>> what do you think a tree can be? can it be strongerhan steel? can tree the plaique -- plaster, fuel for our cars or clothing? or medicine that figs cancer? wi our trade cell technology, wethink it can -- weyerhaeuser, growing ideas. >>i move to report the bill as amended. >> this week,s senate decrats moved the present's heth care package forward, republicans prepare to fight. >> let point out that this leslation has not one single

provision that is aimed at reducing the cost of hlth care. y think you have a temr that proem? >> no, sir. i believe th my reputatiois such that i ask the rd questis, but i do it evenly for bothides. >> supreourt nominee sonia sotomayor playit cool. >> basically > people used the cia as a whipping boy >> y is congress leaning on the cia >> yes, it was 40 years ago that an american fit set foot on the moon. >>that's onemall step for man, one git leap for mankind. >> repubcans have been saying that the president's alth-care

pl is drafted -- as drafted what rate the bank and this week thhead of the congresonal dget office seemed to buttress the argument the president sa reducing alth-are costs isssential but uglas elmendorf says the legislation and the sete will do just the opposit. >> on the contrary the gislation signifintly expands the feder responsibity for healthare costs. >> but the president says doing nothing about health care is not an option. >> t price of doin nhing about health care i a price th every taxpayer and every business and every family will have to pay. >> health care reform is not a democrat or republican iue, it is anmerican issue. but the start of the health- care debate, democrawere comptely satisfied in the process. >> republican sator orrin hatch. i know i askethis wee after week. how are we goingo pay? one house solution, tax wlthy amerans, anothe to which the white house aopposed to tax

simply provided nefits. do wwant to tax police d firefighr benefits? and the democratic party has ads targeting democrats, one targeng senator kent conrad, though not by name. where is this debate going? >> this isoing dirtly to the whe house. i think whawe're seeing ght now is the empty pla against the sky that is lt by t kennedy's absence. he was the guy who was gng to forge theompromise is and work consensus and he knows the subject better than anydy and hes missed. that in deferenceo everyon else invved. but the president understan that his administration will rise or fall on the passage of thserious reform of national health care. if they don't do it, demrats in 2010, for get i they will be aociated and entified with aailed adminiration. >> colby? >> i don't see it quite that

way. e ec the first that take by committee that authorizeshis thing. and the kennedy committee -- now shar by chris dodd -- are the ones that pull o the benefit the toughe jobill come from the fance committee whe they have tfigure out how to pay f this thing and that is whe the rubb will really hit the road. everybody knows it will happe it will happen i theenate, the house wi the main -- ways and means committee. when the bills -- the prident will ce in when the bil passed both bodieand it has to be worked out. >> if th thing fails, which think it now might, think people will trace it in a moment in the clip you swed, the emror withno cloes moment. he had a contraction. he says correctly at the expense of healthcare, how much were spending is destying our economy d that has to

stop. that is ue. then w get these proposals out of congress, all of which, the head o the c is saying, raises the curb rather than lowering it. you cannot cure over spending on health care b imposing an expansi -- expansion and a huge w entitlemt. this was a answer to a question asked by a democrat chaired by benham -- democrats. it was a realeven of the ment. >> now? >> y p for it, and there is no free lunch, you pay forit by taxing benefits over a certain amount, rich people who have benefited anonymously by e bush tax cuts. but the other way y pa for it and make it work is by having some re control on the way health ce is apportions, spence, treated in th country. and that is cpletely missing at the moment. it is only pilot proams in is bill. there is not rlly any control from e department of health

anduman services. and the president understands hat, but it's got to do something. he can't just sitnd wait for tohappen. >> he wante done by all this research -- recess. how? >> he is right to iist. i think he has plad a useful d produce -- who has plad a producti role is elmendor by laying dn the garden -- or let and sang this is a very expensive bill. now th problem is how you pay for this thing. is is what the're going to have to do the fact you have senator grasey,anking republican come still at the table trying to work of is thing sgests to me at it isot close to failure. it is that that rl critical moment where real comprome willave to be worked out and republicans will have to come in on this deal. >> crunchtime, mark? >>runch time. nobody i knowuestions of the intellect or the temperament of barack oma.

thquestion is about the ste and the ine. and this is theime forhe steel and t spine. the reaty is this -- use democrats, who are not a rribly popular sympatheti group, they already cast one potentially cor vote for climate chan. now you areoing to ask them to raiseaxes, a difficult tng, 54 billion, even ift is on thwealthy -- that is a top load. they still don't know what the place of no retu is and non- negotiabletems for the white house. hey are still wting for the nate to cast any type of a tough vote. this is where theresident s to com in and play the role of ted kendy, theole lyndon joson did, great presidents do when their agenda is on the line. one person who has not distinguished herself is the leader of the house, nancy pesi, becauhey have no serious proposal for handling

thcontrol costs. the answer on the issas, ll, we will have to look at the waist to fraud and abuse issues, which of course, and insult to our intelligence. and looking at preventi ises. there is udy after study tha shows prevention is nice,t saves yo a life, it produces -- reduces mbidity and pain t it does not save mon. it increas in expenses. they have no serious answer on hoto conol costs and that i why theyave tond up with huge increases. >> therere serious answers b they are not bitinghe blet. >> you don't have some of my dan rostkowski fro ways and means or mls, who pushed these issues. >> and it doesn't ha tom dasce, eier. >> need tput wosn it -- we live in a free lunch. . tax creases of any kind to be avoided the reality is they are

going to have to be, anacross thboard. >> we hava problem with mon for healthare. but let me point out, goman sachs h its best quarter ever. we put $ billion in to what, we taxpayers does it mean we t somethi back? >> just think about the political dynami. we have financial and enomic crisis in thountry, created inarge part by t excesses', the greed, anprobably crimality of those in positions ofnfluence and importance in the nancial world,particularly in wal street. and the country is suffering. unemployment going into double digits. kahl acros akron toledo, the middle of the cntry, peop are in pain and we find th ese lks, these architects who were bailed out by the people in akron and toledo, are paying themselves, returningto theamptons and buying their condos. is made into a popar rolt in

2010. >> does goldman sachs pback the $1billion? i assume. yes. then aig is the one that gets me they were sling stuff they didn't have >> norlly you go to il for that, right? >> i think so. >> in wall street, you get a bailout. >> didn't bernie mannf th cells of? >> hank paulson was othe hill th week trying to explain this bank of ameri deal when he pressured tt bank to buy. he said, look, if we have not doneome and we would be in worse shape. at the timeome of us said they were made to pa they were made toda in fact, wwere me to pay not justoldman sachs. cigroup of thgreat prophets, morgan, great profits, even bankamerica, great prots. and where is the rest of the

country? holding theag with nothing. >> i rise idefense of scrooge. >> let him finish. >> i respect the populism of my frndshere and may even support a mark shids goldman sachs tax, however- and the justice is palpable. however, the reason have hi unemploymt and the reason the country is in a r and our cuency is sking is because last year we had a collapse of our fincial system bo the republican d demratic administratio pumped hureds of billions in our money into that system, recognizing that unls it is saved, we all go down. so the injustice absolely there an perhaps what y want to do is taxed away the profits with a scial t. however, we wt to see health and goldman and citigroup and bank of america. >> absolutel >> because if we d not ve it.

>> you should have let m go first, charles, because having me make tha point would be much more powerful. >> we will be a judge o that. >> perhaps less articulate. >> maybe. no otheray to do this. asmuch as i hate to admit it, if we don't have health banks we won't have a healthyountry. wh we can do come at the moment trying to negotiate unlievably low rates r payinback stuff. we do not ha to do them an more big favors. they oughtto be on their own w. >> let's look at the banks indidually get how did they get the profits? in the case of ci, the big crges - fiscal is what y call it. secrary paulson said i need money to buy the toxic asts. it went instead to eight b

banks, tt is where an whe and they a well now we stil have toxic assets. >> judge sonia sotomor soo to-be juste sotomayor. can you give your opinion whether not in this country an i personally as an individua citizen have right to self- defense. >> as i said, i don't know. i don't know that legal question h been ever prented. >>now, unless you have a complete meltdown y are going to get confirmed. >> members of the senate judiciary committe tried toin down judd sonia sotomayor. you just saw one. they failed. if liney graham is right and this thing is over, what i the point of four endless dayto tal about latino wdom? >> they didn't have mh else. and republicans wanted to exten a hand to their concts -- conservative constuencies. there is no blood there. particular no blood because she obviously studied and

memorize the tnscript of the alito and robts earrings and literally used the same verl formulion. the on one she dn't use from roberts was, i have no quarrel with that. that is the one she stayed away from. but other than that, she stuck to their script d the republans were just a frustrat as the democrats were a few years ago. >> what you know about this judge, mk? >> a l less tne knew mond. opinion-free, controversy-free. i have been told she blew away the president in the interview. she absolutely when she went in, she wa n at the p of the list t he was so impressed. whatever she d in that interview, she kept under wraps. >>e know he didn' ask about abortion here in that's ght. the realitys this. bob bork, who was intellectually combave and enged and controversial gave

tellectual combativeness and engagement ibad name and cents and then everydy does the wrote the dope. that is what we h. >> what if you took the cameras away? get over and a half a day? >> yes, no audience play too. i think she demonstrated leg competen. shereflected years on the bench as a jurist. no questn she may know the law. guess one of the panelists, senator s reducedo televise thpeople thought that she s mean that was sort of an irlevant parof the hearing and he stayed on a foa whe. with men, it is assertednd with won, its aggressive. i n't know why they picked on that issue. >> that's ght. >> i'm really mean. >> crles? >> i thoht the foudays was sort of a tesment to the triumph of conservativ the

judicial philosoy. she eed up saying, giving exactly wt john roberts cringe, which isnsisting it it shows that even if you have a popular president, anncredibly stng majority in the congress, you have to pretend ifou are a liberal that you areot in libel in judicial phisophy because the vast majority of t american people arconservative looking at the law. ut in the end, it ended up, day after day disinnuousness to the point ord and where i would say, iftver want to make khalid shaikh mohammed taht the value macon watched those heangs and leslie. he will say anything. -- tal make him what those hearings enlessl. he was anythi. she will be the reversef the court not like anybody who was there testifying. then i think she is more

nservative on some issu than you anticipate and you will see it right away. alou mo justices, you don't get a real good feeling until they are on the supreme court a few years. but we had this ca this year that was 5-4 that said you c't just setet fensic report, yohave to have e peon who didt. them of the lab technician. >> 5- justice scalia wro it, one of odd coition of liberals and conservatives. i think there is good chance that decision will be reversed and totly undercut and she will be the fifth bo replacing super the other way. >> this is a woman who spe 12 years at the spani -- hianic legal dense fund in which she struggled mightil for l kinds ofiberal causes. for which i commend her. the idea that somehow as sending on to the hiest court in whh you esseially make long, she

will - make law that she will relinquish, not cnce. >> ihink probably that was the worst moment, to say at she was on theoard of the fundut had not read the lel briefs tt the fund generated. >> i actually talked other board members who said they made a pnt of ts bause if they re confirmed they woulhave conflict >> so much of the four ds was a scripted kabukiance aut aborti. i've got to tell you. >> and gurights. >> but that is seconda. that is the 800 pod gorla in the om or elephant. me know, s's pro-choice, and ow that alito and rorts were pro-life. what it pves oncegain is the political press oto be alwed to work. were headed ward rolving abortion politilly and

legiatively in this country. it w short circu by the court d 36 years later its stilfront and center. >> i agree entirely. absolutely right. it should have been allowed and th bader ginsbursaid that bore she ascended to t court. >> you could say th same about race. >> privacy is in the constitution sewhere. >> wre is it? >> i will find it. then i will bring in copy later. >> is congress about to investigate t c? >>aving a massive program concealed from the leaders o congress is not only apprriate, it could be illegal. >> i think we ght to look forward and not backrds. >> pair ofheia had a pla to kill c operatives on the ground. the agency spendshe money on th, hence therain fo it, based on a 2001 presideial finding at authorizeit. but thenew seat --hen the new cia chief ard about i h canceled it and told congress

and they are making ises about investigating. aside fm what congress ew or didn't know, w is it acceptle to take out al qaeda- types in the air with an armed drones, rking civilians, but no acceptle r hundred yards from a sniper, colby >> this is comin up and leads -- but this was not jusa matter of killing outside ou pries in the battlield with drones in places like yemen but also seeking out and tellg them in foreig countrie -- places like stockholm, o bangkok, war lagos. and aining assassins to do it. and is is what caused congress to get up in arms becausehey have n heard about this. it raises a lot of questions, t just t operation itself but the extent congress ought to be directly invoed withvery idea, every plant that the centralntelligence agency is

coming up with. i tnk we are on really shaky ground. not oy the question of wh the ciaill do, but how othe intelligencegencies around th world that work with thcentral inteigence agency will cooperate with us if whenever they are talng about planning gets up on the hill and then becomes the subject of front- ge stories. these are too oft, when we he about them, black and white questions. there is a difference about -- from telling ery plant and a plan that has gone on for essentially seven year >> but it wanever plemented. >> apparentlyt had started t be implemented >> tt is not the int. hen you are still doing sometng, and i am not saying the idea is a bad one, butf you are ing something this serious that could implicate all kinds of questions and y don't tell coness, at se point years into the planning, you are asking for trouble.

>> do we need be debing is in public? >> we wouldave to if they told em about it. >>ook, the scaal is for eight years we didot have a program of targeted assassination for al qda. if al qaeda is in afghanist hit them wit a drum but as you say, iis not discriminatg, it kills women and children. if the guy is in stockholm, wouldhoot or capture him there. a predat cannot capture bin ladenonly kill him. eathically, it is oblematic to it from the skywith a predor. for information, there was no program. saw from the clip it was a maive program. it was reaing the stage of erhaps imementing the traing, and that is why panet raised it and up until there it had not even reached he training level. ere was nothing there, no scandal a all. a conction, would to prect pelos retroactively

because of her accusationsabout cia ne. >> we're not talking abouthe speaker of the house. the burden the law. thiss the law, you -- or break it. itrequires youo inform the appropriate commtees. dine feinsin isot a liberaone worlder, she is tough mindednd she was told excluded. how many times do you break e law and the public trustand destrod confidence in your government? >> at what point you have to ll them? when you are sitting -- >> it says you have to inform on significa operations. th was not operatial. it didn't even exist, it was an idea. >> the decision was made by the vice-president othe united stes. the report proving this from john yu at the justice department by hiuperiors, the

white house, direly to the vice-president sayi don't inform the congrs. that is seriou >> it was notn operation only idea. >> aqaeda. the on landing revisited. >> theagle has landed. >> neil armstronlimbed down the ladder and became t first human being in story to set foot on the moon. >> that's one small step for man, one gia le for mankind. u've got the flag of, you can se the stars and stres. >> beautiful, just butiful. >> a that was 40 years ago. you want to read a good lumn abo the chaenges of space exploration read it charles krauthmer this week. wi all the ecomic problems facing us at the moment, can we afford toeet the challenge? slow, soft,ight over the plate, charles >> stulus is spending 100 civilians on junk. the one thing that will happen as a result our negctf

space byeptember of next year will lose the abili to put anybody in space. we will have to hch a ride with the russians and chinese indefinitely isthat where america ought be 40 years after this unbelievable acevement of landing on the moon in the spirit of john kennedy? i think not. >> colby? >> i wish we couldave talked about this landmark achieveme without gettg into the stimulus package i don't see the connection. we needed the stimus packa and we als need to keep them the moon explotion going as well. i thi we can nd a way to do both. simply because the presidenof the united states s not said hes going to do sething with e moon walk -- moon's face eloration is notnecessarily saying all along and america will endthe way we know and love it. >> are w going to get to mars? >> look, erybody remembers where they were when kennedy was

shot and whewe landed onhe moon a i would ch better remember the landing on e moon. i have been at one bstoff, and itas credibly impressive. >> you witssed one. [laughter] >> we you there? >> i was incredibly -- >> a couple of thishow. >> i was inedibly exciting and impressive but i reay can'figure out why we shou do it. >> it was the great national moment. ani tnk the desire to recapture that, that sense of national purpose and mission, settg high standards and doing that is something all america e in for. >> thank you. st word. see you nexteek. for transcript, log onto insidewashinon.tv.