congress that wanted to make sure that we hold aig accountable. let's say we had a member of congress who wanted to holdmaybe another big wall street bank. they decide that this legislative effort to protect the public good ran contrary to their interests. their profit interests. you can have an ad run directly against that canned it paid for directly by agi. -- aig. this allows those corporate

treasuries -- what is that? >> any number of that. >> on a limited number of ads and on limited amount of money country. -- an unlimited number of ads and an unlimited amount of money. >> here is another example. somebody is fighting the drug industry. if they decide to make an example of this candidate. they put $50 million of ads against this person. he loses. how many others are going to oppose the drug industry? it is poison. it is poisonous to our democracy. the court is very cute here in a certain sense. oh, you cannot say to not allow it to this person. but you can say that they are a horrible person. that is an ok advertisement. who are we kidding? it is the same exact thing. it can be done no longer 60 or 90 days prior to the election but up to the day of the election. this will dramatically change the structure, and the way campaigns happen.

for the worse. this is what's so upsets me. -- what so upsets me. at a time when people are feeling estranged from their democracy, this is going to make it so much worse. i do believe in magic not think i am exaggerating, this threatens the viability of our democracy. this threatens the viability of what we are all about. we know how much money, both of us know, how much money can influence things. both of us know how it is unaccountable. both of us know how much money can affect things. we both know how the ads can exaggerate and twist and successfully when. what is happening? i am appalled at justice roberts and justice kennedy. becausethere is always a balancing act and the first amendment. you cannot yell fire and a crowded theater. we have libel laws. butwhen it comes to democracy, furs as corporate power and

wealth, boris a solid corporate power and wealth, -- versus corporate power and wealth, there is no balancing act? >> there was a report that insurance companies were spending $20 million and health care -- and ads for stymieing the health care ads. >> a corporation cannot do that now after today, they can just write a check and thus we are successful with our legislation. that is the difference. there are many different limitations on them now. that is blown away. those are gone. these have been in existence since 1907. in the tillman act. there are gone. -- they are gone. anybody who had nightmares about buckley, this is it. like i do.

[laughter] >> can you provide any update on where health care is? >> i do not know what happens at the house caucus. -- what happened at the house caucus. we are all exploring the right way to go. you cannot just proceed as if nothing happened because something significant happen. -- something significant happens. -- happened. there is a strong view in both caucuses that we want to do some good things in health care. the question is how do we do that? how much and how quickly? >> what are you exploring? >> there are different options. you would have to look at each. you cannot make a decision right away. how long would each one take? we do not want health care in the next three months. there are trade-offs. that is what everybody is exploring. >> we are going through this same process in the house. >> speaker pelosi said that did you do not have the votes. where does that leave it?

what are the options left? >> you know there are a number of other options. we are discussing them. it has been widely reported that there are several and one does not have precedence over the other right now. so we are doing in the house what senator schumer did they are doing. >> when will there be a decision about how to proceed? >> we cannot rush to judgment. that is what i said in my caucus yesterday. we did not have to have something on the floor today or tomorrow. we have to take a deep breath and explore the ramifications of the election and where to go. that does not mean we are going to sit here and twiddle our thumbs. it will take a few days to figure out what the best solution is. >> if you have the vote, can you pass a bill? >> our goal is to put something into place that would affect the 2010 election but it is not easy. this is a first amendment

decision. we have been thinking about this for a while. there are a number of avenues and some of them may have been limited or made more difficult by the decision particularly of the corruption issue. and on the pay-to-play. but we are going to look at everything. >> can you outline what the legislation would look like? >> no. we have to have a hearing. we did not know yet. we have to come up with the most effective legislation. >> you really have to look at the full scope of the decision and interpret how it will apply. the early reading of this is that this is a very radical position. very wide scope. we are going to really have to go back and look at the different options and see which

ones are tenable. i agree that the integrity of our democracy is at stake. >> there are things that can be done. i mean, it is not that there is no solution. ok? thanks. >> senator schumer? [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> folks back there set? you are welcome. i am congressman john larsen. i am the chairman of the democratic caucus. i am standing here today with a number of our colleagues who are in support of the fair elections now act. never has it become so important as based on today's disaster is -- disaster is --

disaster rest -- disasterous and a devastating decision for our democracy. in a system that is already flush, if not drowning and special interest and the flow of corporate money influence interest and legislation in washington d.c. as the washington post points out just in health care alone, to the tune of $1.40 million per day, now to have open the floodgates of corporate contributions coming into the system is unbelievable. as justice stevens said, it defies common sense. in fact, it ignores common- sense and it focuses on the dollars and cents that have made the system corrosive.

we feel proud that we have a solution, a remedy, that can pass that bill provide us with an opportunity to have a public financing of campaigns so that we do not have corporate interest drowning out the voices of everyday americans who have a great stake in this republic of hours and in our democracy. that is why we are going to move forward with this legislation and this timely fashion. there are great examples of this legislation that exist across this country. arizona. i am proud to save one of our lead co-sponsors of this bill is -- to say that one of our lead co-sponsors is here -- here to speak and she has firsthand knowledge of the bill.

>> thank you. and if i want to echo what the chairman said. this decision is devastating. the set campaign finance reform back 100 years. this paves the way for big corporations to pay for elections. this means that big banks, big pharmaceuticals, insurance companies can come in and pick the people who oppose reform, spend all of the money they want and turn back the clock on reform. one thing that voters want is change. this is the opposite of change. this is an open to be very bad for our system. that is why we are here to talk about this their elections act. -- this fair elections act. i have been the supporter since i have come to congress as a freshman. we have clean elections in our state. 8% of our candidates running for the state elections bridget 80% -- 80% of our candidates running for the state election use the program.

that is bipartisan. you need a certain number of qualifying contributions and then you are on the public contribution system. it caps them and we think it changes the way we legislate in maine. i am proud to say that my daughter is the speaker of the house. when i first ran in 2002, i probably spent 70 hours per week do nothing but sitting in a little white room raising money like many of my colleagues do. -- doing nothing but bat. that year, my daughter was running under the campaign finance rules the same year. at 26, she got her qualifying contribution and while i was in that little white room, she was knocking on doors, going to people and talking to voters. she is proud to remind me that she won. she went on to serve as the speaker of house. it has been a wonderful tool for recruiting candidates, people who thought they could never run for office because they did not

know the powerful special interest. or they knew that they were going to run against them. they now run for office in maine. the changes the way people spend their time. -- this change to the way people spend their time. -- this changed the way. this is going to change the way we go about governing. this is a very bad decision and it truly open up the argument as to why we need to change the system. i am proud to be here with my colleagues. thank you very much. >> a leader in campaign finance reform and a chief advocate of making sure that we have a traceable paper trail. >> thank you. chairman larsen. the decision from the supreme court today as i understand that is a slap in the face to ordinary americans. the century old doctrine that special interests should be kept out of government.

we have been struggling to do that ever since. this is a setback to before teddy roosevelt's time. it is drafting campaign finance -- gutting campaign finance laws across the country. that is at all levels of government. this is not just congress. people are saying to elected officials and every town, county, congressional district, listen to us. did not listen to the special interest. the cacophony now of special interest with megaphones larger than you have ever seen will drown out the voice of the people. if they think that elected officials are not listening to them, they have not seen it yet.

the legislation that i am proud of goes a long way in fixing this problem. existed in part even before the supreme court decision. now it must be addressed. in light of this decision from the supreme court. you can offer candidates the choice of accessing public funds for their campaigns, they reach a certain threshold, in effect, it will restore the voice of politics back to the people. that is so important. >> one of the leading authorities on the constitution in this congress and i am proud to say a yale graduate even though he held from kentucky. >> thank you.

when i heard about the supreme court decision, the first thing that occurred to me was the line from american pie. this is the date the music died. and i kept thinking, today is the date that democracy died. i hope that is not the case but i have great fear that this decision is of that magnitude. people are wondering whether congress works for them or works for the wall street banks. they did not have to wonder anymore. they will be the senator from goldman sachs. there will be the gentlewoman from pfizer. make no mistake about it. while the legislation that has been introduced is not necessarily a direct response to the supreme court decision, it will do one thing and that is it will be a signal -- be a signal to those voters to the people who are not reliant on

special interest money. on corporate money. they will know that the people who are accepting the voluntary funding comes of public funding under this bill are people that -- voluntary funding, public funding, under this bill are people that actually stand for them. that is going to be an important element of our democracy as we move forward under this new structure which unfortunately is going to be thrust upon us as of today. one of the things that we talked about is the enormous amount of time that candidates have to spend to raise money. realize that that is time when the people are actually paying for. we work 24/7. and we are not really on the clock. the number of people and this congress who spent 20 and 30 hours per week raising money to that not because they want to. there would much rather be doing the people's business.

all of that time. but they have to go out and raise these incredible sums of money. one other element that is not discussed much about this issue is i think that this bill will help to end a lot of the partisanship that exists in the system. we have to raise so much money and raise it from big donors across the country and ask them to send us money. if i am calling kentucky to a democratic donor and california, -- in california, why is that person going to give me money and thus they understand that i am going to be a reliable democrat? the same thing obviously goes on the other side. if we had to publicly financed our campaigns that gives us the opportunity to reduce partisanship. because, again, we are going to

be accountable to all donors who are the public rather than just our party's donors. or special-interest donors. i am very proud to be standing here today on what i hope is not the darkest day in democracy's history and support this important legislation that i hope will maintain our connection with the people of the country. and democracy's connection. >> the gentleman from ohio, a member of our freshman class, epitomizes the grass-roots effort. to get elected. and the stakes and just gone way up with the passage of this ruling by the supreme court, and it will have the system awash with money, only compounding the

problem that currently exists and which has become a very corrosive process. he knows this firsthand. the gentleman from ohio. >> good afternoon. i am from the 16th district in ohio. today's scene court -- supreme court decision has just handed the keys of electro government over to corporations, and we have seen how the supreme court justices have driven up to the campaign allotment of corporate america and in the influence of legislation. enough is enough. special interest groups in our electoral process. we need to end this. campaigns need to be about the -- not who has the biggest friends or the most money, but

about issues and ideas. the legislation will set the appropriate guidelines and balance. we stand here today because we democracy. we want to see a government that is responsive to the people. decisions that state legislators have made. i have spent nearly 10 years in the state legislature of ohio. it undermines some much work and making the halls of not only congress more accessible to the people. our own state legislatures. i stand here firmly behind this. it is time that we hand the keys of government over to the people. we need action and results, not more supervising of corporate -- super sizing of corporate campaign dollars involved in the electoral process. >> they made the point that it impacts state legislative races -- just because of the experience remaining to go through the bill and what it does.

chellie, if you could? >> we're happy to give you fact sheets about how to read it a candidate is required to collect a certain number of qualifying contributions. it will be in state residents totaling at least $50,000 to qualify. once you have qualified, that makes you a certified candidates. it will be an allocation separately for the primary and for the general. that is the money they have to run on. this system is somewhat of a hybrid and a little bit different, you are allowed to collect additional contributions of under $100. those are matched 4-1. there is a limit of what you can match, but you can enhance your campaign coffers. but it is always contributions under $100. there are two things are important about how the system works.

it sounds easy when you start talking about it. i will get a bunch of people to write me $5 checks. we have got some gubernatorial candidates in maine. we have 23 of them right now, not all of them public. a lot of them say that the qualifying contributions, it is not easy to walk up to people as a show of support. the fact is, that makes sure iannetta a certified, a legitimate candidate. people are worried thatyou'll go to a whole bunch of -- that make sure the election is certification. people. this is a very good limitation. want to qualify, you don't have to spend -- and once you qualify, you are still allowed to raise contributions up to $100. you ask people that never had a chance to contribute before. we heard that from maine and

arizona where they are pulling for judicial elections. in north carolina, new mexico. a lot of people say, i gave $5. i am a part of the political process. it is not just people that write the hundreds of dollars-checks. everybody matters under this system. i thinkit changes government. since the year 2000 when we started this, there was a little bit of skepticism at the beginning but tremendous support on the part of the public. we now have over 80% of our state legislature. people have really come to understand that it is easier for candidates because people are willing to put themselves out there. they do not have to involved in the big money race. she was lucky enough to be there. my daughter. she said, one day, i was sitting there listening to testimony and realized that i don't have to think about whether this person wrote me a check or not. i can just say, is this good policy? that is what is different in a state of maine.

do i agree with the ideas? that is not something i have to get extra attention to. because that have to call them up and ask for a contribution. because i have to call them up. -- because i have to call them up. i just did decide. my colleagues have said that this is in direct response to many ways to just that. if you think about how the floodgates are going to be open and they're going to pour and, -- to pour in, they're going to have to spend that much more time to match the money that is going to come from the outside. we're going to see pressure likely never did before. that is why it is more vital now than ever to pass this bill. and i am so proud to be standing here with my colleagues, that will bring in good policy from the state of maine, connecticut, and arizona to make it work. >> questions? my colleagues, feel free to join in. >> if corporations open up a floodgate, [inaudible] how much public money are we

really talking about? pfizer? >> the short answer is, they don't believe that the public money can compete with corporate money. i believe the public's awareness of the difference between the two of a money raised through small donors and qualifying in a manner that requires you to go back to your district and your home state to raise that money is far different than special interest money flowing in from all over the country where the only responsibility that you have is whether you can draw the bright line between the weather -- between whether that influences your legislation. it is a question i will leave up to all of you. but, certainly, it has made the process corrosive. legal, under the law. under the line of the supreme court ruling today, i just think, especially given the struggle that is currently

going on to pass health care reform in congress, and with the amount of money, $1.40 billion at day -- per day being spent by the health-care industry -- a day. what we have seen between the two bills in the senate, it makes the specter of this -- these flood gates opening of more money, wow. more money awash here. >> [inaudible] do you have any idea what may be on the table? have you discussed it at all? >> i think there will be several ideas with respect to legislation. you know, and i think thatthere was quite a bit of conversation about having those that require shareholders to make sure that they get a say in the process as well. this bill has been out there and has been worked on for some

time. as you know. it is bipartisan. dick durbin is a supporter of the co-sponsor of the senate. here is a close sponsor -- i believe that there are many members on the other side of the aisle that also are frightened by this prospect of the corrosive nature of the system being a wash in special interests. go ahead. >> mr. larsen is legislation is -- mr. larsen's legislation is based on this a good idea of making funding available to ordinary folks. to bring in ordinary people to the process. that is critical. today's decision seems to go even farther than many people

fear that would. it seems to remove any protective period close to elections and early open the -- and really open floodgates, as i was saying, give special interests a huge megaphone. it probably will require some other attention. but, you know, even requiring shareholders to approve or some other legislation the might imagine, it is going to -- it is not going to solve this problem entirely. this is going to take a lot of thought. yes? >> as far as your bill, you will have to raise public funds. how do you imagine you will do that? >> we have several different proposals. the senate proposal differs from ours. right now, we're looking at a tax.

we're looking at the broad band in terms of trying to derive the money from the spectrum that is an area that has been used quite a bit. it is also one that we think is very fertile and ultimately communicating your interests. we think that is an area -- we have more than 130 sponsors of the bill. they are suggesting other alternatives. the bill has had a hearing already in the house administration committee. the way it -- they have other ideas as well. it is open, but what is clear in our proposal -- [unintelligible] -- the desire to get this done and get connected with the people. >> special interest is one of those words that gets -- [inaudible] it depends on what side of the political process you are on.

whether it is republicans, democrats, corporate, national -- do you take any money from groups that might be defined as special interests by others? does the supreme court decision affect the way they will raise money and approach fundraisers? >> i have not read it completely, and there has not been a complete analysis of it. i do not think it impacts the way it would prevail upon the members to raise money, at all. with respect to the rigid let's take a look at where the money comes from.

-- let's take a look at where the money comes from. if you follow the money, you get a pretty good idea of who is able have at enormous -- even -- the peeling away of the veneer will be more revealing as we are going to the current process of trying to pass health care. the enormous amount of money that has been poured in to block the attempts at passing health care, and especially at this point in time when it is a very -- its passage is hanging in the balance. wow. it will allow the kind of money that can be poured in from corporate entities it will tip the scale enormously in the other area.

>> let me add an analogy, if you will. you know, as an analogy, we are a peewee football team, getting ready to go play in this nice game. all of a sudden, the supreme court changes the rules and says, and said of playing this football team, you have to play the roles bowls -- rose bowl champions. the elias state buckeyes. this is what we are going to be competing against. -- the ohio state buckeyes. it needs to be giving the people the power. last time i checked, corporations don't vote. people vote for this country. they want a government that is responsive to them. it will administer government fairly to the people, we have set up a fair system by which the government sets the boundaries of the free-market to operate in between the goalposts and boundaries to be a good referee. if someone goes out of bounds,

you throw the flag. unfortunately, the supreme court, they have just changed the rules of the game. >> i think the impact of this supreme court decision could be an enormous and number of ways. -- in a number of ways. if the corporation decided to spend $5 or $10 million, we would buy out every spot that is available. in my district, in the last two weeks of the election. if they did not, they would drive the cost so high that other people running, not just in my race, but forced -- would be forced to go out -- whether it is a council candidate or whatever, they will not have access if there is a huge amount of money in the final stages of the campaign.

without regard to having to raise it. i mean, the implications of this -- it is far greater than the influence that might be on a particular election. the implications systemwide, it is potentially huge and dangerous. >> one more question. thank you. >> how do you expect the supreme court decision to influence, specifically, energy reform? and that entire debate? furthermore, how will the debate help curb the potential influence for energy companies? >> i can say that the bill will -- i cannot say that the bill will curve what the supreme court has opened. what i can say is that it will draw a clear distinction. the fourth estate will draw

those bright lines that exist, that is the hope of the bill. that is the clarity to inform the public. the public will know, even though our system is voluntary, you can opt in or choose not to participate. -- that is what allows us to pass constitutional muster. i think the public feels very strongly about this. the public is going to know. they see their government being hijacked, in this case, the unbelievable influence of special interests that the system is awash with money. people feel as though their voice can't get through. this and bill will allow their voice to get through. -- this bill.

that is what our goal is. i think you'll see -- i have not sat down with chris, but i am sure he has an interim proposal. it could tip the balance of redistricting on the horizon. incredibly. so much at stake in the state legislative bodies and municipal races. this decision is enormous. butall more reason for us to focus on drawing the public back. into this and getting their attention. >> what about the potential of the company, like exxon mobile pouring in millions of dollars -- what are your fears about that? >> we have great fear is that that will happen. that is the purpose of this. if you look at the past as prologue, you just have to go through any campaign filing.

it is almost assured that that will happen. and we think our bill, it pushes back against that by drawing a distinction between how electorally, you come into office. and while there, how you're able to conduct yourself in terms of whether or you are dialing up your constituency and working on their behalf. >> how are you going to have an equal amount of money? you don't. there is sometimes a rule of thumb in politics, if you have enough money, you can run a reasonable campaign. one of the things that german -- chairman larsen mentioned is that it starts to change the culture around elections. it will pour millions of dollars into one candidate that are right there in front of the public. the other side, the person

raising $100 -- we had a three- way primary and the last gubernatorial campaign on the republican side. the three-way primary, two of them were clean elections, and one was not. he was the favored candidate. people thought he was going to win. it became an issue that he was the non publicly financed candidate. this is in the republican primary, butthe other started saying to him, how come you have all this other money? he ended up coming in third. it was one of the other public finance candidates that one. -- won. the press changes its perspective -- it starts to change the culture. it may not be that you don't have as much money, but your on the right side. that is what the public is asking for today. >> some people took the public financing [unintelligible]

a company could run still as many advertisements? >> under this ruling, yes. our bill would not impact this decision. our bill, and i think she said it far better than i did, you also be able to draw those bright lines. and certainly, this is something that will be of keen public interest. with that, we thank everybody. >> on c-span house speaker nancy pelosi and minority leader john boehner talk about the status of health care legislation. a senate hearing on the fort hood shooting, and reaction to today's supreme court ruling,

changing many restrictions on corporate and campaign finance rules. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we will find out more about this week's meetings between president obama and the nation's mayors. our guests are scott smith, and michael nutter. you can call in with your questions about the supreme court decision today on campaign finance regulations steve hoersting and hamin -- jamin raskin. and will be joined by "new york times" writer jason depurle. to discuss poverty and unemployment. "washington journal," is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this weekend on " communicators'," and former senator and now the head of the national association of broadcasters, gordon smith, on

expanding the broadband system and what it could mean for broadcasters. saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> health care was the main topic at nancy pelosi's weekly conference today. she reflected on the election of scott brown. after, we will hear from john boehner, house minority leader. this is one-half hour. >> good morning. here we are. back again in this room. it looks like we need a bigger room. many of you have asked questions about where we go from here. let me congratulate senator brown from massachusetts. the new senator. while this is also the massachusetts election, there

were 58 senators. instead now, there are 59. it has not diminished the need for affordable, quality health- care reform and for health care to all americans as a right, not a privilege. we want to end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. to stop decisions that when people are sick, even though people with health insurance, their policy is to pay premiums -- and the list goes on and on. your insurance will not be cancelled. the idea of medical loss ratios, the insurance comice should pay a percentage of what they collect on benefits. these and other issues " will --