was one that was first requests by creditors lawyers. correct? and - the backdrop to it - as i understand it. is loan services refusal loan services refusal or inability to address defaults or loans directly bank owner or bow rower in a business like basis in your experience of the two thousand mitigations you've been through. how many of those approximately would have been the first time that the homeowner, the debter had a face-to-face conversation with someone that had full authority and able to negotiate within good faith? .

not spoken with the business person, my belief is that the distinct majority had not gotten a response.

ever. >> do you have a guesstimate and how long the owners and the bank -- how long before it comes to your core? >> one of the issues is that there are not people there to implement it. it is a very haphazard process of taking information, losing it, passing it on to someone else, and it is not really premised on a business assessment. what is good for the lender in the first place. so i mention this, of the 15 objections by lenders to the invocation of lost mitigation, the ones i have dealt with, with one exception, the lenders, when

they come to court and see the facts, said this actually makes sense. we will talk with this person. he or she has been basically getting the runaround. so i think that the main benefit of any formal mediation program is to put decision makers together. >> so to the extent that professor sanders believes this is another surprise to investors and other market participants, which is almost always viewed negatively, your answer would be this is a surprise that they sought, welcomed, and are happy to work with? >> i think that is right. what is not in the record, frankly, is opposition by lenders. particularly those whose real money is at stake. a servicer may find it

inconvenient, and servicers sometimes do have different incentives. but if your money is really at stake as a lender, and your borrower can pay you more than the house is worth, clearly more, its kind of a no-brainer. >> and that may explain why mortgage investors are working with me on this and so excited about it. that is a good thing. my time has expired. ranking member senator grassley. >> thank you. i think it is legitimate, as we have done already, to raise the question, whether or not it should be fixed whether we look at something else, but we need to do both. i said in my opening statement how the special inspector general raised questions about that having meaningful goals not

having transparency and accountability, that comes from transparency. he repeated to that -- he repeated that last july and now again six days ago. so i'm going to direct some questions to dr. sanders and mr. grossman, but i have two questions about hamp and i want to get a couple of questions in about the bankruptcy process and have just a short answer. do you agree, dr. sanders and mr. grossman, with the special inspector general's assessment? more importantly, do you have any insight into the treasury department's refusals to set goals for the hamp program? why the treasury department might be refusing to set goals as i have asked them to do and

these echelon inspector general said they should do. >> -- and the special inspector general said they should do. >> when president obama first into office i met with treasury, it in a presentation pointing out in the next few years you are going to have horrendous problems in terms of loan modifications because i know what you're thinking of, you are thinking of doing means testing for loan modifications, which means we will pick and income group, give them loan modifications, but it is too high and income group or there is too much property loss, we will not do anything about it. it is a policy as a policy decision based on economics, and other things, but your program will not work. it will not pardon of people and it will not be effective enough. i think what secretary geithner, in terms of that response, is saying, is that the problem is that any target we sat, we do not know what we can meet. i think clearly it is because

housing prices are still falling, unemployment is not getting any better. how do you set targets for successful loan modifications when the economy is still incomplete disarray? that is a tough one. so on that one, i wish he could set targets. he can still do it. but what targets would they set? >> mr. grossman, do you have another point of view on that? >> i would say the entire policy making on this side of the issue shares your frustration with the lack of transparency. it is made it difficult for many people to make positive contributions. >> dr. sanders, mr. grossman, one of the concerns with the loan modification program being run by bankruptcy courts is the judge's directly or indirectly might force a cramdown on loan mortgages. cramdown is a reduction of principal.

because most mortgages are held by the federal government, taxpayers will ultimately be left holding the bag and the national debt and the economy would be further damaged. could you elaborate further on the potential damages the cramdown might have on the economy? >> i think a lot of people have realized in the past two years that the largest problem we have is the fundamental disconnect between the ability to pay and the amount of money that would need to be paid to rescue the person's home. it is a financial question, an economics question. to the extent that it is possible in a large number of circumstances to bring those two numbers together is going to have to be through some type of conversion. that is how the modification will have to be achieved. to the extent that happens, that upsets a legitimate expectations and would resemble expect that would stifle investments in the mortgage sector. one also expects it upsets the

contractual agreements between mortgage investors and servicers and that would have a similar effect. >> mr. sanders? >> in my testimony i mentioned fannie mae and freddie mac. they are not exposed toward cramdowns, in fact very much scared of them for the following reasons. number 1, it would be very harmful towards taxpayers, towards investors and mortgage- backed securities. because again, the moral has a problem. once somebody realizes there is a potential for a cramdown, writing off some principle, they are worried about that opening pandora's box. there is a flood of people rushing into a bankruptcy trying to get a massive principal right-down. -- and luck -- a massive principal write-down.

there are investors in the market, and the one trade organization you're talking about lost the principle right down, so its not like everybody is against the above the fannie and freddie clearly are. >> its 11:30. i have to go. i would like to have some testimony from some trade associations to put in the live record. >> trade association testimony will be put in the record. while we are doing this, i have a statement from chairman leahy that will also be made part of the record, and i turn to senator befall. i want to exercise the part of of the chair to ask the judge one question. is cramdown part of the program? >> absolutely not. >> senator boren of all?

>> thank you, a senator bloom fall -- the my >> that you, mr. chairman. let me address the two objections or concerns that i think have been very thoughtfully raised by professor sanders and mr. grossman. first, that the unintended consequences of this kind of program can enable or encourage people to stay at home who really cannot afford and thereby delay, they beat her people as a result. i think that concern is by the experience in connecticut where we have a mandatory mediation program, not a voluntary one. out of 7700 cases in foreclosure, some 4040 families have been able to stay in their homes and are in their homes. so i would like to ask you

whether you have any practical experience or statistical evidence -- mr. grossman has said that the evidence is only anecdotal so far -- that would address that concern. >> well, i think that one of the benefits that the lenders saw in our program is that the court would supervise it and cut it expectationsebtors' are unrealistic. that happens. most people in our district are represented by counsel. so there are advised by counsel in advance what they can achieve and what they cannot achieve. but there are times with individual debtors whose expectations are just not realistic. this resolved that promptly. it does not -- in an objective

way, they can get the sense they were not getting the runaround. so my belief is that at least once they are in the mediation program, the ability to succeed or not gets flagged pretty quickly. >> senator, they're obviously concerned about the lack of transparency with hamp, but one thing that we do know and that we have seen in the reports coming out of treasury is it proves the point that if you modify the mortgage and give the homeowner and affordable payment, they will pay. statistics are showing that one year after the program with homeowners who have been on permanent modifications, 85% of those homeowners are staying on the program. the re default rates on hamp modifications are considerably lower than any other modifications that have been

attempted. outside the hamp program, there are redefault rates that are twice as high. within that category of homeowners who are staying on the program, the real default -- the redefault rate, the re default rates are even lower. so the more you reduce the monthly payment, the more the homeowner will continue to make ongoing payments which will contribute to investor gains. >> i thank you for those answers, and perhaps i can ask mr. grossman and professor sanders -- the reference to this program as coercive -- and i respect the point that very aten the miracear request by

judge to impose a degree of pressure to someone who has been in that position as a practicing attorney -- is there something special about this program that is more coercive, exert more pressure? because in the course of almost any litigation, a judge will say at some point, can you folks reach an agreement, and those lawyers are often -- is this something at this program -- about this program that is different from ordinary litigation? >> with the back to process, in some cases this would serve to effectively shift the burden from the debtor to the creditor. to justify why it is in a bigger instance that a modification or some other settlement cannot be reached now. it depends on entirely the

courts, the judge. in some cases it is not going to be done in a course of matter, and i think that has been the experience in many cases. from what judge drain as described, this court has done an exemplary job of implementing this program through what is a very difficult situation. that said, by shifting the legal burden and putting it on a party to vote -- to enforce the property rights, that is necessary -- that is necessarily going to have an effect on the outcome. that has the potential of being coercive in some instances. >> if it were made clear that there were is no shift in legal burden, i gather that concern would be addressed? >> i fear that that would really cut to the heart of these programs because the way to affect that would be necessarily to remove from then the mandatory nature of the

mediation. to remove the mandatory nature of the negotiation. it would require change. i would think one type of mediation programs are wonderful, and that i think is something that judges should move forward on. this creates a good template for that sort of model. >> if it would make clear that this program is completely voluntary, that objection, again, would be addressed? >> if the participation in the program itself were entirely voluntarily ended didn't abrogate any type of responsibility, that would be addressed, yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we will be back to that, but i do not want to interrupt n.nator frank ane >> i want to continue with this, because, mr. grossman, i am a little confused. in your previous answer, you said it would require

coercion for this to be done. that is what you said. so now it seems like your answer is very different when confronted with the reality, when taken out of your theoretical framework in answering the ranking member. you said it would require coercion, but now what i see from judge greene's court, as you just acknowledged, is that this is -- from judge drain pus --rt, as you just knowledge to me, let's get to the reality of this. and what has really happened, as opposed to some theory. drainve heard from judge green

-- can you tell me what percentage of loan modifications in your program resulted in reduction in principle for the loan? >> not that many. most of them involved significant reductions in interest rate -- 12%, down to 3%, 4%, to present separate waiver of fees, default interest, and rolling defaulted principal payments back into the loan. where there has been a principal reduction, it is usually on a second mortgage were the second mortgage holder realizes that in a foreclosure they would get nothing, so they are getting a better deal by having principal reduction. or where the mortgage holder has significant document problems. and might not ever succeeded for closing. in that case, i have approved significant settlements were the principal -- that was a legal issue as opposed to an economic issue. >> we are talking about -- and

all this is, to me, part of a piece of the whole. during mr. grossman tossed testimony, all the opportunities that people have on the way there and why we need this. in your testimony, and in response to the questions, you said this is very often the first time that the homeowners have gotten this information. senator grassley very rightly said we need to fix hamp as part of this. now, i proposed legislation that actually passed the senate last year, and senator grassley voted along with it, along with quite a few republicans, to create an office within hamp to provide assistance to homeowners

navigating this system, the homeowner advocate office. unfortunately, it did not get passed by the house. my experience with people in minnesota is that the servicers do not provide them with information. the servicers either are incompetent or lie to them or, you know, and the idea of a homeowner advocate office is that there is some place in the treasury and we have paid for this with treasury funds. they have a homeowner advocate in the treasury of the spirits of given your experience working with homeowners in foreclosure proceedings, you see the value of having a homeowner advocate involved in the proceedings. >> i think something obviously is required. a homeowner advocate could potentially fill that role of providing the impetus or servicers -- for servers to be

accountable for their actions. as we say over and over again today, for them to simply make decisions which they are required to do under the hamp guidelines -- mr. grossman referred to the burden of and services to have a decision maker. that is the requirement as a participating servicer. they are required to have a decision within 30 days. so yes, i believe they homeowners advocate office could help in force, for example, that requirement. i think the other legislation passed by congress as part of the dog frank bell, requiring disclosure of information -- the dog-franc -- to the dodd- frank bill, requiring disclosure of information so that they know

when there has been a proper denial of their application. >> thank you. mr. chairman? >> you said at the end of your testimony that you now have a customer advocate for the bank's office of the ceo and president. she has a first and last name, unlike a lot of those names on the phone that you had to deal with beforehand, and you can talk to her when needed rather than just calling and 800 number and getting -- calling an 800 number and getting just a first name of the person who picked up the phone. my specific question is, in the two years that you have been wrestling with this program and with this bureaucracy, how long was it before the connection with the ceo's office customer advocate existed? how long were you doing this on your own? >> 20 month. >> and judge drain said it is

commonplace for the people who come into the loan mitigation program to have never yet had a chance to talk to a human being who has authority to make a decision in their case. so the context in which i see this, mr. grossman, is a little different than yours. the context in which i see this is that we have a highly imperfect bureaucratic system that is grinding away and never taking a good hard look at these cases because you are always dealing with someone who is hired to answer the phone and move paper and has no decision making capacity. so you can imagine the frustration among ordinary american whose home is at stake, and for 20 months cannot find something as simple and american and in basic as a human being to

talk to on the other end. and you see the same thing worked out by what you see working out with local banks, community banks, banks who hold their mortgages. i can assure you, and i bet you that senator frank and and senator befall can do the same -- and senator blumenthal can do the same. its the simple american reason that you have a chance to go into your bank and talk to a human being, and if there is a solution to be found that is in everybody's best interest, you get it. >i really believe you should reconsider whether or not you want to put your credibility behind the notion that the system that led to the lost mitigation program deserves the credit that you did it at having sorted out those problems beforehand, and that the only

residual value that the boss mitigation program -- that the loss mitigation program -- is inconsistent with the judge's experience, with our experience, with our case in rhode island, and what is happening here is that people who have never had somebody to talk to -- it is always john, all is giving you information, and somebody else writes a letter, and it is terrifying because your home is at stake and you have to file paperwork over and over again to the point where you feel you're being harassed because you're being asked five or six times to file the same damned paper work you have already filed. they still make you do it again because they have got the ability to take your home away if you do not file it again. after 19 or 20 months of that, its pretty frustrating. when that can be broken by getting two people in a room -- you are a litigator, are you

not? you have seen two parties come together in front of a judge and suddenly they are willing to be a lot more reasonable, and suddenly a deal is worked out. judges do that all the time, do they not? are saying. let me ask you specifically, of the three elements of this proposal, one is a somebody has to show up in the court with full settlement authority with the bank. two is that they have to show up during the loss mitigation program. and they have to note -- they have to negotiate in good faith. which one of those three, specifically, do you object to? do you object to them having to show up with full settlement authority? do you object to them having to show up within the full settlement process? or do you object to them having to show up in good faith? >> at the root of what you're discussing, the ability to sit down in a room and hash things out person-to-person, to the extent that that is what is

lacking, an individual should not need -- should not file for bankruptcy to achieve that result. >> i agree with you, but they are at that stage. nobody does it because they loved it. they are at that stage. why, once they are there, to the rule that somebody should fall -- to show up with fulsome authority, that person has to be present during the loss mitigation program and show up in good faith. which one of those three are objectionable to you, that you are now -- >> again, the problem is the mandatory nature of this program. effectively rights the contractual obligation with the creditor and/or the servicer. >> that is what bankruptcy courts do, right? that is where you go to get contract renegotiated, and it is

everybody but it is in everybody's best interest to get that done. >do you want to respond to that? >> i would respond in two ways. the vast majority do not view it as being coerced into doing it. we have 15 people who objected objections were denied. the lender has to make a motion from the automatic stay. the response of the to that motion is that we have sought out the hamp program. and courts, as recently described in the decision for island, faced with

standing up in court, being asked did day invoke the hamp program? the answer was a i don't know. well, you had better find out. because obviously the hamp program puts you on one path, and the foreclosure program puts you on another. it is a fallacy that the lot -- more importantly, economically, the lenders want court supervision of this process because that is how it works. it keeps the debtors in line, it forces them to have a client. there is nothing worse than not having a client. unfortunately, the way the large securitized or packaged loans operate, they do not have clients. >> in the same way that --

that the lawyer has nobody to talk to -- >> you know who the client is and you get directions from him or her. >> senator blumenthal? >> as an attorney general recently in this business, one of my frustration has been in fact for our attorneys and personally, that finding someone who was the real party and was in a position to modify a mortgage was one of the real travails, frustrating aspects, often to the detriment of in fact the real party in interest is real interest would have been well served. by being present and involved in the process. but since it is in essence

consentual, in my view, and since the program itself would be optional for the bankruptcy court. i would like to ask, judge drain, if more bankruptcy courts would engage in this? >> i think that is the case. since we enacted it, half of the district said they would do it. i am told by one of my colleagues that one of the judges -- one of the judges who did not do it was somewhat concerned that he would be overreaching his authority. i think, as i think you said, senator, in your opening remarks -- by enacting legislation in this area, the congress would also be telling courts not just -- not just federal courts, but state

courts, that you should think about this. we are public servants, and i think that is an important message. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator franken? >> i really have enjoyed listening to the chairman, who really has board into the sun -- who really has bored into the subject, and former attorney general -- what was it, 50 years, something like that? [laughter] i would actually like an answer to the chairman's question from mr. grossman -- which of the three requirements do you object

to, that someone with full authority for the lender in the loss mitigation program be there, that they show up during the loss mitigation program, and that they act in good faith. which of those three do you object to? >> senator, as i stated, my objections with the man-is with the mandatory nature of the i suppose you could take that as being all three, although i do not think it is an accurate way of describing it. it is the mandatory nature of the program. >> ok. the mandatory nature in a bankruptcy court, where, as a bankruptcy judge, judge drain, you have the authority, your job

is to resolve all these claims on someone when they go bankrupt, right? >> yes. >> and you have the authority to do these things, right? >> yes. i have forced one lender to continue loss mitigation. that is a lender who had a $200,000 equity cushion, so they would have -- they would have got relief from the automatic stay. i am not going to terminate loss mitigation until you look at this bar where's financial litigation. does this borrower -- until you look at this borrower's financial litigation. that was an exception. most of the time -- and by most of the time, i say 95% of the time -- they want this structure

because that is why you do mitigation. you want to keep the parties focused and get the deal done. >> thank you. mr. rao, i have been very concerned with affidavits being signed improperly without having first hand knowledge of the facts of the mortgage. with a loss medications and equity courts have at least mitigated the problem to prevent a similar issue in the future by ensuring that more attention is paid to each individual case? >> i think it definitely could mitigate the problem, primarily because bankruptcy courts have been addressing this issue for some time. in my written testimony, i listed a number of cases dating back 10, 15 years in which

bankruptcy courts have encountered problems with false affidavits and false documents been filed and have sanctioned parties for filing that. so although it has become sort of popular in the press right now and there has been a lot of coverage of it, its not at all new to bankruptcy courts and bankruptcy judges -- it is not at all new to bankruptcy courts and back to the judge's. having it be part of the loss mitigation program would only improve that. >> thank you. and thank all of you for your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. ken.hank you, senator fran an i think we will bring the proceedings to a conclusion. i want to thank senator grassley for the time he took here with us today, and i look forward to

working with him and have my staff work with his staff and helping to resolve the issues about whether this is a secret cramdown program of some kind, which i hope the judge's testimony has helped dissipate, but to make sure that's clear to all concerned and to make sure that the investors' voices are heard in this because of other parties -- with any luck we will be able to get to a resolution that allows us to go forward. in order to particularly facilitate questions that come from senator grassley, he has additional written questions that we have accepted into the record, and i would urge all of you, to the extent that they are directed to you, to respond as rapidly as you can. we close the record of the hearing after one week, ordinarily, so the quicker

senator grassley's questions can get to you, the war quickly you can get them back. i would urge you to be as -- the more quickly you can get them back. i would urge you to be as quick as possible to get those answers back. the record will be held open one week to accommodate your answers and any other material that any member of the committee may wish to add. i want to particularly thank those who have traveled some distance for being here. mr. grossman, i think you are actually nearby, but it appears professor sanders has come from georgia, and i'm grateful to you for that. it is not. maybe you are from nearby. >> fairfax, virginia. >> oh, you are easy, then. even though there is a fair amount of snow on the ground by

washington standards. judge drain has come from new york, and i appreciate that. mr. sanders has come from the great distance after his nightmare. after a former -- as a former practicing attorney, i cannot help but extend a particular appreciation to judge drain, one who has a very busy schedule in his court. to have you with us, sir, is i think particularly significant and much appreciated on my part, your honor. so thank you very much. the hearing is a adjourned, objecting the week for providing answers.

>> yesterday, egyptian president hosni mubarak announced he will not run for office in the timber election. his remarks are next -- in the september election. his remarks are next. in the next hour on "washington journal," an update on the situation in egypt. >> there is no other way forward. in this crisis we simply have to work together. as californians first, members of a political party second. >> today, step by step, we are putting ourselves on a better, more sustainable task and

pushing ahead on the road to growth. >> watch this year's state of the state addresses online at the c-span video library. search, watch, click, and share, with every program since 1987. >> egyptian president hosni mubarak said he will not seek reelection this fall, but vowed to fulfill his current term. this comes after a week of anti- government protests. he was vice president and then president when anwar sadat was assassinated in a military parade in 1981. >> my fellow countrymen, i address you when egypt and its people are facing -- these conditions are about to take us to the unknown.

the homeland is facing a harsh moment. difficult task. taken advantage of those with a confrontation on violence violate the constitutional legitimacy. these demonstrations come from a very civilized and modern scene of the exercise of propriety to a regretful confrontation and standoff, manipulated and controlled by forces which

aimed to add fuel to the fire, targeting the safety and mobility of the nation by enticement and incitement, looting, and pillage, arson. hijacking the votes. and assault on public and private and state property. and assaulting the diplomacy on our soil. that haunted the majority of the egyptians and the concern and worry about what the future is holding for them -- and the household, the family, and the future of this

city and their country. the incidence of the past few days, one and all, people and leadership to choose between chaos or stability. and lay ahead of us the circumstances and different egyptian reality which should be addressed by both our people and forces with absolute prudence and caution, for the interest of the people and the nation. my fellow countrymen, i immediately started to form a new government with new priorities that responds to the youth demands and mission. i instructed the vice-president to engage with all the political

forces, all the issues raised for political and democratic -- in order to materialize these demands and restore stability and security. however, there are certain political forces who turn a to adhering to their own agenda. turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the situation we are facing. which is what i address here today, directly to the people of the nation --

farmers, workers, muslims, and christians, elderly and youth. every man and woman in the countryside and in the city is across the nation. i never sought power or issuance and the people are aware of the harsh conditions were i shoulder responsibility, and what i offer to the nation -- i am one of the -- it is not my nature to betray or abandon the responsibility. my top priority and responsibility now is to restore the stability and security of the nation. to ensure the peaceful transmission of power, and the

atmosphere of safeguarding the people to pave the way for who is to be elected by the people in the coming elections. regardless of the current circumstances, i assure you that i did not intend to run for the coming presidency. i have exhausted my life serving egypt and its people. however, i am keewilling to end my career for the benefit of the nation. safeguarding our legitimacy and are constitution, i tell you in plain words that in the few months remaining in my current term, i will work toward

ensuring the measures and procedures that will guarantee the peaceful transition of power by virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the constitution. i call on both houses of the parliament's to discuss the amendments to articles 66 and 67 of the constitution, to amend the qualifications and requirements for the term of the presidency and to enable the current parliament, both houses, to debate on these amendments and the related amendments to legislation and act regarding the constitution. to ensure the participation of all the political forces in the debate, i call on the parliament

to abide by the decision handed down by the courts. i will continue to follow on the work of the incoming government, on the duties and instructions given to them, and the manner that benefits the interest of the people. to respond to the people's aspirations, materialize in the political, social -- providing top opportunities, fighting poverty, and ensuring social -- i instruct the police to uphold its responsibility to protect and save the citizens, honor

them, respecting their rights, freedoms, and dignity. i also call and demand the control powers to immediately take necessary procedures to continue to identify and arrest the all laws and those who perpetrated the dusty out laws and those who perpetrated the -- and arrest the outlaws who perpetrated their act on the unsuspecting citizens. i pray to god to guide me on the right path to end my career in a manner that is applicable to god and the people. my fellow citizens. egypt will brave through the kinds of circumstances, more

strong, more confident, more peaceful, and more harmonious. our people will break through , martina on -- more keen on holding steadfast to the future. >> hosni mubarak, addressing you today, takes pride in the long years he spent serving egypt and its people. this bill of the homeland is my homeland, as it -- this is my homeland, for which i fall, and i defended its soil. and i will die on the soil and i will be judged by history for my

merits and demerits. the homeland will live on. people will not. the banner and trust will be handed over, and we should ensure this in absolute dignity and pride. one generation after the other. may god preserve this nation and its people, and may god be with you. >> now we will get reaction from president obama that egyptian president hosni mubarak will step down in september. >> good evening, everybody. over the past few days the american people have watched the situation unfolding in egypt.

we have seen enormous demonstrations by the egyptian people. we have borne witness to the beginning of a new chapter in the history of a great country. throughout this period, we have stood for a set of four principles. first, we opposed violence. i want to commend the egyptian military for the professionalism and patriotism it has shown thus far in allowing peaceful protest while protecting the egyptian people. we have seen tanks covered with banners, sodas, protesters, embracing in the streets. -- soldiers, protesters, embracing in the streets. i encourage the military's

efforts to help ensure that this time of change is peaceful. second, we stand for universal values, including the rights of the egyptian people to freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and the freedom to access information. once more, we have seen the incredible potential for technology to empower its citizens, and the dignity of those who stand up for a better future. going forward, the united states will continue to stand up for democracy and the universal rights that all human beings deserve. in egypt and around the world. third, we have spoken out on behalf of the need for change. after his speech tonight, i spoke directly to president mubarak. he recognizes that the status quo is not sustainable and a change must take place. all of us who are privileged to serve in a position of political power do so at the will of our

people. through thousands of years, egypt has no many moments of transformation. the voices of -- has known many moments of transformation. the voices of the egyptian people tell us that this is one of those moments, these are one of those times. only the egyptian people can determine their leaders. what is clear, and what i indicated tonight to president mubarak, it is my belief is that an ordinary transmission must be must be orderly, peaceful, and must begin now. it should lead to elections that are free and fair, and ensure results with a government that is not only grounded in democratic principles but is also responsive to the aspirations of the egyptian people.

throughout this process, the united states will continue to extend the hand of partnership and friendship to egypt, and we stand ready to provide any assistance that is necessary to help the egyptian people as they manage the aftermath of these protests. in the last few days, the passion and the dignity that has been demonstrated by the people in egypt, has been an inspiration to people roam the world, right here in the united states. and to all of those who believe in the inability of human freedom. the people in egypt, particularly the young people in egypt, i want to be clear -- we hear your voice. i have an idealistic belief that you will determine your own destiny. to receive the promise of a better future for your children and grandchildren. and i say that, as someone who is committed to a partnership between the united states and egypt. there will be difficult days

ahead questions about egypt's future remain unanswered. but i am confident that the people of egypt will find those answers. that can be seen in the sense of community in the streets. it can be seen in the mothers and fathers of soldiers. it can be seen in the egyptians who linked arms to protect the national museum, a new generation protecting the treasures of antiquity. a human chain projecting that protecting the ancient civilization for the promise of a new future. thank you very much. >> because of the extraordinary use of the filibuster, the ability of our government to legislate is severely jeopardized. >> isn't it true that forceful confrontation to the threat of a

filibuster is undoubtedly the antidote to the malady -- senator byrd did not want us tampering. >> the filibuster remains in tact, but there are new rules in the senate. find out what they are and watch the debate on c-span's congressional chronicle. congressional chronicle, at c- span.org/congress. >> "washington journal" is next. we will take your phone calls. this week, a federal judge has ruled that the new health care law is unconstitutional. the senate judiciary committee will examine the legality of the law this morning. live coverage begins at 10:00 eastern. coming up this hour, an update on the political situation in cairo and the effect it can have on on