the fourth point, the whole world knows i want to reemphasize that we seek friendship. . bee

>> i'd advise them to embrace honesty so that the nation of iran and the region will trust them. this is to their benefit. we expect that mr obama will make changes, to be able to make changes and we will announce that we are going to help. we are told that he is in -- he is under pressure. very well. he should act on the basis of justice in respecting our nation. giving in to pressures will not result in a problem.

regretfully, we hope to reform -- it is rapidly turning into disappointment. we do not want this. we, some said that he is just following bush's's attitude but with a new literature, with in new mask. ed we do not want such remarks to be -- we do not want such remarks to be admitted. the analysis of the political scene is just aimed at mending the tarnished image of the u.s., but the policies are the same. we do not what -- once such analyses to come true.

-- we do not want such analyses to come true. also, we once them to make proper compensation for bush's in human measures -- in human measures. we do not once mr. obama to be under the pressure of the zionist culture. unfortunately, he is losing the chances. in not acting properly. he is moving in the direction -- against the american people. the american administration has been against us for many years. even in the course of the latest

work, they supported sit down. then under the pretense of countering said tom and the baa thist elements, they have recently used the political tactic in the iraqi government's to return them to power. what sort of attitude is this? why do you want to go to your wishes and views for the wishes of the region? due to the blessings of god, and you will not succeed. in palestine, the hands of the criminal zionist are open. in fact, you want to just put into practice your wishes.

this is an ugly measure that you seek to perform. but they should know the zionist regime has come to its end. it is -- it is bringing closer to the time of destruction. hundreds of people have established and a daily basis under the guise of security companies, the companies they plan to bomb. at the same time, they are responsible for the skirmishes and conflict. they want to cause disruptions in afghanistan, pakistan, india, in china.

the long term objectives -- the one to transfer the economic and political difficulties to the heart of asia. they want to compensate for their own failures in this region. they sell hundreds of millions of dollars of weapons to the region. they create conflicts. and they sell more inside the era of such acts of deception. and they think so the nation's are asleep and they think that the nations do not see this reality. they think the nation see the world from the camera they have installed. they have come to their podiums and they speak a few words, and the world nation sees them from

their perspective. we want to tell them that we watch your -- we want youñi to achieve your prosperity. you should correct your attitude. you should be moving the direction of nations, humanity, the profits of god. this is for your own benefit. -- the prophets of god. this is for your own benefit. one can witness your collapse and your eternal in isolation and to many -- humiliation. if you show honesty, the iranian nation is ready to help you in order to save you from a

deadlock the side others. you can live along with others in our right way. i also want to address the nations of the region. maintain your vigilance. the capitalist system has come to its end. today, the massive turnout of the iranian nation today is an emphasis on the ending of the capitalist system. ed and it is a confirmation of the determination -- and it is a confirmation of the determination of such inhumane notions of thought. they have come to the end. they want to use other -- take

advantage of other nations to cover up their failures. they want to spread crises to other nations such as yemen and find a way out of the crisis created by themselves. they are making another mistake. as long as they go out with their tyrannical measures. -- they will stay in the quagmire they have created. they are creating conflicts, intentions in other regions and countries. everyone must be vigilant in the last days of the lives of the capitalist system. the region through cooperation and our cooperation weekend maintain security and contribute to progress.

this is the price of tomorrow. at the end, i want to appreciate and also prayed to god -- and also prayed to god for the blessings of the great nation of iran. i want to appreciate imam. may god expedite his reappearance. i insist that the iranian nation -- >> president ahmenijad talking at length on the 31st anniversary of the islamic

revolution. he talked about a lot of points. it was actually a good synopsis of what is going on in the world today. just to zoom in on a couple of highlights. that had to deal basically with how the west considers itself, and particularly on to iran. just a quick highlight of iran nuclear drive and enrichment process. he touched on that. although members of the iaea are required to cooperate with the 20% enrichment level, they are not complying with that. countries such as russia and the united states do not comply. if you want an answer, on tuesday, it was the first day of them pursuing enrichment above

20%. he talked about the united states, basically mentioning the wars in iraq and afghanistan and pakistan and how the world has opened their eyes to see how the united states is exerting its influence, even though its failures are becoming more evident in the region. he touched upon the u.s. president, barack obama, that he needs to serve the people and not comply with any of the zionist regime's. also, he said barack obama should compensate for president george bush's human record. lastly, i want to touch on something he said which has always been the focus of the public, the media, the west. and that is that he said iran does not believe in going

after, manufacturing, or pursuing a nuclear weapon program. he said that if he were, he would announce it. however, he said the west is projecting this fabrication onto the world. he said that everyone should wake up and realize that the world is not seen through the lens of the united states. >> the story we are following -- former president bill clinton has been taken to a manhattan hospital this afternoon. an adviser to president clinton said the former president has had two cents -- stents placed in his arteries. the former president is 63 and underwent quadruple bypass surgery at the same hospital two years ago. now to the white house briefing from earlier today. ed white house economic adviser christina romer brief reporters on the annual economic report.

she is followed by press secretary robert kids. this is about -- robert gibbs. this is about an hour. >> good afternoon. i need to get a shot clock up here. [laughter] [unintelligible] well, you know, the president and dr. romer are good examples. i will do two quick examples and i will turn it over to the chair of the president's council of economic advisers. we talked about the reports of the president's. earlier today, president obama called to congratulate the president-elect of cluster rica for her recent wind. the president affirmed his commitment to work in close relations with coast rica on issues including clean energy, a climate change, and security

for the mutual benefit of the citizens of both countries. second, february 18, the president will meet with his holiness the dalai lama. it will take place in the map room in the white house. the president looks forward to an engaging and constructive dialogue. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not have that yet. that is -- the best place that the president felt in the team here felt for the meeting to take place. >> are there diplomatic considerations? >> how so? [unintelligible] no president has met with the dalai lama in the oval office.

i will turn it over and we will talk about the economic reports the president will sign in 20 minutes. >> all right. is a pleasure to be with you all. you have to know that for a share of the council of economic advisers, there is no bigger day and the day her first report before the president comes out. that is what brings us here. for anyone, it would be helpful to get a little bit of background. the employment act of 1936 set up the council of economic advisers to bring the best professional ties to the president on economic matters. also mandated or said it was the role of the federal government's to promote maximum purchasing power, and every year, we submit a report to congress saying how we are doing. this year, the economic report

is the 64th, i believe in this line of clause 6. each economic report does three things. it talks about the economic challenges we face as a country. it talks about what policies were put into place in the previous year and how they worked, and it lays out the president's economic agenda going forward. i would like to think that this year's economic report is particularly important. not because of me, but because of the times we are facing. if you think about the challenges we face, they have probably not for a very long time been so great. these and all the way from -- of course the immediate crisis. if you remember your go, we were losing close to 800,000 jobs per month. real gdp was plummeting. our financial system was very stressed. there were questions about what

would be happening. right? but we also know that there was our reason the president had run for president even before the economic crisis. things like a stagnating in, for middle-class families. health care costs. the fact that we were failing to invest adequately in educating our children for the jobs of the future. investing in an innovation and other things that would help us to grow faster over time. i think that certainly makes this volume important, to document the challenges that we face. the second thing i think is so important about the volume is to put down in one place all the economic actions we have taken, right? it is not surprised the longest chapter in the report is on the rescue, just because it was an economy in terrible crisis. it really goes through laying now not just the american

recovery and reinvestment act, to what the federal reserve did , our housing program. but then it also goes through the policies in place in a lot of other areas. i think it is so easy when you're all thinking about what is going to happen with the health care reform bill. you can remember passing the reauthorization of the children's health program that brought insurance coverage to an additional 4 million children. the go through all of those accomplishments. we're in the middle of financial regulatory reform. let's remember what passed the credit card bill last spring to resolve consumer issues there. it is really about getting a sense of the tremendous amounts that have been accomplished. of course, it lays forward the president's economic agenda. here, i think one thing that is a boy born to keep in mind -- as

an economist, the way we think about economic policy is what is the problem going on in the private market that creates the role for government? so talking through, what are some of the market failures in innovation? what are some of the market failures in our health-care system? what is the motivation behind the president's agenda? one thing, again, that is so important is to see the agenda as a whole. it paints the picture of a delicate -- very well reasoned economy moving forward. in terms of themes, i think it will sound familiar to year. this is something the president has talked about. there are two chapters. what has been done in the united states and in other countries. there are three chapters that allied to refer to as "the rebalancing -- that i like to refer to as "the rebalancing."

the president likes to refer to it as getting away from the bubble and bust. we want to do it in a way where consumers will be saving more in the future. it raises the question -- where is the man going to come from? it's about the importance of spurring exports to make sure there is demand, to keep people employed. there is the budget deficit. that is a big part of the rebalancing. at the same time, we are going to spur investment, and we do need to put in place a plan for getting our long run budget deficit under control. there is our report about where it came from, what the reason is, what to be concerned about it, what it does for the economy. it talks about our concrete proposals for dealing with this. i also put in the end of bubble

and bust financial regulatory reform. there is a nice chapter about where financial crises come from, what international mediation is and why it is important, and the logic of financial regulatory reform proposals. finally, there are chapters the president refers to as "building the economy stronger." we do not want to go back to where we were, but to something better. that is health care, education, the transition to clean energy, spurring innovation in trade. all of these things we can do to make the economy is stronger going forward. the last thing i will mention, in case you're wondering, what is unique about the 64th economic report of the president's -- it is the time. it is the time when economic issues are so incredibly

pressing. i think that makes it special. i think methodology is somewhat different. you know, one of the hallmarks of the obama administration is the reliance on the evidence. you win a policy argument not by shouting the loudest, but having the best argument. i think that is a tribute to this president and the policy process. we try to put forward the good arguments for the policies that have been proposed. there is some of original research a year. there are also references for the first time, so you can see these studies behind some of the things we are talking about. the last thing i will say is it is prettier than ever before. the first time it is printed in color. the first time it will be available in electronic form for your kindle and george stoney reader and what ever -- and

your sony reader. ready for the beach. want to take it from here? >> [unintelligible] >> one thing that leads off the page, even after job growth returns, and you do not see unemployment coming down to 6% until 2015. is that not a pretty bleak assessment of what the obama presidency will deliver? >> the first thing is to remind to this is exactly the same forecast when we did the budget. as we describe that the time, we tried to do it in an honest, a conservative forecast, making sure we based our budget numbers close to the consensus and reasonable forecast. it is important to realize when we did this forecast -- we had a place holder in in there for some targeted jobs measures, but

it did seem very fluid. i know in particular, the council of economic advisers are concerned about the jobs and wages tax credit. it is moving to the house and senate in that area. that is the kind of proposal that might have the chance of moving the dialogue, of being particularly effective. what is really the matter is -- you know, you are right. the forecasts are something to be concerned about. that is what the president has said job creation, more of these movements are going to be improvement -- important going forward. >> the chart was handed out on friday. the whole that we are climbing out of currently stands at 8.4 million lost jobs. again, if you take the recessions of 1981, 1991, and

2001 -- they do not cumulatively = 8.4 million. what most people i think recognize -- it is the worst downturn in our economy -- if you take the worst downturn and most memories, 1981, it does not equal the downturn in the economy that we saw. the job growth alone is not all of that. we had the -- i think the statistic i saw that i probably got from dr. romer was you had consecutive quarters of more than 5%, more than -5% economic contraction for the first time since the great depression. i think it is important to understand the size and magnitude of what we're dealing

with. >> what you just said leads naturally into what some of the critics are saying. what you just described is documenting the challenges. is it really an exercise in blame shifting? >> we lost jobs. that is not blame shifting. it is a fact. we were averaging 700,000 jobs lost all month in that order is a fact. the fact that the notion that we are where we are, losing -- in november we had positive job growth, but you're getting much closer to the margin of zero. that is a fact. this is not blame shifting. look. there are millions of people who have lost their jobs. they lost their jobs because we have a risky financial system. the president wants financial regulatory reform to lay down the walls of the road. we have a bubble and bust economy.

where we thought job growth could be predicated on the availability of an american express card -- that is not going to get fixed overnight. it is not going to happen again. we have to lay a foundation for the fact that -- how do we address the fact that largely for the last decade we did not create jobs, and people saw their wages flat line or stagnate? those are monumental challenges. whose fault is will be decided by history. there are 8.4 million people who do not care about history. they want jobs. >> i want to add -- the report is all facts. it is not trying to shift blame. it is just trying to said here are the challenges we face. that is what the economic report is supposed to do.

it supplies the motivation for policies going forward. >> [unintelligible] that is pretty tepid growth. i am wondering if you are saying -- if we get the jobs filled, to you think the job growth can be stronger than not? ford does that assume that? >> 95,000 is conservative. i think the blue-chip came out and the house a question. they think on average in 2010 it will be 116,000 jobs a month. you're in a range of other forecasts. i think that is a reasonable estimate. it is our best going forward. it did not take into account the specific form of any jobs growth. another is a lot of uncertainty about what will come up of congress. there is uncertainty about what will be proposed.

small-business lending, the jobs and business tax credit, the energy program -- rethink those will be particularly affected. what the president is going to do is bring his plan before congress, and we will see if we can get better performance. >> what about the republican argument that a holding back on hiring is the uncertainty, making businesses more cautious? >> having talked to a number business people, especially i really found our jobs summit useful -- what i hear is the main uncertainty they face is the economy. is the legislation. it is whether the demand is going to be there. i think that is exactly what the president is focused on. by doing these kinds of policies that he proposes, i think that

is going to be the main thing that helps us to resolve that uncertainty. the more we can get good growth like we see in gdp, i think that is going to help. >> does your jobs forecasts assume no more government stimulus? >> this is the forecast that went into the budget. it is designed to be opposed- policy forecast. >> some jobs -- >> it has a target kind of thing, but not the format. one of the things i tried to describe is we had some ideas about the format. >> there is another element that came out today. are you concerned this number will keep growing, and there'll be some many -- there'll be some many and it will grow, and when

does it stop growing? >> certainly, foreclosures are a big issue. housing in general is a big issue. it is discussed in chapter two and a chapter four. going forward, what do we think is likely to happen when we go back to full in employment? housing has been a part of for this crisis started, with the decline in housing prices and the problems certainly there. that is why we had an aggressive housing program. that describes in detail, in chapter two. that is one of the head winds that we are facing. part of the reason why we are seeing growth, coming out of this recession, a lot people are forecasting 3% gdp growth in 2010. we are still facing headwinds. it has been a terrible recession. part of that is the financial crisis. part of that is getting landing

back. part of that is going to be the problems in housing. i think that is coming to be something we are working against. we do think we have good policies in place, but it is something we're going to have to be working -- we are going to have to deal with. >> you say it is a conservative forecast, and you may recall a time when it was 8.5% unemployment, and it went up, of course, to 10%. was there an effort to avoid being optimistic so you did not get burned politically down the road? did anyone in a senior position or the president tell you not to be so optimistic so you did not get burned politically? but would try to do best pecan. we do not have a crystal ball. -- we try to do the best we can. we do not have a crystal ball. we are basing our assumptions on the best possible forecasts we can.

we try to inform our decisions by what people talk about. one of the things i do want to mention, and that think i mentioned this at the budget press conference, and peter ortzag said "i told you so." we did not forecast how high unemployment would rise. we worked remarkably accurate on gdp. we know that over 2009, real gdp grew by 0.1%. our prediction was 4.3%. but for quite accurate on gdp. -- our prediction was 0.3%. we have been unusually hard on the labour force, and the usual relationship between gdp and the

unemployment rate has broken down somewhat. the unemployment rate has risen much more than one would have predicted, based on the behavior of unemployment. >> the had occasion to talk about this on many outings here. nobody predicted " we saw at the beginning -- nobody predicted what we saw at the beginning of the first quarter of 2009. in fact, there was a revision that took us from 740 to 763. these numbers are being constantly revise. the bottom line is, nobody had a full grasp -- us included -- on just how deep this was. that is not to blame anybody. that is just to understand the severity, the slope in which we saw a job loss was on forseen, not just by us, but by virtually

everybody that enters into a tide of forecasting. >> there is a table in the economic report that shows what other people are forecasting, to give you the facts on the degree to which the world was changing very quickly. i have one minute. >> the report talks about inequality, but it does not make specific recommendations on. how seriously should this be treated now? >> and a that is an issue the president feels deeply about. the hubble -- we have a whole chapter on strengthening the american labor force. certainly in terms of this recession, the degree to which different demographic groups, young people, latin americans, have seen higher and parades relative to the average. the message of that chapter, and

i know i have for the president talk about it -- it is how important education is in trying to even the playing field and prepare all of our children for the good jobs in the future. i think that is a big part of where i see our economic agenda. >> we have to let dr. romer go. >> alright. thank you so much. >> [unintelligible] the point the president raised. civilians wrote him letters saying "justify all this." to responded, basically is because people are opting out. we are losing money. are you satisfied -- >> i think they made a $2.7 billion profit last year.

>> are you not satisfied -- >> that is not economic parlance for just breaking even. when health cancellation goes up at 4%, 5%, the company makes a $2.7 billion profit and turns around and increase its rates in the individual market by nearly 40%, i think there is some explaining and investigation needs to be done. i think it also underscores more than ever why the case the president made about helping people, particularly on the individual market, why that is so important. creating a national exchange, a national pool that can have greater purchasing power -- one

of the things the health care reform bill called for, something that is needed in this region and throughout the country, i will look through and get a detailed response to the letter. i have not seen the response. help cancellation is not rising at nearly that level -- health cancellation is that rising nearly that level. the their profit looks quite nice. they need to explain how that number was derived. >> the white house warned earlier about a crackdown surrounding the anniversary of the revolution, and there have been reports of a crackdown. i was wondering if you could give your reaction. >> we continue to monitor events as they happen and get the best information, understanding that.

googol and other services have been basically on ploy. the president made it clear in his speech in oslo that we will stand by universal human rights. we can do so without intimidation or violence. iranians have gone into the streets, to do that in a peaceful way. we continue to express our condemnation and dismay for any violence that should happen as a result of exercising this universal rights. >> [unintelligible] >> i should check. i saw some females around this yesterday. -- i saw some emails around this

yesterday. >> the head of iran u.s. atomic energy committee has just caution the president against taking what he calls "rahm the steps." he says "do not test iran." >> i think iran has made a series of statements that are series oeì(lc@&c+nts that are are. but they are based on politics. the iranian nuclear program has undertaken, has undergone a series of problems throughout the year. quite frankly, what ahmenijad said -- he says many things. many of them turn out to be untrue. we do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching. i will also say this. they are serious about the

peaceful use of their nuclear program, then what they should have done is have taken more seriously the pteron nuclear research reactor. in richmond at 20% is what the united states and the iaea, and its partners recommended, so patients could have access to these isotopes. iran cannot continue to operate the trr at its current pace. not taking the iaea and its partners on a common-sense offer, it leads the world to believe that iran has other ideas. that is why -- and i would say this -- the actions of iran have

led the world to be more unified than virtuallyñi at any other point in the past few years. they have brought forward, through their actions, through their statements, our partners in the p5 plus one are moving forward to take those steps. >> [unintelligible] >> you saw yesterday, the treasury institute, the sanctions on the irtc. the next phase of this, the president talked about the multifaceted. there'll be more faces, -- phases, including the nine nations. >> [unintelligible] why should the leaders of iran -- [unintelligible]

>> look, jake, as you said, the president is working with our partners on making that happen. this did not happen in times square when the ball hit zero. this is going to take some important time. understand this, jake. our allies are more united than they have ever been. to take actions and consequences based on the statements and the actions of the iranians. >> is there talk about sanctions going forward? >> we believe that the chinese will continue to play a constructive role. they worked with us, again very constructive late on the un resolutions dealing with north korea. i think we and they believe is not in their interest to have a world arms race. it is certainly not in their interest economically to have an

arms race in the middle east. >> that is not really answer as to whether going for -- >> we are working with our other partners in the p5 plus one. this will go through a process in the united nations. >> when will that start? >> it already has. >> [unintelligible] >> the process of devising this, as you know, has already started. >> what about whether or not china will support sanctions, or are you still working on -- >> i am not going to get into the back and forth of diplomatic negotiations. it is in everybody's interest not to have an international arms rate. >> you have the problems you are talking about right now. you need china's help on on many issues.

>> we have said this all along. first of all, we talked to the chinese about their currency in beijing. we talked about the dalai lama in beijing. we talked about internet freedom with the chinese during the shanghai town hall meeting. i think we have a mature enough relationship with the chinese that we can agree on issues of mutual interest, but we also have a mature enough relationship that we know that there are two countries involved will not agree on everything and we will have the disagreements. " there are a couple of things -- >> there are a couple of things i wonder if you can comment on [unintelligible] ] >> no. >> the other one is there has been reports of the recovery commission with bill clinton. >> i will check on that. i do not have an answer to that. >> i have a question i asked dr.

romer. not looking back at much of the incorrect, understandably incorrectçó projections unemployment, but whether anybody in the white house -- >> of course not. of course not. >> that has never come up? >> of course not. >> to what degree does the administration, not just based on the report, but look at the recovery act and any other legislation by the bush administration? >> i can -- i doubt dr. romer has broken it out to that degree. obviously, she has, cbo has underscored the job growth we have seen under the recovery act. i think we have seen the recovery act spur economic growth, two consecutive quarters of positive economic growth. we will not have jobs growth

without first having economic growth. i think the recovery act as created -- has created jobs, and it has created an environment for economic growth that we believe will ultimately lead businesses to hire workers. >> states in the mid-atlantic, md. -- [unintelligible] >> i do not want to pre-judge what they may ask for. those disaster declarations go to fema. they are evaluated. all this, we've seen extraordinary amount of winter weather here in the atlantic, having shovel my driveway what seems like 10,000 times. i can testify to that. i do not want to pre-judge what

each locality might ask for in particular. those declarations come from the state and locality in the case of the district of columbia to fema. >> is the president's satisfied with the way that snow removal has been handled? >> i am reminded -- again as a shovel my driveway, there are no statistics on record or -- if there was a fall that exceeded what we had this winter, it happened before they kept statistics on snowfall during the winter. i think everybody understands that what we have seen here is extraordinary. look. obviously it has been an

overwhelming weather event. under the opm and others are working to get as much clearer -- >> [unintelligible] >> john? >> is the government considering having federal workers make up snow days? >> i need to check withopm on that -- i need to check with opm on that. >> why has the president not gotten the shovel out? >> because he is the luckiest man on the planet. it is a great deal. >> the longest chapter in the economic report is chapter two on the response to the crisis. the president's message at the beginning is unusually long. i wonder if you think this is more of a political document

then passed economic reports and you are using this as a justification for policy rather than an expedition of the state of the union? >> look, this is the first time this has been annotated with references as to where the facts were derived from. this is an actual report to the president on the state of the economy and where it is headed. we do not need a report from dr. romer to justify taking extraordinary measures to save our economy. i do not think you need -- i do not think you need more evidence that something had to be done. and i think we know this. had nothing been done, that hold that i talked to mark about would be far cheaper -- that hole that i talked to mark about would be far deeper.

what may help many of you understand is the genuine severity of what we were dealing with. and what we are still dealing with. the recession started mathematically in december 2007. we are still in a time where we have not seen consistent job growth. this was economic devastation on seen since the late 1920's. >> the white house has been accused of [unintelligible] >> let me address that. let's understand this. he has been working in counter- terrorism for years. he was hired by george w. bush. he worked for the cia. ok? we asked him to stay on.

i do not have the slightest idea what political party john brennan is a member of. i have never had a political conversation with john. i know this. he is there in each and every day, working in his office to do everything he can to keep the american people say. and i would suggest whether it is to senator bond or others on capitol hill, this is the decision best left to people with experience in counter- terrorism and montfort's but, rather than politicians. >> is he being used in a way a press secretary would? is he annunciating -- >> i do not think kit bond would like to hear what he already knew. which is that he had been told macdill mottola -- abdullah was

in fbi custody. at that point, it would have been obvious he would have been read his miranda rights. i do not know whether kit bond is confused or does not want to admit the fax. >> [unintelligible] >> i think there is discussion of him doing that at the end of this week or over the weekend. i would say this. i think the bill also contains something exactly that he has spoken for many times, a very simple concept of paying for what you want to do. ñri do not know the coverage pls are. >> i want to follow up on the question regarding google. is there any concern that iran is actions could indicate

regimes will be targeting u.s. companies and internet freedoms in general? >> i think that has been happening for quite some time. i do not think this is -- i do not think access to the internet and open communications is something that just happened recently. a think this is happen for awhile. you heard the president in shanghai speak about it as it relates to china. i do not have the specifics to the degree to which googles brought its -- google brought its concerns to us. >> so you do not know whether it is escalating? " i will check on that. >> i believe secretary clinton is going to the middle east later this week. does she have any goals for that trip? >> this is part of the weekly meeting.

i assume there will be a number of topics discussed. she and others are traveling in the next few days and few weeks to the middle east, and we want to continue to make progress, get these two parties back at the table. >> our reporter out of damascus said syria accepted a new ambassador there. can you confirm -- >> i can check on that. >> [unintelligible] >> president told bloomberg business week in the context of a conversation about dealing with the deficit -- the whole point is to make sure all ideas are on the table. that was in -- that was right after the interviewer suggested the context in which he would be willing to raise taxes -- >> he answer the question when he was asked did the first time.

the whole point of this is to make sure all ideas are on the table and see what folks can come up with. so what the president was saying, which i think -- the president will set up a commission. he is not a member of that commission. the president is not going to pre-judge the outcome of a commission he is setting up on an issue as important as getting our deficit and debt under control. that is up to the commission. i would tell you, major, that i would hope republicans -- many of whom supported the commission before they had to vote on ants, and in a magically did not support it, we hope when the president signs the executive order and announces his picks for the commission, i hope it they will take part in it -- i hope they will take part in that commission. >> [unintelligible] >> the snow got us off track.

it will be in the next 10 days or so. >> what about what he said during the campaign? >> he is not a member of this commission. i think the president has demonstrated through cutting taxes for middle-class families and holding the line on -- the president does not believe our economic growth should be predicated on raising taxes on middle-class families. that being said, the president is that going to get into the game of pre-judging the outcome of the commission that has not been set up format. >> any tax increase he out line during the campaign? but he does, and he will not preach -- >> he does and he will not reach to the commission. >> [unintelligible] >> i am not going to check on that. >> i want to ask you one question. if -- i know each case is

different. there are different scenarios. would you handle it -- >> i will say this. we are quite comfortable with the way this was handled. i am not going to get into hypothetical, major, because this case is different than what happened september 11. this case is different from the details of what happened with richard reid. it is hard to compare apples to oranges. >> is one of the actions always to look back? have you found ways to improve methodology? >> i know that john brennan has been passed in a process to implement changes based on the report that the president originally got on the intelligence failures. the president asked for us to examine all of what was done

that day and the days after to ensure we were doing this the best way possible. that is the president's role. that is what he has to do. >> several economists agree the president was wrong when he said he did not begrudge wall street bonuses. >> the president did not say that. >> in saying what they said he said. >> let's not play hypothetical. no, no, no. i, like most of the american people, do not begrudge people's success or wealth. you and i talked about this. i understand. i understand the question was about bonuses. the president on five different occasions -- just like i e-mail view yesterday -- causing you to reexamine what you had written, the president was talking in

that sentence, as he has done many times -- he does not believe the federal government should be setting salaries for businesses in america. . . >> the president has said these ought to be based on performance and not risk taking.

there should be a say on page. these salaries and bonuses are extraordinary. >> are those of seen bonuses? >> the president has spoken repeated -- are these obscene bonuses? >> the extraordinary has spoken repeatedly and called them shocking. >> are they a violation? >> he has a different view on bonuses yesterday then 10 days ago. insuring the bonuses are paid in that way is a movement in the right direction. does that justify the level of these bonuses?

without the tax payer money, would these banks even exist? of course not. >> the senator says he wants to help out. had you account for this apparent goodwill -- how do you account for this apparent goodwill? >> it indicates is all frozen over. let's take these individually. the finance committee is working in a bipartisan way on a series of measures to create an environment where hiring can take place as well as to extend things like unemployment compensation and health care for people who have lost their jobs. the senator has been very active in this process, in the process

of financial reform. i think there are certainly many in this town that want to deal with the problems people face, whether it is creating jobs for ensuring we have rules for the road that protect against the type of excessive risk-taking that lead to the near-collapse of our financial system and with it, the economy. i hope many have learned the lesson that you hear and see people talking all the time, that they want this town to put aside its petty argument. at this point in president bush's tenure, there were six nominees who had been sitting there for a month or more. this president had 63.

he said that is a quantitative and qualitative difference. i think all of these are examples of through their importance to people's lives the they believe washington should put aside petty games and get something done. >> the president has been talking about the more and more this year. are they responding to that kind of political pressure from the president? >> i think they are responding to the political pressure from the president. i think they are also responding to the pressure from the american people. the president tried to go to capitol hill to talk to house republicans about the recovery. they put out a statement opposing the plan before the president even got to capitol hill. the president spent a lot of time trying to work with republicans on health care, only to have very few respond.

the president will continue to try to do this in an effort to demonstrate to the american people that this town is capable of solving the problems we face. >> i wanted to ask you on iran for a minute. given what has been coming out of the iranian leadership in the past week, has the president had any sort of everything -- rethink about the process? >> we would not be here were it not for engagement. >> what about -- >> putting aside it was a point when these countries had never been more united in dealing with the threat from a run. he wanted me to leave aside the

united front? >> i want you to put aside the united front and the p 5 plus one and ask about the relationship between the united states and iran. you see any difference then, and you think there is any rethink. >> we demonstrated -- is demonstrated to the world that these were decisions that were not going to be made by the united states or by russia or china. these were things that were going to be made by iranians. sometimes it has been confusing. sometimes they accepted ideas and agreements only to come back a week later and not accept them, and whether or not there is one or two voices in iran speaking for the iranian regime or whether there are many conflicting voices, i will let

others decided, but because we engaged, it demonstrated to the world of the choices iran made worse choices it alone had to vouch for. the tape ran research reactor was a good example. -- the tehran reactor was a good example. they are going to run out of the types of isotopes in their country. if your program is peaceful, why not except the help of the ieañi in ensuring the health and safetyñr of your people? they are walking away from that agreement, demonstrating for the world to steve -- see what their

intentions really are. >> [unintelligible] >> this is a process that has begun at the united nations, and i do not want to get too far into that. the you believe the haitian government has properly carried out the judicial process concerning americans who have been held? >> i have not have a lot of time to attend the haitian judicial process, but i know they have had contact with the haitian judicial system.

>> the vice president said iraq could end up being one of the greatest achievements. given the the president opposed assurgent of help stabilize it, how does one of the -- how is but one of the president's greatest achievements? >> giving our troops back home, which we intend to do in august of this year. but the agreement to bring troops home was signed before the president took office. >> something i think the political pressure the president helped to bring about. we will long debates iraq. we will long debate whether an important effort in our efforts against terrorism, whether we

took our eye off the ball. i think they will come likely to the conclusion no single event took our eye off of what needed to be done in order to occupy a country that until we got there did not have a single member of all kinda -- al qaeda. the president has been deeply involved in fixing the political process so elections can be held and so our troops can come home as scheduled this summer. >> if you're the average iranian, and you're hearing about the possibility of more sanctions, what can you do to insure the sanctions will be targeted against organizations associated with the government and thought it -- not them

specifically. are you worried it will only help solidify the hold of the iranian government over the people? >> i think the government's hold over those people over the past many months is in many ways called into question. i do not want to get into the specifics of what is being worked through except to say that obviously we do not want to see a the backsliding and to do things that risk putting the political changes clearly happening in that country, to see them fall back. all of that is being taken into account, even as the world demands not just the three

public knowledge the universal rights of its citizens but also that it live up to the agreement around their nuclear partner. >> the congresswoman has called it nothing but a p.r. stunt. have you been told the republican leadership is going to attend? the arguments they made was that the president hadn't sat down with republicans enough's and talked with them about health care. i cannot imagine a conceivable

scenario in which, after having that invitation, you would say -- i know for nine months i said i wanted that, but i cannot possibly fit it into my schedule now. it just seems silly. >> are you proceeding on the assumption there will be a meeting and there will be republicans at the table? >> absolutely. it would demonstrate a lot about the willingness of those to actually solve problems of the american people. i know sometimes when there are good numbers in polls they do not get a lot of attention in this town, but the washington post poll from a couple days ago had a number of very similar to that of the poll they did with voters after the massachusetts election, and that is that an overwhelming

majority wanted to see the effort to reform health care continue. i think that is important. that is why the president wants to meet with individuals in both parties to talk about a solution. >> hours after the president said he was considering recess, the first question is, has the president given thought to the recent appointment? second, has anyone in the white house been in touch with senator harkin or senator udall on their proposals to reform the filibuster? >> i can recount the story that the president at the meeting a couple days ago. i think it was the last 20 or so menacing were the president

asked specifically about the reason and nature for the holdup of many qualified appointees that were not being held up because of some philosophical or political disagreement. there were 63 that had been sitting for more than a month. senator shelby last week decided to put on hold on everybody because he did not get a couple of earmarks, and it is obvious that was not such a good idea. he pulled back many of those holes. the president said clearly the situation we have is quantitatively and qualitatively different than it was a the beginning of the administration.

if it did not change, the president would use his power for appointments. >> was there discussion about becker? >> there was not a discussion about any individuals. the president discussed those who had been lying over for more than a month. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> former president bill clinton was taken to a manhattan hospital late this afternoon after complaining about chest pains. according to his adviser, president clinton had two stints inserted into his coronary artery. a bipartisan group of senators

led by john mccain called for new human-rights sanctions on iran. the bill would target specific individuals in iran accused of committing human rights violations. this is just under half an hour. >> today is a momentous day in iran. it is the 31st anniversary of the islamic republic. for most iranians, the islamic republic is only government they have known, and unfortunately, it is a record many would rather forget. 31 years of economic loss and resources of a great and proud nation stolen by ruling elite. 31 years of a regime that put its own self interest and those of terrorist groups ahead of the iranian people. 31 years of justice denied, freedom curtailed, and dignity trampled. in recent months, the world has

watched in on as hundreds of thousands of iranians have said enough and demanded better of themselves and taken to the streets and internet, risking the violent reprisal of regime without conscience in order to insist on universalists human rights. as i speak, iranians are demonstrating peacefully today for justice. they are being beaten in the streets, unlawfully detained, tortured, and worse. these iranians must know the free world and america's most of all favors there just cause. i have long maintained that the day that a young woman bled to death in the streets of iran, it was the beginning of the end of this tyrannical regime, and we americans have an obligation to insist that effort for freedom

and democracy. today, joined by senator lieberman and others, we are introducing legislation to further that cause. basically, the bill has two parts. first, it will require the president to compile a list of individuals in iran, who are complicity in human rights violations against iranian citizens and their families, no matter where in the world those abuses occur. i want to stress, this willçó ba public list posted for the world to see on the web site of the state and treasury departments. we will shine a light on the grounds -- on the crimes against

humanity. freezing assets and blocking any properties, indicating their financial transactions, and if passed into law, this would be the first time the u.s. government has ever imposed punitive measures against persons in iran because of their human rights violations. under this bill, iranian human rights abuses would be completely cut off from the global reach of the u.s. financial system, and that would send a powerful signal to every company and bank in the world that they should think twice about doing business with the oppressors of the iranian people. it should now be clear that the rules of iran -- rulers of iran have no desire to meet their international responsibilities and every desire to use all of the tools of violence and repression at their disposal and to crush the peaceful aspirations of iran's citizens.

faced with this disturbing reality, the united states must lead an effort to support the human rights of the iranian people and to put that effort at the center of our policy towards iran. this is not about picking winners. it is about standing up for the universal values we hold dear and championing the causes of those to secure those values for themselves. the rand human rights sanction act is an important start. i encourage my colleagues -- the iran human rights sanction night is an important start. i encourage my colleagues to push this along. >> this is a significant day in iran, but i hope we will also look like usçó today as a significant turning point within the united states government,

because this is the first time -- if this bill is enacted into law, that the united states government will apply sanctions on people within iran for abusing the rights of the people of iran. we have been focused on the application of sanctions to stop a run's nuclear weapons development program or earlier to stop its support of terrorism. those are external threats iran represents to the region and the world. now we turn inward, and it is quite appropriate, because the government does so brutally suppresses the rights of its own people, a government that lives to its own people in the world about what they're doing within iran, a government that claims to the most democratic in the

region and then is the country were more journalists are in jail then any other country in the world. that government cannot really be trusted in international relations, so i think this is a very significant piece of legislation. i am proud to be a co-sponsor with senator mccain. the abuses of the iranian government against their own people are not just rumors, but in the extraordinary power of modern telecommunications, we see them with our own eyes. we see them today in youtube postings and internet text messages we're getting from people on the streets of iran. as the human rights movement has grown within the country, the

government has increased its suppression or attempt to increase suppression, but i think senator mccain said it right. the day the iranian woman was allowed to bleed to death on the streets of around at the hands of a representative of the iranian government was the beginning of the end of this fanatical, destructive, dangerous regime in tehran. china alleges difficult for people involved in this struggle within iran. i hope this legislation -- i know this is difficult for people involved in this struggle within iran. i hope this sends a message. the fact is this legislation has already won broad bipartisan

support. give we have 10 co-sponsors. republicans, democrats, independents, conservatives, liberals, moderates. i think by the time we move this along, we're going to be supported by maybe every senator. i is thessaly want to -- i especially want to thank senator mccain for the leadership he has given this cause. the fact is john has been a fighter for freedom and of freedom agenda at the center of our foreign policy throughout his career in public service and with his career in uniform before, so we hope this threatens the abusers in iran, and we hope this legislation says to the protesters your struggle thisçó difficult, but s

been the case for those who fight tyrannies, ultimately, the cause of freedom and justice will prevail, and you, the freedom fighters will prevail. >> one of the things we're learning from iranian dissidents and others is that when sanctions are tied to human rights abuses in iran, they will much more likely succeed, and the reason is there is a bit of a debate about whether sanctions imposed on the autonomy of iran will be effective in supporting our business, which is that the iranian government should stop proceeding towards nuclear development, or will cause the people of iran to have a bad reaction toward the west and towards the unitedñr states specifically, for making life di.

what we have heard it and learned is that this initiative, which will gain the support of the people and will most likely to enable the sanctions to be effective. that is part of the theory behind this. it is one of the important reasons for this be done. i just want to point out that he said he knew the day would come when ronald reagan declared the soviet union the evil empire, and freedom did come to him and more. the same support can come for those to demonstrate a on this important day. ñi>> one reason the american people are angry about washington is their perceptive we cannot agree, but today's

announcement stands in stark contrast. we have the independence working together, some of the most conservative members and some of the most liberal members, who have chosen to co-sponsor this legislation. it is a timely announcement. that only is this the 31st anniversary of the united nations, but people are being beaten in the streets as we speak, and their president announced they have perhaps taken major steps. it is in the national security interest of the united states to foster the government so the nation can join the united nations as responsible, rather than a menace that is what today's's announcement is all about. our country is at its best one we align ourselves with freedom.

if you're a journalist in iran, you risk being tortured. if you speak out against the regime, you risk being beaten and killed. we have to stand with the people of iran against that kind of tyranny. the final thing i would say is i have been privileged to serve on the intelligence committees. one of the profound questions we face is what is the editor who radical islam and global terrorism? i believe it is for us to step on the side of freedom, the freedom to enjoy the fruits of your own labor, and to the elected government of your own choosing. when we step on the side of freedom, we send a beacon of hope to those across the world and a message that there is a better way than a government that only retains its power by imprisoning, beating, and killing its own civilians.

that is a process we will win. >> [inaudible] can you talk to me about the also do think there's a sense of rallying people around the world? >> i think actions taken yesterday by the end ministration by imposing some sanctions is very helpful. i think the of ministration is now much more interested in the present then perhaps a year ago. it is pretty obvious the iranians are not going to unclench their fists. i would also like to make a couple of additional points. number one, of the three of us

along with other munich over the weekend. the speaker on friday night with the foreign minister of iran. it would have been amusing if it had not been so tragic in consequences for the american people. çóhe basically denied there were in the human rights violations going on. along with his denial that they were trying to acquire nuclear weapons. just one additional comment. when we help the people and the workers, what we did was provided among other things primarily a printing press so they could get information out to the people and particularly the workers. what we are trying to do with this legislation is healthy iranian dissidents and people

struggling for freedom get the information about, helping them with the modern means of communications that we have today, which the iranian government is trying to restrain. i hope the and administration will now understand that this unclenching of the office has not worked. it has been over a year's delay, and the iranians have proceeded towards the our acquisition of nuclear weapons. >> [inaudible] is this design? >> i just told some folks downstairs of those of you who have been in the senate for some time know that most of the business was conducted by unanimous consent for a bipartisan way. a lot of that is under the

surface. it is the everyday stuff. it might be regional more than partisan, but we do a lot of business, and what we're seeing is other examples of that, as is this announcement by a bipartisan group, and there're others not represented today who really represent both spectrum's, soy think there has been a lot of emphasis to go so things like the health-care debate. the reality is on a lot of things we do get things done, but there are a lot of high- profile things in which there are differences, and we have an obligation to represent our constituents as best we see it, and there will be some differences did to have bipartisan undertones. >> [inaudible]

>> no, i thought i made it clear that most of what we do is done on a bipartisan basis, that there are occasionally high- profile issues that create a very strong views on both sides in which there become partisan divides, and that is the nature of the senate. it is the nature of the political senate. i think far too much is made of that. >> i want to add briefly, because i know the protesters follow what happens here, and i hope they will take this broad bipartisan sponsorship of this measure as an expression of the deep feeling of the american people, that we stand with the green movement in iran, and we stand against a repressive government. >> [inaudible]

what more can and should be done on the front? >> as you know, there is a legislation all of us have been involved in, which imposes a broad set of sanctions as well. financial institutions, refined petroleum, and i do not think there will of qi to comment on this, but i think there is movement. i know senator kerrey has been supportive. this will go to senator dodd's committee, and senator dodd has been very supportive, and i think the demonstration is on board terry get i think we could see passage of this legislation

real soon. >> it happened quickly and unanimously, so some people may have missed it above but about 10 days ago, the senate had this tough iran sanctions bill unanimously, and it is on its way to a conference with the house of a similar bill. i want to mention senator mccain and i rose to introduce this proposal as an amendment to the film. for procedural reasons, senator mccain graciously allowed it to move forward, but i feel optimistic that we have got a real good possibility to have this proposal be adopted by the conference committee as part of of broader iran sanctions bill and that bill will come out pretty soon, and i say

ahmadinejad's announcement today they have gone to 20% in richmond really builds the case for moving with a real sense of urgency to tough economic sanctions against iran based on the nuclear program. >> [inaudible] >> i think you know they have blocked the internet. they have not said google will no longer be allowed in iran. i would be very interested in seeing their replacement. i am sure it will be incredible competition for google. they're taking every measure to shut down the modern ways we use of communicating with each

other. they are aware of what happened on facebook. they are aware of the rallying capability this new means of communication has, so they are trying to take every measure they can. i do not think they are succeeding so far, so our job is to help them to see if we can find ways around their attempts to block this vital means of communication. >> something we talked about returning from a trip to germany is the support the united states government gives. this is a tremendous asset of the cause of liberty because it brought us some real newbies into iran in a way it the iranian people can appreciate the fact there's a different point of view from that of their government and support that.

just to give you an illustration, the day we were returning, we got word from our american representative the seventh people he and his staff had interviewed in different locations around the world to come on board, all iranians, and all of them had been offered a position for the purpose. they were arrested and detained in iran today before. who would try to do everything to help those people. one way we can do that is our

support for radio free europe. >> [inaudible] jobs seem to be a high-profile issue. >> i know he felt very strongly about cooperating with the democratic leadership whenever we can, and it is not always possible. ñithis second stimulus bill is part of that. it contains elements that are important to all the people in the senate, and i do not agree with all of the parts of it. i know some of my colleagues do not agree, but it is an effort to bring together a group of things a consensus can be developed around and to get it passed. you saw what they put out today as a draft of the legislation,

and it would be senator mcconnell's view of that is soon as we return from this break, the senate will take the legislation not, and i have already said it will be adopted. shoveler clearly a big issue. the reason i do not put the and the highest profile as i think we're going to see a series of smaller jobs packages. this is just one of them. it is not the same size and scope of the original stimulus package. [inaudible] it will.

there will also be a unanimous consent agreement that will set of the way forward for the state returns. >> i am concerned about how loyd is paid for. -- about how it is paid for. i withhold judgment until i get a chance to say how much extraneous stuff is added to it, and how much does it increase the deficit? >> [inaudible] çó>> i will have a look at it.

the fact is this was a ruling by the supreme court. i strongly disagreed with it, but i would certainly have to look at it before i would want to sign on to any provisions, but our own have to look at it. >> they have some republicans have a double standard. [inaudible] >> the reason we passed the military commissions act of the end of 2006 was to put a stop on it.

i must say with some deference, we have been interrogated a guy and said we got the information we needed and got his miranda rights. no one question the patriotism or even the dedication to fighting the war on terror as mr. brennan has about us, basically saying we are assisting al qaeda. that is an insult. the fact is this individual should be in the military tribunal. we're working on legislation that in the case that once an individual is deemed an enemy combated, that person should be tried only in military court and never given ran the rights. thank you very much.

>> former president bill clinton had two stints in one of his heart arteries today after being hospitalized for chest pain. mr. clinton is said to be in good spirits according to an advisor. now conversation on your marks and the federal budget. this is about 35 minutes. >> the budget for 2011, projected to be about 3.8 trillion dollars. what realistic can be cut from that budget? >> $380 million. government waste. the prime cut, $350 billion in

one year. $2.2 trillion over five years. any organization these days in the middle of these tough times would be cutting 10, 15, 20% to stay in business. they can't seem to cut anything in washington. >> is it possible to do an >> do you go in and specifically point of programs that need to be cut? >> we are very specific. existing studies in washington. some of these recommendations go all the way back to the grace commission the

foundationd for citizens. senator feingold. it's a long one. everybody knows what these are. the budget offices each year puts out a list of spending. congress pretty much consistently ignores. if you look here at your website, you'll find the prime cut section. you have 22 pages in this type face. it's a lot of different items of different cuts politically. how many of these would actually ever be put in place. you have advocated for these for a long time. another one in 2007, base retirery. do you see those cuts

happening? guest: politically that's the problem president obama has said to get rid of it. joint chiefs, secretary of defense, president obama. it's going on for a long time there are a few members of congress that keep putting the money back in. the conference on the final defense spending bill. the senate didn't have any money for inn this alternate engine. the only view was to spend the $4 of 5 million in this particular year. and $7.2 billion and pretty much every study that has come up as don't do it. senator kerry and from

massachusetts, they keep pushing it. senator murtha was a supporter. it cost a lot of money, say about $1 billion in the future. there's a handful of member that's say we really need to keep doing this. $1.4 trillion is discretionary. medicare is expanding.

all of that needs to be addressed. when they say we should look at everything. that means everything. the smallest programs like save america's treasure. save the park service which we are recommending should be eliminated. that's about 8.3% of the product. in your view. the high revenue and

certainlyly the bill in the 1980s caused for a short period of time, small increases of spending. if spending went up at a higher rate than allowed nrt law. the money would be cut to match what the projections were. that is now part of what we have as our baseline it's at 40% of the spending is deficit

spending. i look at it differently. you cannot sustain that for any when have use -- have you seen the pendulum swing at all? >> i think people are angrier. people think 53 cents out of every dollar is wasted. 67% are angry at the government. >> haven't we done that before? haven't we gone through these cycles where people want change, and we get change or we do not get change?

>> right. we have for some time. they have convinced them to go along with a lot of the ideas about restraining spending. there was a bipartisan effort to control spending, so there needs to be something done on a bipartisan basis. that is a lot harder than it used to be, but the american people are in some ways more upset than they thought. he brought change, but they did not think he would bring all this spending. >> has it helped to cut down on earmarks? have we cut down in earmarks? >> there will probably be a 25% or 30% reduction, so it is progress. it is a small amount of the budget, but it is something the

public has forced congress to pay attention to. forced the congress to pay attention to. it was said, i'm not going to include something named after you. all of that advertisement free election. small steps. not perfectly transparent, it's a lot more information now than there used to be. wall street journal this morning. the stimulus, president obama sold the $862 trillion. critics said that was highly unlikely. the 2011 obama budget said it was right. proposing to convert spending as a one-time economic boost into a permanent feature of future government growth.

as both the tax policy center and the committee for a responsibly federal budget have pointed out, supposedly temporary parts of the stimulus have now found their way into the budget baseline. . . it is interesting there including this increase, yet under the president's health care bill, they are forced to pay more for medicaid, and we have contradictions within what they are trying to do. >> let us take some calls. west virginia, jeff, republican in line.

caller: thank you for receiving my call. i have a question for the gentleman. when the first stimulus came out, knowing companies were going to give those outrageous bonuses, and now the supreme court has written a lot that the outsiders canñr get their congressman to do their bidding for them by giving them access money. the president -- i will give him credit. he is trying, but when he says, i want to do this, they have a totally different agenda. they do not listen, and the people hurting over this is the american citizens. guest: this is what is

happening with tea parties, and people are trying to get their voices heard. get people's voices heard, e- mail, twitter so that people can hear more about what taxpayers would like to see here in washington. you mentioned a corporate issue in terms of the supreme court. they cannot get money directly to candidates. they can provide advertisements with disclosure of who they are. i am not sure they will want to be identified with those candidates. they can encourage people to support candidates which is probably more likely. but when coca-cola supports congressman x, i think people will say they are being bought. host: joanne in arkansas. caller: i believe companies

will align themselves with issues. abc did a piece about chinese getting government contracts or was under the stimulus program, $450 million went to china and they created 2000 jobs fori] the wind machines. over here, we have a couple of jobs. how can that happen? i think people viewed it as a new deal proposition, building all this new infrastructure. there is not much left to build. there's a lot to repair. they also have the time limit on when the stimulus money would need to be spent, which would be the end of the current fiscal

year, or they had to rush it out so the agencies could get it out quickly. the national science foundation funded grants that had been previously rejected. it seems to me if you have already rejected something that you could not afford to r three years ago, there is no reason to be finding that now. >> but we -- a tweet. this can go on forever. >> that is one problem, because they can keep printing money. certainly, there is some discussion about the credibility, the credit- worthiness of the united states in terms of how much debt they are accumulating. at some point, there is a limit, and there is a tipping point where everything they are

doing becomes more significant in terms of spending, and you asked me earlier what is going on. if it goes too far, the breaks a lot of ceilings in terms of what can be spent. >> is it worse in your view then it was in the 1980's? >> the deficit is much larger. .

. we had about $6.90 billion, about 6% of what he asked for last year. this year, it is about $23 billion. 60 percent of that is not much in terms of what we are spending. host: you had been in town a long time. how much control does a president have overspending? guest: some president's control better than others. president clinton went along with the contract for america in 1991 after the republicans took over congress. they ended up with a surplus. a lot of that was revenue. a lot of that was the tech

bubble, and that collapsed. they did not reduce spending when they had less money. they continued to spend. the budget is not the same as in a family, where you have constraints on what you can spend and how much you are making. at some point, people have to say, "we do not want to pay more taxes. we really do want to see changes." 43 state governors have a line item veto. states at least have to try seriously to balance their budgets every year. host: next call, from cleveland, ohio. a democrat. caller: where i am living, unemployment is still at or above 10%. what will be done in times -- in terms of extending the unemployment benefits for people who are still unemployed after a

year? guest: they have extended unemployment several times. i cannot say what will happen. it seems to be one of those programs they have a lot of sympathy for and try to exit -- and try to extend as much as possible. there is a limit to how much you can extend unemployment benefits. we have been through a lot of problems. in the 1980's we had high inflation and high interest rates under president carter. we got through that. i have faith in the american people that this will get resolved. i have less faith with washington that they will deal with the deficit. somehow, we will continue to move forward. host: someone on twitter sense in this. do you recommend that the obama presidency should be about cleaning up after the budget ministration -- after the bush

administration and cleaning up his debt? guest: this administration will double the debt in the next decade. it will double all of the debt of all the presidents combined. bush ran up quite a lot. $123 trillion was both of them combined. when you see stories like "the wall street journal" about the stimulus money that was supposed to be temporary, shows you what direction the demonstration is going in in terms of spending. a modest freeze -- he is talking about a 1% change. if you take the cuts that he has made or proposed, $240 billion over 10 years, there is $266

billion of stimulus in the budget over the next 10 years from the earned income tax credit and the pell grants that got larger and will continue to grow in the future. there is not much in terms of really cutting back on spending. that is really the only way to do it. guesthost: another tweet -- we l have to cut national security spending. what do you think? guest: it is something the president is focusing on. president gates said it would be a reason to veto the defense bill. they said that last year about the f-22 and the presidential helicopter. both of those were eliminated. they can make some changes. there are also things congress likes that the pentagon does not like. that is one of the top priorities for the pentagon. it can be done if there is

enough pressure and if the president and the secretary say, "absolutely not." host: from virginia, -- from west virginia, a republican. caller: i have a couple of comments. i admire the representatives you had on before. the young people seem to want to work together. i wish people would quit bashing both parties. it does no good. like those representatives said, it does no good. for that last year. let us go on. -- forget that last year. let us go on. we need to work with your marks, medicaid, and welfare reform. so many people keep on having children because they can get medicaid and welfare and do not

have to go off to work. guest: there was a welfare reform program under president clinton in 1996. it reduced the number of people on welfare. there are more rewards for working than there used to be. i think part of the reason that people may see additional unemployment or medicaid recipients is because of the overall economic situation. it is not that people do not want to work. it is harder to find a job than it has been for a long time. on earmarks, i absolutely agree. zerio is the perfect number for them. members of congress vote for very expensive appropriation bills. we see an increase in members of congress who are refusing to accept earmarks. that is something we need to

keep pushing. it is something members think is the key to reelection. host: from north carolina, on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. fair taxes, term limits, the congress of the united states and the 10th amendment. thank you. guest: tax reform has been kicked around for a long time. the tax code is bigger than the bible. it has more provisions than anyone can count. it is confusing. fair tax would be hard because i do not think congress would repeal the income tax on behalf of a national sales tax, which is the fair tax. i think term limits are something that should be considered.

that works relatively well at the local level. governors in most states have a two term limit. i do not see members of congress limiting themselves. there was a stronger movement for that in the 1990's. it is probably not going to happen now. boat in new people each time they come up -- vote in that new people each time they come up if you want to limit their terms. caller: my problem is that the waste is ridiculous. they have to stop it. they keep mentioning social security. until the bush administration came in and and started spending -- they started taking money out of social security and putting iou's in. now you get that with democrats

again. nancy pelosi takes her and her staff to copenhagen, spends $400 -- spends $400,000 of tax payer money. she should not even be there. she should give that money back. they give themselves a 20% raise. for what? they do not do anything. i am talking about both parties. i have never seen anything so ridiculous in our government than what is going on nowadays. all they think about is themselves. they do not care about the people. they better start looking. it is "we the people." guest: that is one of the things that has created the tea party movement, people being upset with things in washington. there was a news poll in which 67% of americans are angry at

the government. it sounds like you are one of them. host: what are your proposals for the reform of social security? guest: would be to gradually increase the retirement age. they have already increased that to 67.5 for certain people. you have to fund social security as a cohort, meaning each generation finds itself. it is a big transfer payment. people get more out than they put in on average. you are having the payroll tax collected for existing workers and that goes into the social security fund, which we all know is not really a fund. there are lots of ways to do that. privatization has been done in other countries like she lay -- like chile, which have allowed a retirement fund owned by the individual to grow in safe

investments. ñithere are ways to address socl security and other entitlements. this is one piece of retirement that people need to pay attention to. it is coming from a different generation. as they will have to take more and more money from somewhere, either through a deficit or by increasing the payroll tax so that retired workers can get more support. if you ask young people if they think they are going to get social security, most of them will probably say, "i do not think that is going to happen." guest: what about -- host: what about the idea that the bush and administration downgraded social security? guest: i believe they were talking about a surplus.

social security masks the real deficit. it has been bringing in more money than it pays out. that changes in about eight years. there will not be enough money to pay the retirees. does it come from general revenue or payroll taxes? you cannot tell them their benefits can be cut. maybe they can, but some combination has to occur to keep that program alive because otherwise it will help to bankrupt the problem. host: what if the congress voted not to increase the debt ceiling? guest: the u.s. would be seen as not credit worthy, not meeting its observations. are you serious about cutting spending? it has to be done. when the republicans were in charge, the democrats said why are you doing this.

when the democrats are in charge, the republicans say you are spending too much. it happens on a consistent basis. one party in charge has to increase the deficit so we can meet our obligations. host: according to the new budget projections by the white house, the gross federal debt will exceed 100% of gdp in just two years time. this year, like last year, the deficit will be around 10% of gdp. the long run projection of the cbo suggests the u.s. will never again run a balanced budget. guest: it does not look that way based on the next 10 years. interest on the debt is another category of spending that becomes larger each year. again, you cannot sustain a family like that. you cannot sustain any

organization like that. i do not know when the message gets through. i see a lot of things happening -- the elections in november, the election of senator scott brown -- where there is a response by the taxpayers saying they know there is a problem and people in washington need to start paying attention. host: from virginia, a republican. caller: mr. schatz, you answered my first question about entitlements but did not follow through with the medicare and medicaid question. that is a huge piece of that entitlement program. given those entitlement programs and the huge deficits we are going to run up for that, do you see us going toward one of those european countries and becoming so indebted in decades to come that we will eventually lose our

superpower status? guest: it is a good question and one people in washington need to ask themselves as they go about saying they cannot cut things they think they need. all of the evidence of wasteful spending is there all over the place. they are not doing enough to address those problems. medicare and medicaid could be reformed. medicare, raise the retirement age. provide some way that the private sector could be more involved. that is the opposite of what the president is proposing, but there are ways to do this that would make sense. i encourage people to look at the details. i have made detailed recommendations that are acceptable. host: next call from pennsylvania on our independent

line. you know the rules. turn down the volume on your tv. we will move onto misery, a democrat. caller: i had a question for your gentlemen and for you, peter. you talk about irreversible benefits but what about irreversible tax cuts? do you recommend that we repeal the bush tax cut? the cbo said there was quite a bit of money that could be regained for that -- from that against the budget deficit. peter, could you tomorrow ask the question, "is the perception that republicans are against workers and unions valid?" guest: in terms of tax cuts, we very much support having people keep more of their own money. when it comes to washington, it

gets spent. it gets overspend. it gets indebted in this massive deficit and programs that are not necessary. anyone who is in any kind of business knows that you can reduce spending. they have to. you cannot simply take money from people unless they want to purchase your products. we have always favored the idea of reducing the tax burden. the united states has the largest corporate tax rate, essentially, in the free world, 35%. most countries are reducing it to 25%, even 20% in their efforts to get people back to work. if you put more money in the hands of individuals you will create more jobs and more revenue. host: next call comes from california on the independent line. caller: there is a statement i

question. i am wondering if the government realizes it is not the upper echelon -- senators and congressmen. it is the people procuring stuff that spend more money, people at the lower level going down their list. i had a member of the united states air force say they used to dump gasoline because if they did not dump it and it was found out they were not using it all their allotment would be depreciated. that is one example. if they are getting bonuses of $300 million, there is only about $300 million in the united states -- only about 300 million people in the united states. how about giving little cost of living increases? is that going to help the economy? guest: the issue of the budget -- that is what the air force example is all about.

the budget is set up so that money being spent in a future year is based on money spent in a prior year. we favor zero-based budgeting. you start everything over each year. you ask whether you really need the program instead of assuming you have to do it again. we believe in a sunset for programs so that their authorization expires at a certain point. in terms of bonuses, and i understand what you are saying, i do not believe we have to hand out money to people who are not working or not creating the economy. there are objections to the idea of giving people money in certain places. even the president backed off on his criticism of these wall street bonuses. host: tucson, good morning. caller: yesterday, in "the

arizona daily star" there was an article. the idea is a self policing program of state aid. it says that if a welfare recipient or anybody else is exceeding a significant amount of their other income in state aid that they will not buy cigarettes, will not buy alcohol, will have basic cable but no hbo, will not drive a fancy car. i know you cannot comment specifically on this program, but i would like your comments on this idea in theory. guest: we do not like the government telling people what to do. we think there should be incentives like the welfare to work programs. if you tell people what to do, it reminds me a little bit about the national drug control policy.

they are telling kids not to do drugs. that is not the way to tell kids not to do drugs -- not by advertising. they will find a way to do that. there are behavioral changes that need to be made. the government is not going to make them by threatening to cut off some money or promising to give more money. companies have wellness incentives. that is the kind of thing that could be done. host: james allen is challenging you on one of your statements. he says the corporate tax rate is 24.7% not 35%. guest: the tax rate for individuals are 35% -- is 35%. it is all relative to what they are paying. i do not think anyone disagrees, even at the treasury, that the

rate and the effective rate are lower in most countries. host: cagw is the website if you want to see where the recommend cuts. >> on tomorrows "washington journal," we will give you updates on bill clinton's condition. he was taken to the hospital. after that, a discussion on jobs and the economy with tennessee rep marcia blackburn and bruce reed, who served in the clinton administration. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tune in to "book tv" for a three day president's weekend. warren buffett on the economic collapse.

historian and pulitzer prize winner garry wills on the atomic bomb and how it changed the world. all day monday, books on american presidents. fdr, president obama and our culture, and rob -- and ronald reagan. for the complete schedule, go to booktv.org. american presidents, life portraits. see the entire collection on- line at c-span's web site. >> leaders of the 27 nation european union met in brussels for an economic summit. at the top of the agenda was the debt crisis in grease. the half hour closing news conference from the study -- from the summit.

>> as i was saying, i am pleased to meet with you again. since the 19th of december, which was the day i was appointed, we have held our first european council. i decided to convenient -- to convene it so that we could have the opportunity to discuss economic strategy. the heads of state and government were of the opinion that we really must look into the medium and long term. we should focus increasingly on concerning economic growth. it is extremely important. they all agreed as of the 10th

of december that we should convene a special counsel to speak on this topic. unfortunately, events often decide otherwise. we had done a lot of preparatory work, the european commission and i, but economic strategy ended up being pushed into the background due to the events occurring within the euro zone. in fact, that reminds me of something that the former prime minister harold macmillan said to a young man. "what is the most difficult thing in political life?" "events, my dear. events." it is off events that lead us to change our agenda.

-- is often events that lead us to change our agenda. that is what happened this time. we have met under the lisbon treaty, for the first time since the first of january, when i took office officially. this morning, as i said, the bulk of our discussion address the crisis in the bureau's own. -- in the euro zone. contacts in an attempt to form a consensus. a number of meetings were held with different compositions, and a consensus emerged.

it was clear that it was emerging. i wanted to put that to the informal council of the 27th. we also had with us the president of the european central bank. in the meantime, we had been informed of this agreement. it is extremely important that agreement be reached. some have their doubts but those doubts turned out to be unfounded. it was possible for us to reach agreement through the two hours of discussion. we must now implement that agreement over the coming days and weeks, of course. but this agreement is the expression of a clear political will. it is a political message that we wanted to send out today. this political message has a

responsibility dimension to it. the greek government is taking on responsibility in terms of recovery, public finances. it also reflects a political commitment to solidarity if the need were to arise, if not necessarily today. but anyway, you have now been informed of this text. >> the economic strategy for growth and for jobs. we devoted the main part of our meeting to this topic. for sure, it would have been foolish to only talk about the long-term while neglecting the short term. therefore, we dealt with the short-term first. it would be just as foolish, as irresponsible, to neglect the long term. the fact that many of the short- term problems arise because not enough attention was paid to

long term structural reform is clear evidence of all this. we have longstanding regions -- reasons to put our strategy on the agenda. over the past two years, europe faced the worst economic crisis since the 1930's. the economy is still fragile oil. our growth is too strong to create jobs -- is not strong enough to create jobs and sustain our social model. we need to keep up with the economies of the world. our way of life is at stake. structural reforms are necessary. we have known that for a long time. the question is not what but how. i have found a large consensus on the major ideas developed by the president of the commission and by myself. he has developed some ideas

about the content of economic strategy and i have developed ideas on the governance. i can say to you that the european council is very ambitious. they want the ownership of the economic strategy for the european council. of course, it will involve as much as possible national governments, national parliaments. the european council wants to take the lead in the coming economic strategy. i felt this ambition very strongly during the whole week. that was also clear when a lot of members of the council asked for more meetings from the council. i proposed, not for the coming months but the end of the year,

that the council would gather regularly. i would like it to gather each month. i would like a council that can work on a lot of topics. that is the translation of our ambition. [speaking french] >> the direction for economic policy or strategy -- we want fewer objectives, quantifiable objectives, and differentiated objectives which take account of the particular circumstances of each country so that we have a strategy we can really follow, that we can really monitor, and

that we can really fit into a framework of surveillance such that everybody feels involved and such that we can measure the progress we are making. that is the main conclusion on this strategy. on the level of governance, there will be fewer objectives, more quantifiable objectives, and more easily controllable. the european council wants to take a regular look at progress. each year,çó we will also try to organize a council where we put together a pact, we look at progress on economic strategy,

and we look at progress made on the climate agenda. we would do this so we could move forward on all three areas. >> the heads of state and government exchange goods -- exchange views on a lot of matters, like our relations with main economic partners. also, the functioning of international financial systems and other topics. the president of the commission should take strong positions in the next g20 summit taking place in toronto next june. we will prepare common positions at the joint european council a few days before that. >> i would like to add a few words in my own language.

i get the impression, after the first in formal european council, that we have been very successful with the main issues we are going to be looking at over the next years. it will be economic growth and jobs. we have to put that issue right at the front of the agenda, not only for the next few months but for the time after that. that response to a fundamental need -- that response idsds to a fundamental need in the heads of state and government. everyone was enthusiastic that we have been able to prepare a document on governments -- governmeance.

in march and june, we will be implementing this. we did not have enough time to talk about climate issues today because we looked at the crisis in the euro zone this morning, but we have placed it at the top of the agenda for the march summit. that is only five weeks away. that will give us the opportunity to prepare ourselves for the march summit. i think this was a productive successful -- a productive, successful, first informal summit that was very ambitious for the permanent presidency, for the commission. we want to make sure that this is a success. >> thank you very much.

good afternoon. this was a good first meeting. i welcome the excellent cooperation of the president and the council. today was about two main things, responding together to a crucial issue facing the european union right now and discussing the strategy for our economy is in the future, what we call europe 2020, sustainable growth, and job strategy. we have a statement that is available to all of you. it shows our confidence in greece and in the bureau's own -- the euro zone. it is important to have this strong commitment from all heads of state and governments regarding our euro zone and the situation that is being faced by

one specific member of our union. i saw a clear determination to act. a clear lesson from the financial crisis and all the difficulties in the economic situation worldwide is that we are more interdependent than ever before. by supporting one, we defend all our economies. afterwards, we have also discussed the strategy for the future, linking the present with the future. we cannot have a short-term strategy that is not going to reach into our medium and long- term strategy. the commission acted with ambition. i welcome the strong backing for the ideas i presented on economic strategy, sustainable growth, and job strategy.

i can see that there was a strong backing in the european council for the ideas put forward regarding this direction for this strategy in the future. i really welcome the concerns -- i really welcome the consensus. i made reference to three main drivers -- innovation, high employment, and green growth. we will come in with a package of proposals on march 3. that will be the subject of deliberations in the european spring council. to build tomorrow's europe we must build on lessons of our interdependence today. our priority should be able to find our way out of the crisis while building a new economic model -- sustainable,

inclusive, competitive. a social market economy for europe. we have the institutions to make it happen. i am confident europe also has the political will. i welcome the spirit i saw today in the council, not only regarding this specific situation in one of our member states but also in the designing of this strategy for the future. another point we have addressed, an important one at the end, i want to make here. in light of an appeal for urgent assistance, the vice president of the commission is requesting member states to offer additional military assistance to meet the special need. the secretary called me making a reference to this.

this appeal to military assistance is intended to complement that provided by the humanitarian community. it is in close association with european union civil protection mechanisms. i think what is important -- take note of this willingness of the european union to keep our solidarity and not forget the people of haiti in what is still a difficult circumstance. thank you. >> other questions? yes sir? [speaking french] >> since your declaration, clearly the markets have responded poorly. i was wondering whether the rather unconvincing nature of the declaration is due to

blockages in the course of this morning's meeting and whether you're feeling is -- ms. merkel said she was not sure whether the promises of support were credible. will finance ministers provide clarification as to the practical measures such forms of support could take? >> i have not been following the markets because i have been working this afternoon. i am not really sure whether it is as bad as you portray it. we certainly did have a frank and open discussion. we did reach agreement fairly easily. we agreed to a text. i read the text immediately

after it had met with support in the european council. the text was clear. the text expresses a political will over the coming days and some aspects will need to be put into affect -- effect. what we did here was to address a firm political result. let there be no doubt whatsoever about that. it will be enacted as it was described here. i think it is too early to judge this political will and this political text. it is too early for us to judge it just a few minutes or a few hours after it is issued. we are committed to this twofold approach, to have a responsibility on behalf of the greek government and solidarity

if needed. this dual approach, responsibility and solidarity -- >> a question from belgian tv. just to questions for herman van rompuy. the declaration on greece. can you say how that would remove this quiet? can you explain that? today, you have been having discussions for three hours. you wanted to create a group team spirit in the council. did that happen or do you need to hold other meetings to achieve that? >> on your first question, i just answered that.

it is a very clear message. it is a political message. we ask that the greek government accept further responsibility. to a large extent, they have already done that. we want them to accept additional responsibility for the financial targets. it is also a clear message of solidarity within the euro zone should that be necessary. that message needs to be sent through, butñi i believe it is very clear that there is clear political will. secondly, on the european council itself, all i can say is what i saw myself. i was there. you were not. ñri feel there was that feeling there, that we really do have to

work toward a common objective, and that all of us, in all of our countries, have the same problems -- low economic growth and problems with jobs. all of us in the eu have to accept the challenges of what we want to be as the eu to carry our weight in the world. that was an eye-opener. that was very clear. i did not only experience that this afternoon. i also made a trip to 26 countries, 26 capitals, so that i could feel the pulse there. i felt the sameñi thing this afternoon. it would have been nice if we could have met for logger, -- for longer.

it would have been nice if we did not have to spend so much time on that urgent issue. given the ambitions of the european council, we want to meet more frequently so we can see each other more often and so there will be fewer complaints of my lack of visibility. >> a question in your own language -- two questions. on economic strategy, the you have an impression that the heads of state and government laid down a basis on the way toward economic governance, as we tend to call it in the european union? how did your colleagues react to the proposal that they meet every month? >> first of all, on this idea of

economic governance, this is something that can be interpreted in many different ways. we should not reduce it to a slogan. one thing is certain. in view of what has happened in the euro zone, there has to be far stronger coordination at a macroeconomic level to avoid situations such as the one we are seeing now. it is important that there is stronger coordination in terms of economic strategy. that is why i put forward these proposals with regard to governance. that is what is meant when i use that term. the other strand is equally strong. someplace a lot of emphasis on this. as the europeans uni union, we d more weight when it comes to the

decision making in world wide institutions. there are some items on the agenda we can raise in that regard. the union is often criticized severely. the g20 is a creation of the union. if there had been no implosion in financial terms, if we had not ended up in the major crisis such as we had in the 1930's -- the reason that has not happened is that the european union was able to do something about it. the european union created the g20 which took initiative to stabilize matters worldwide. we have been more present than is often suggested. in copenhagen, it is clear that we need to take more initiatives on the external front. that is part and parcel of

economic governance. what is your second question? it is not a formal proposal yet, but i drew the conclusion from the questions raised -- whether we should touch on this topic or that, whether we needed better coordination. there is only one possibility. we need to meet more frequently. [inaudible] >> sorry. i am from the bbc.

you have talked about the clear political message you have sent on greece. do you accept that without specific pledges from eu nations and specific obligations on greece that that will not be enough to restore the markets or restore confidence in the euro? >> this is a political declaration. today, we were meeting at the level of the european council, as the sitting government, and in an informal way. decisions in these matters are taken by the ministers of finance inappropriate institutional setting. what was on the agenda was precisely to underline basic points that are very clear in the declaration that was unanimously agreed. first of all, the commitment of the greek government to take all necessary measures to implement

the agreed objectives of reduction of their deficit to% in 2010, which is a very am -- their deficit 2% in 2010, which is a very ambitious program. it says the rest of us will take coordinated action if needed to stabilize the euro zone as a whole. the greek government did not request any financial support. the greek government believes they do not need this financial support. that is why i think we should not now speculate about scenarios that so far are not present. this was a clear political commitment to at the highest level you can have in europe, all the heads of state and government and the european commission w, with the presence

-- with the president of the european central bank stating this as well. it is impossible to find a higher level of responsibility. this is a political commitment. the decisions, in formal decisions, are taken by the appropriate institutions at the appropriate level. what is now in consideration was to know two things -- the determination and of the greek authorities and the solidarity of the member states, namely the euro area member states. these two points are extremely clear in the common statement. >> two more questions. >> the solidarity expressed in

the declaration is also extendable to other countries affected by debt. the economic strategy said you wanted to control, the compliance of the members -- what incentives do you have in mind? thank you. [inaudible] >> greece. that is the only topic we mentioned. we did not even mention other countries. this concerns greece and only greece. in the meeting this afternoon, we spoke about government'ance,t

in the negative way of sanctions and penalties but in a positive way. there was no debate on sanctions this afternoon. >> you said that greece has not requested any financial aid, but the problem in greece is an economic problem. are you not planning an offer of financial support to greece? if not, what are the finance ministers going to discuss next week? >> i do not wish to speculate on any scenarios. i do not think that gets us anywhere. it could even be negative. everything we have said is in the statement. it is correct to say the greek government has not requested financial support. it was not on the agenda because

the greeks have not asked for it. next week's meeting is a routine meeting of the bureauçó group -- euro group. that meeting will consider the recommendations made by the commission. they will be discussed. on the basis of those proposals, the finance ministers will take decisions. as we stay in the statement -- as we say in the statement, i think it is quite clear we are inviting the council to adopt the recommendations to greece based on the council's proposal. i have nothing to add to this statement, which was unanimously adopted, or other scenarios or speculation. i leave that to the speculators.

[no audio] >> mr. president, i have a question. in the declaration a a, where you talk about coordinated action if needed to stabilize the euro area as a whole, that sentence -- does it mean that the european council would be prepared to activate the lisbon treaty so that financial assistance in the case where a member state were really threatened by a serious crisis

-- >> this was a request that the social summit yesterday. george papandreou was there. does this sentence mean that possibility exists? >> yes. but that is a question that does not come up. there was a former belgian prime minister who said we have to deal with problems when they occur. . .