you literally just have to distribute them. we could do within a month or two and would take a huge burden off of the response capability. on the issue of what we devote to aviation your right, we can't do it in the area of the subway what we do@@@@@@@@@ @ rk@ @ @ @r all we can do is try to balance by putting in the appropriate level of countermeasure for what we think the threat is based upon the consequence of an attack and based upon how likely we think it is someone wants to carry out the attack. as technology increases, we will have better way of dealing with explosives in subways or shopping malls but we're not there yet. so all we can do in the meantime is use whatever countermeasures we have in those areas. embedded in your argument is a common argument that we face in homeland security, which is the

perfect -- -- if your countermeasure isn't good, it is not worth doing at all. a great example is the christmas day bombing, which obviously is a failure that someone got on a plane with a bomb that was concealed in their underwear but recognize in many ways it was a forced error on the terrorists because the countermeasures and the security that we had in place forced the terrorist to put together a device that is in fact, difficult to detonate, not impossible. . didn't anything we have in place now they would have wallsten with a pre-made bomb very simple to operate and it would have blown the plan up, so even though the dustin of december 25th this we have more to do there's also a lesson we've already done quite a bit and i think it is that balance we have to keep in mind when we look at the issue how much

security is enough. >> excellent. let me also in the hopes the next speaker will a arrive sometime one of the things i sometime one of the things i know she has had experience with the olympics coming up at the end of the week we in vancouver on the order you were experienced with the super bowl in detroit right on the border also. what would you say is the extent of cooperation in these big yvette corydon security alleges? are we getting better than and do you have any hope that the olympics will be coming off pretty well this time? >> we've had phenomenal cooperation with the canadians across the board, not just in sporting defense but also day-to-day security across the border. when you have these large sporting events we have various

levels of security ranging up to what they call a national security especially that which is the highest level of security. enormous amount of work is done in advance in preparing the infrastructure for security in those kind of the events. there's intelligence collection, there is planning with respect to how do you monitor who comes into the sports press. they put an air cap on to make sure people are not flying planes and accounted for in the aerospace. there are biological and radiological response capabilities in place. there's a huge amount of stuff done behind the scenes and deliberately obscured because you don't want to spoil the eve and by making it into a technology chauffeur security devices. so we do in all of lot of work redundant for each of the u.n. general assembly's. we've done that for each of the super bowls and we did for the inauguration which was a huge security effort out of the planning which began three or

four months in advance. and when we have these cross border defense we work closely with the canadians in order to make sure we've covered both sides of the border. >> other questions, comments? there's a gentleman here in the front row. >> george washington university. mr. secretary, thank you for your time and service. recently the president's choice to head tsa with the nomination amid controversy about his position on the unionization of the tsa workers i'm wondering what your view is on the effective unionization on homeland security personnel as somebody that has obviously had the top job. >> the administration's position was a post under president bush was to oppose unionization of tsa. in particular because typically if a work force is unionized any

changes conditions have to be dealt with negotiated and often we saw this in 2006 when we had the airline bombing plot in london or to change things quickly. and so the need to bargain or get to the grievance process becomes an impediment. we did work hard to try to elevate morality in tsa and create mechanisms for feedback because the point of avoiding unionization isn't because we don't care about them are -- moral of the officers because we do what we want to operate in a nimble matter. it isn't unionized because you don't want to have marines going in grievance when they get sent overseas. i know the current administration has a different view on this. i don't know that the tsa nominees withdraw was related to that. i think other issues cannot. the one thing i would say is we have had a delay in filling

these spots, not only the head of the tsa but the head of customs and border protection. we are now over a year into the new administration. again, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. within reason any president is entitled to have his or her own people in the top spots. and i would encourage everybody involved in this process to get these jobs filled as quickly as possible. .. do you think the general public understands the role? >> that is a good question. probably not. i'm not sure that the public understands what the terrace

databases, and the rest -- is run by the fbi. maybe it is helpful if i explain that dhhs is a consumer of intelligence -- the watchlist is populated by information there are decisions about who gets onto which list -- the fbi it oversees it. it is important to say that dhhs generated some information and intelligence, for example through the border process. we have a targeting center that uses information from the intelligence community as well as information we collect at the border ourselves. it integrates that to determine who comes into the country. notwithstanding the fact that no system is perfect if i look back on where we were in 2001 it to

where we are now, we're acutely better. not only at collecting, but at into gritty. our analysis is better. stovepipes been largely eliminated. human error remains still part of what we have to deal with as with any endeavor. any time that there is a failure as of december 25 it is an opportunity to go back and look again at all layers of security. that is appropriately with the current secretary is doing and of security and that that is i think appropriately with the current secretary is doing in the administration is doing. >> thank you for your contribution. how do we defend against giving

aid or support to countries like yemen and others to help train and defend our issues with terrorists when they are developing country? how far do you go? how much do trust there will not use it against you? >> that is really challenging. one of the problems we have had traditionally -- you have to work with the countries and governments there that are the locations where have to work with the countries in the government's and the they have a concern about the u.s.. there is always the question of black. i think that is where building a key set of relationships matters a great deal. where building a deep set of relationships with the countries you are working

with matters a great deal. it is not fashionable to say that personal relationships matter but they do and i think when we are able to build up a deep understanding of the countries we are working with because we put people in place, they build up a sense of trust. i think then we are better situated to calibrate the amount of help and the kind of help we give. i think in many ways that is the strategy general petraeus used in iraq is getting people in the local population connected up with the military in an ongoing basis, not that the military sorted out of an outpost interactive for a few minutes and went back but you literally have that back and forth and change that in many ways builds the kind of trust that allows to understand how to tailor the strategies of the locals. there is an old piece of advice that in many parts of the world, what people value most when you

come by for a cup of tea and you don't want something and over that process to develop a trust that enables you and the and to do some kind of business and i think that is really what we have to do in places like yemen and other parts of not only the region but the world at large. >> we have the gentleman in the back. it will take a minute to get there. >> thank you mr. chertoff. i respect your answer that you gave to my question. however i disagree with that on one ground. recently i heard a little interview of gore vidal who may not be one of your favorites. he defined u.s.a. as the united states of amnesia, so your historical perspective that you gave to justify foreign intervention in my opinion is

part of that, you know. basically there were lots of problems in 1991 in 92 when he said there was an attack. some of the old problems with the israeli-palestinian problems were festering for could there were other interventions in this afghanistan problem that we are talking about now, the whole incubation of the terrorist in that area was funded thanks to the united states and the cia. then the russians were in afghanistan, so those are the elements that have now turned on the united states, so i guess i don't know what to elaborate on it too much but there is a history there. >> well, i guess really, this is my recollection one that gore vidal is not even sure we should've been in world war ii so they are people who have a very different view of world history. i don't share that view. >> we really appreciate you up been so kind and so generous in sharing so many of your views

with us here today. this has been a tremendous opportunity for change and also to get a preview of what is available in your book which we hope everyone will go out and purchase for a low price available to all this booksellers. >> and amazon.com. [laughter] >> thank you secretary chertoff very much for coming and thank you all for coming as well. [applause] for those of you who would like to have your >> president obama held a meeting at the white house yesterday with house and senate leaders. that is next. in a few minutes we will hear from republican leaders who attended the meeting. after that, the president's conference. and on this morning's "washington journal" topics

include a senate jobs bill, only a security, and civic literacy. it begins at the top of the hour. >> it is the only collection of american presidential portraits pitted by one artist -- life portraits by the renowned painter, now on display at purdue university through february 21. the exhibit looks at the lives of the 43 men who held office through paintings, photographs, prints, and audio recordings. and you can get to west lafayette, indiana, check out the entire collection on line. >> democratic and republican congressional leaders met the white house to discuss possible areas of agreement on a jobs bill and the economy. republican leaders spoke with

reporters afterwards. >> i want to think democratic leaders and republican leaders from both the house and the senate -- part of what we would like to see is the ability of congress to move forward and a more bipartisan fashion on some of the key challenges the country is facing right now. it is fair to say the american people are frustrated with the lack of progress on some key issues. and though the parties are not going to agree on every single item, there should be some areas where we can agree. and can get something done even as we have a vigorous debates on some issues we do not agree on. one good place to start and where i hope to spend a lot of time in these discussions today is how to move forward on a jobs

package that encourages small business to hire, that is helping to create the kind of environment where now the we have economic growth people are starting to add to the payroll. there are some ideas on both the republicans and democratic sides that allow us -- for example, lower rates for small business on the taxes to help spur growth. my hope is that both in the house and senate we will see some packages moving over the next several weeks to provide jump-start to hiring and lowering the unemployment rate. another area i have to find agreement on is the area of getting deficits and our debt under control. both parties have stated their concerns about it. both parties recognize that it is going to take a lot of work.

i have put forward the idea of a fiscal commission, and will be discussing both with my democratic and republican colleagues how to get that moving asap to start taking concrete action. american people want to see that concrete action. i will also speak about more mundane matters, things like making sure we have our government personnel in place on critical positions that involve our basic government function, and seeing if we can accelerate that and find agreement in those areas. then i will spend time listening. there may be priorities that both the republican and democratic leaders have that they want to raise. my hope is it will not be a rare situation. we will do these on a regular basis. i am very thankful everyone here

has taken time to come. i am confident if we move afford it in the spirit -- moved ford in the spirit of keeping in mind what is best for the american people then we should be able to accomplish a lot. thank you very much. >> good morning. we had a good meeting with the president and there are areas of potential agreement. he mentioned in his state of the union there is support for nuclear power, offshore drilling, clean coal technology, and for trade agreements, presumably with colombia, a mall, and korea, those that have been languishing for about 18 months. these are areas where i think there could be a pretty broad bipartisan support to go forward the collaborative spaces. there will be areas of

disagreement, but emphasizing the things we might be able to work on together, i would mention those four areas. all of these i think would be job generators -- nuclear power, offshore drilling, clean coal technology, and pass the languishing trade agreements. we also have a long conversation about spending. >> the american people know that washington has been on a spending binge for over a year. i urge the president he has the ability to send recisions up to the hill. let members vote up or down on spending. we don't need to send this to a spending commission. we can cut spending now.

we did not really talk about healthcare. apparently it will be discussed in several weeks. we are trying to understand what we're trying to accomplish with this health care meeting. that is why eric and i sent a letter here yesterday. we're hopeful to get answers as we consider what to do about the february 25 meeting. >> [inaudible] >> we are interested in a bipartisan conversation with regard to health care, but it ought to be bipartisan from the beginning. we have been asking to be involved in these healthcare conversations going back to a letter we sent last may. we got no response to it. we outlined our concerns about the conversation the president wants to have. we need to know where we will

start from. we would like to attend the meeting. we are interested in having these bipartisan conversations and look forward to continuing them with the administration. >> did you make any progress on the jobs legislation or exchange any ideas? >> there were a lot of conversations about various parts of it. the house already passed the stimulus bill over in the senate. >> we discussed the senate package that has been percolating as a work in progress. that is with some members of the finance committee. frankly, it is not ready yet. most members have not yet seen it. we're certainly open to it. there is the chance to move this forward of the bipartisan basis -- we hope it is not just another stimulus bill, but truly

a. job w@w@w@w@w@w@w@w@w@w@w@w@w@w@w@wó -- a job generator. there's the chance the senate could get there with another package. ifwell, a good way to start would be to listen to the american peoplet americanhey are overwhelmingly opposed to the 2700-page bill that the house and senate have looked at. we needed to start over, go step by step on a truly bipartisan basis and try to reach an agreement. my members are open. >> start over where? at 0, nothing? >> cost. the rising cost of health care in america. we need to target costs by doing things like targeting junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, potentially equalizing the tax code to make it more possible for purchase of insurance on the individual

market and have the same kind of treatment as corporate purchasers do. there are a lot of things to do to reduce the number of uninsured and target cost. >> why start over? >> we need to start over. you need to listen to the american people. the surveys are overhauling. the last national public radio poll which indicated that by 58- 38 the american people were opposed to this bill. what would they keep pushing something the public is overwhelmingly against? the answer is to put the measure on the shelf. start over, go step by step and get it right. >> democrats are saying that things you have proposed, allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines is actually in the bill that has come together and the discussion between the senate and house.

have you heard that, and do have a response? >> we will have a health care meeting on the 25. what i'm saying is that we need to put that bill on the shelf. we to start over with more modest goals. the president wants to have bipartisan conversations. >> it will be difficult to have a bipartisan conversation with regard to a 2700 page bill that the democratic majority in the house and senate cannot pass. wire we going to talk about a bill that cannot pass? it is time to scrap it and start over. let's talk about common sense things we can do to make health care more affordable. and to expand access.

>> is the president listening to your concerns? >> we will see. >> [inaudible] >> it is hard to predict. this is a package that is a work in progress. we want to make sure it is not just another stimulus bill that will not create any jobs. it is too early to tell what the package will look like. and whether it is interfering with the ability to do business as well. thank you. >> after meeting yesterday with congressional leaders president obama made an unscheduled appearance at the white house briefing and talk to reporters for 30 minutes about a jobs

bill, health care, and iran. >> hello, hello, hello. >> whoa! >> hello. [laughter] >> you know, we are trying to bring some change. hello, everybody. i am glad to see that all of you braved the weather to be here. a little while ago i had a meeting with the democratic and republican congressional leaders and it went very well. in fact, i understand that mc connell and reid are out doing snow angels in the south on together. can you picture that, chuck? the meeting did go well.

we had a good and frank conversation. i hope it is one we can continue on a more regular basis. we all understand there are legitimate and genuine differences between the parties, but despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town there are many issues upon which we can and should agree. that is what the american people demand of us. they are tired of everyday being election day in washington and at this critical time the people sent us here and expect the seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics. that is why will continue to seek the best ideas from either party as we work to address challenges ahead. i'm confident, for example, that when one in 10 of our fellow citizens cannot work we should come together to help business create more jobs.

we should provide small businesses with additional tax credit and additional lines of credit. we ought to agree in investments and crumbling roads and bridges. we should agree on tax breaks to make homes more energy efficient, all of which will put more americans to work. many of the job proposals i have laid out have passed the house and are soon going to be debated in the senate. we have spent a lot of time in the this meeting discussing a jobs package and how to move forward on that. if there are additional ideas i will consider them as well. what i will not consider is doing nothing in the face of a lot of hardship across the country. we also talked about restoring fiscal responsibility. there are few matters on which there is as much bigger risk bipartisan agreement, at least in public, but unfortunately also a lot of partisan wrangling behind closed doors. this is what we know for sure

-- to solve this extraordinary problem so many years in the making it will take the cooperation of both parties. it will not have been any other way. i am pleased to the congress supported my request to restore a the pay as you go role which was instrumental in the 1990's and turning deficits into surpluses. i have also called for the bipartisan commission. it was co-sponsored by senators conrad and gregg -- but it was blocked. i will create this commission by executive order. i asked both parties to join in this serious effort to address long-term deficits. with the politics put aside, the reality of our fiscal challenge is not subject to interpretation and is not partisan. there ought to be a debate about how to close our deficits. what we cannot accept is business as usual and we cannot afford it grand standing at the

expense of actually getting something done. during our meeting we also touched briefly on how to move forward on health reform. i have already announced that in two weeks i will hold a meeting with people from both parties and look forward to a constructive debate with plans that need it is to bring down costs for all fellow americans and for the federal government. does it provide adequate protection against abuses by the insurance industry? does it make coverage affordable and available to tens of millions of working americans who do not have it right now? does it put us on the past -- path to fiscal sustainability? we talk about what is so ordered. anthem blue cross is the largest insurer and the largest it, california, and it is planning on raising premiums for many individual policy hardeholders s

much as 30% something of this is just a preview of coming attractions if we do not act. premiums will continue to rise. millions more will lose coverage altogether. deficits will continue to grow larger. and we had an obligation, both parties, to tackle this in a serious way. now bipartisanship depends on a willingness among both democrats and republicans to put aside matters of parties for the good of the country. i will not hesitate to embrace a good idea for my friends in the minority party, but also will not hesitate to condemn what i consider to be obstinacy rooted not in substantive disagreement but then political experience. we talk about this also. particularly when it comes to the confirmation process. i respect the role of the senate to advise and consent, but for months qualified, non- controversial nominees for

positions in the government, often those related to national security have been held up despite having an overwhelming support. menominee for one important job, the head of general services administration which helps to run the government was denied a vote for nine months. when she finally got a vote on her nomination she was confirmed 96-0. that is delayed and obstruct cannot advise and consent. one senator had put a hold on every single nominee we put forward due to a dispute over couple of remarks in his state. in our meeting i asked the congressional leadership to put a stop to these holds an which nominees for critical jobs are denied for months. surely we can set aside partisanship to do what has traditionally been done, to confirm nominations. if the senate does not act to confirm these nominees, i will

consider making several recess appointments during the upcoming recess. we cannot allow politics to stand in the way of a well- functioning government. my hope is that this will be the first of a series of serious meetings with the leadership of both parties and congress. we have to get past the tire debates that have played politics and it left behind nothing but soaring debt and mounting challenges, greater hardships among american people. and extraordinary frustrations among the american people. those frustrations are what led me to run for president. as long as i'm here in the washington i am set to track make this work on everyone's behalf. i will take a couple of questions. >> john boehner said the senate and house cannot pass the bills

they want to it, so what would we have a conversation about bills that cannot pass? they said you should start over entirely from scratch on health care reform. >> here is how responded to john in the meeting and have said this publicly before -- there are some court goals that have to be met. we have got to control costs, but for families and businesses, but also for our government. everybody out there who talks about deficits has to rick knowledge that the single biggest driverñi is health care spending. we cannot deal with our deficits long term unless we get a handle on that. it has to be part of a package. number two -- we have to deal with insurance abuses that affect millions of americans who have health insurance. number three, we have to make health insurance more available to people in the individual market. those in the california who are

suddenly seen their premiums go up 39%. it applies to the majority of small businesses as well as a sole proprietors. they are struggling. i have these goals. we had a package as we work through the differences between house and senate. we will put it up on the website for all to see over a long period of time. one that meets those goals. when i was in baltimore talking to house republicans they indicated that we can accomplish some of these at no cost. i said great. let me see it. i have no interest in doing something that is more expensive and harder to accomplish when someone else has an easier way. i will be starting from scratch in the sense that i will be open to any ideas that help promote these goals. what i will not do, what i do not think makes sense or the american people want to see

would be another year of partisan wrangling around these issues. another six or eight or nine months' worth of hearings in every single committee in the house and senate during which there is a lot of posturing. let's put the best ideas on the table with the relevant parties. i hope this we can find enough overlap to say -- this is the right way to move forward, even if i don't get everything i want. here is the point made to john boehner and 2 mitch mcconnell -- bipartisanship cannot be that i agree to all the things that they believe in or want, and they agreed to none of the things i agree in or want. that is the price of bipartisanship. but that is sometimes the way it's presented. mitch mcconnell said something nice and the the meeting about how he supports calls on nuclear

energy and clean coal technology and more drilling to increase oil production -- well, of course he likes that. that is part of the republican agenda for energy which i accept. i am willing to move off some of the preferences of my party in order to meet them halfway, but there has got to be some give from their side as well. that is true on health care, energy, financial reform -- that is what i'm hoping to get accomplished in the senate. what i agree with is that the public has soured on the process they saw over the last year. i think that actually contaminates held the view the substance of the bills. it is important for all these issues to be aired so people have confidence that we're moving forward on such a

significant part of the economy as health care. that there is complete transparency and all these issues have been adequately veted and debated. this gives an opportunity not just for democrats to say here is what we think we should do, but also gives republicans a showcase before the entire country to say here is our plan, what we think this will work. one of the things that john boehner and mitch mcconnell both said was that they did not think the status quo was acceptable. they're right there is promising. it indicates that all sides agree we cannot just continue with business as usual, then maybe we can get something done. >> one of the reasons and come lacrosse says it is raising its premiums because so many people are dropping out of coverage because the economy is so bad, and they have people in the pool where people who need medical care, driving up the cost. one of the reasons businesses

are not expanding now in addition to some credit issues -- at least according to business leaders is they say there is an uncertainty of what to plan for. the energy bill, health care -- that is what they say. i'm not saying whether or not it is true. what do you say when you hear that? >> the biggest uncertainty has been a we went through the worst recession since the great depression and people were not sure if the financial system would not down. so, let's be clear about the source of the uncertainty in terms of business of this month over the last several years. a huge contraction, billions of losses in people's 401k's -- people have a lot of debt coming out of the previous decade they still have not workedçó out. the housing market losing value. the good news is that where we were contracting by 6% the economy is now growing by 6%. the ceos i'm talking to say

they're now making investments. i anticipate they are starting to hire a more rapid pace. we would like to feel like washington is working and able to get some things done -- that is what i hear. there two ways of interpreting the issue of uncertainty. one way would be to say, well, we would just goñi back to" we were doing beforeñi on the financial markets. we will not have regulations we need it. we will not make changes in terms of too big to fail. that is not the kind of certainty i think markets need. the need for us to agree on a bipartisan effort to put some rules of the road inñi place so consumers are protected in the financial markets. so we don't have banks too big to fail. we have ways of running them down and protecting the overall system without taxpayer bailout.

that requires legislation. the sooner we get that done the better. the same is true with healthcare. many ceos i hear from will say, boy, we would like to get health care settled one way or the other, but they will acknowledge that when they open their latest invoice with premiums and they find out premiums have gone up 25%, that is the kind of uncertainty that also tamps down business investments. so, my answer would be this -- the sooner the business community has a sense that we have our act together here in washington and can move forward on big, serious issues in a substantive way without a lot of posturing and partisan wrangling, i think the better off the entire country will be. i agree on that. what i think is important is not to buy into the notion that is perpetrated by some of the

business interests who got a stake in this to our fighting financial reform, to say we would be doing fine if we did not try to regulate banks. that --would be a mistake. [inaudible] [unintelligible] you have advanced bold action. a small business might say they don't know how this are that will affect me and a better hold off on hiring. >> yes, i have been talking to a lot of small businesses as i have been traveling over the last several months around the country. the biggest problem is right now that they can i get credit from the banks. ñiñiñrand they're still uncertan about orders. do they have enough customers to justify doing more? it looks better at this point,

but that is not the rationale for people saying i am not hiring. ñimost small businesses have enough customers toñi make a profit and can get bank loans required to boost their payroll, customers -- those that can will do so. çólet'sñiçó see, you heard of mcconnell talk about nuclear power, offshore drilling, a free trade. will your party go for that? >> i think that on energy there should be a bipartisan agreement that we have to take of both and approach rather than an either/or approach. i am very firm in my conviction that the country that leads the way in clean energy, solar,

wind, by a diesel, geothermal -- that country will win the race in the 21st century global economy. we have to move in that direction. what is also true is that given our energy needs in order to continue economic growth to produce jobs, make sure businesses are competitive around the world, that we will need some of the old, traditional energy sources as we are developing these new ones and ramping them up. we cannot overnight convert to an all-solar or all-wind economy. it cannot happen. we will have it needs from these traditional sources. the question is, will we be able to put together a package that includes safe, secure, nuclear power? that includes new technologies so we can use coal which we have an abundance of and it is cheap

-- but often it is adding to greenhouse gases. can we find technology to clean that up? can we identify opportunities to increase our oil and natural-gas production in a way that is environmentally sustainable? that should be part of a package with our development of clean energy. and my hope is that my republican friends, but also democrats say to themselves, let's be practical and do both. let's not just do one or the other. let's do both and overtime i think the transition will be more and more clean energy. and over time fossil fuels become less prominent in our overall energy mix. but we have to do both. >> what kind of consensus will there be for that kind of double-edged approach?

>> i am an eternal optimist. it is the right thing to do. and all i can do is to keep on making the argument about what is right for the country. and assume that over time people regardless of party, regardless of their particular political positions are going to gravitate towards the truth. ok. i will take two more. let's see, -- well, i just want to make sure that i'm getting a balance here. go ahead, a check. why is everybody moaning about that? -- go ahead, chuck. >> we got the news that iran is trying to enhance more of this

uranium. secretary gates today said that basically the dialogue seems to be over and now the question is sanctions. where are we on sanctions? how close is this? you had an end of the year deadline. it is now february. how quickly is this going? >> fairly quickly. i think that we have a bent over backwards to say to the islamic republic of iran that we're willing to have a constructive conversation about how they can align themselves with international norms and rules, and re-enter as full members of the international community. the most obvious attempt was when we gave them an offer that said we're going to provide the

conversion of some of the low, enriched uranium they already had into the isotopes they need for their medical research and for hospitals that would serve up to 1 million iranian citizens. they rejected it. although one of the difficulties in dealing with iran over the past several months, it is not always clear who is speaking on behalf of the government. we get mixed signals. what is clear is they have not said yes to an agreement that russia, china, germany, france, great britain, and the u.s. also was a good deal. the director of the iaea said

was a good deal and that iran should accept. that indicates to us that despite their posturing, their nuclear power is only for civilian use, that they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weapon is asian. that is not acceptable to the international community, not only to the united states. we're moving on. if you want to accept the kinds of agreements with the international community that lead you down a path of of being a member of good standing, then we welcome you. if not -- >> by deciding to do what they did it? >> if not, the next step is sanctions. they have made their choice so far although the door is still open. what we will be working on over

the next several weeks is developing a significant regime of sanctions that will indicate to them how isolated they are from the international community as a whole. meaning that there will -- we are going to be looking at a variety of ways in which countries indicate to iran that their approach is unacceptable. the united nations will be one aspect of that broader effort. >> [inaudible] >> well, we are confident right now that the international community is unified around iran's misbehavior in this area. how jun operates at the security council as we pursue sanctions is something we will have to see. one thing i am pleased about is how forward-leaning the russians have been.

-- how china operate is something we will see. russia has seen that iran has not been serious about solving what is it a solvable dispute between them and the international committee. one laue >> thanks for joining us. on health care, the republicans are asking about the february 25th session closed to economists and special-interest groups -- or will just beçó the members of congress? on anthem across the you have the authority toñi tell a privae company they cannot charge? >> i do not have any authority as i understand to issue an executive order lowering som everyone's rates -- if i could i would have already done that and save myself grief on capitol hill. that is why reform is important and the status quo is not acceptable.

but there is no short cut in dealing with this issue. i know the american people get frustrated in debating something like health care because you get a whole bunch of different claims being made by different groups, different interests. it is a big, complicated, tough issue, but what is also true is that without some action on the part of congress it is very unlikely that we see any improvement over the current trajectory which is that premiums keep going up 10, 15, 20, 30%. it would be that more and more people are losing health care. during the healthcare debate everyone was saying that the president is trying to take over, the government takeover of

health care. for the first time this year you saw more people getting health care from government than from the private sector. not because of anything we did, but because more people are losing their health care from their employers. it is becoming unaffordable. that is what we are trying to prevent. we want people to get health care from their employers, but also understand you have to fix the system so people are able to get it at affordable rates and small businesses can give their employees affordable insurance. your question concerning february 25. my hope is that this does not end up being political theater as i think some people have phrased it. i want a substantive discussion. we have not refined exactly how the agenda will go that day. i want to talk with both

democratic and republican leaders to find out what they think would be most useful. i do want to make sure that there are some people like the congressional budget office, for example, who are considered non- partisan who can answer questions there. in the whole health care debate i am reminded of the story told about senator moynihan who was having an argument with a colleague and a colleague was losing the argument. he got flustered and said to senator moynihan, i am entitled to my own opinion. the senator said your entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. that is the key to a successful dialogue on the 25 around health care. let's establish common facts. let's establish with the issues, problems are and test in front

of the american people what ideas work and which do not. if we can establish a factual accuracy about how different approaches would work, then i think we can make some progress. it may be that some of the fact that come up are ones that make my party a little uncomfortable. if it is established that by working seriously on medical malpractice and tort reform that we can reduce some of those costs, i have said from the beginning of the debate that i would be willing to work on that. on the other hand, if i am told that that is only a fraction of the problem and not the biggest driver of health-care costs, then i'm also going to insist -- ok, let's look at that is one aspect, but what else?

this returns to the point i was making earlier. bipartisanship does not simply mean that democrats give up everything they believe in to find the handful of things that republicans have been advocating for and we do those things. and then that is bipartisanship. that is not how works in any other rolrealm of life -- it is certainly not help works in my marriage with michelle, although usually do give in. there must be give and take. that is what i'm hoping can be accomplished. that is what the american people are looking for. all right? ok, i will make this the last one. jobs question. >> republicans say the package

we have seen is not really ready and we're worried about the cost. is there something that can be quickly moved through congress? cook's first of all, the house has moved fourth a jobs package with some good elements. my understanding is there are bipartisan talks taking place as we speak. that is on the senate side. there are some things a lot of people agree on. just to give you an example, the idea of eliminating capital gains for small business. something we can all agree on. i talk about it at the state of the union. my hope would be we can all agree on a mechanism to get community banks who are lending to small businesses more capital. because that is something i keep on hearing is one of the biggest problems small businesses have out there. i think it is realistic for us to get a package moving quickly

that may not include all the things i think need to be done, and it may be that the first package build some trust and confidence that democrats on capitol hill can work together, and we move on to the next aspect of the package and so forth. it may take a series of incremental steps, but the one thing in clear about is that we have an economy that is growing now, a huge boost in productivity. that is the good news. the bad news is companies still have not taken the final step in putting people on the payroll full-time. we are seeing an increase in temporary workers, but they have not yet taken on that full-time worker. so, providing for the additional impetus to them right as the economy is moving in a positive

direction i think will yield up good results. >> when can we see you again? >> tune in to booktv for a three-day weekend. authors include henry paulson talking to warren buffett. pulitzer prize winner and a store and on health the atomic bomb changed the presidency and the one role of the u.s. and in the world. it will be reoffered sunday night and all day monday. books on american presidents. for the complete schedule go to booktv.org. "washington journal" is next. we'll take your calls. coming up, an update on the senate's job bills with ian swanson.