>> get over the hads of th bloggers a the ads andthe yk

yak. that overs te debate at times. the pollsshowed those hat watched he speech and approv of the plan, 58% in the c.b.s. poll thnk president obma is diagnose a good job. the number i lieding. the white house hinks waswhat ey did, they got a littl back in august. and they wt to renergize democrats who sid the resident was not forceful enoug in rebutting republicans nd advocating what was iportant. gwen: the present said my mn, okay, what was the presidt's man exactly? ke itapart. let's talkbout cost and how do you pay for something ke that. >> the president says e wants to hold th coss to $9 bh over years. he as ways to o that, firstby

extrting savings from medicare, billions of dollars there are expertswho say there's a lo of wast and inefficiency. the questionis can you reem that out of medice. there's al, going to bea qution of he seeme to -- to give someendorsement, t it is not ear whether it would happen this y or it woul place a fee oninsurance oviders. there's details to be illed in. the president thinks those concessions were the olive branch he needed tget it ving again. >> yes, he mde a point o ntioning republican ideas that he wand to includein his pln, as yet unwrittn, inuding one proposed by senatormccain and a prop opponent from lst year and another lot prject for reform, hich is soething that the publicans have been supportive ofn the past. the tails are leftto be woked ou that'shat he wanted. he wand to say hereare things that are most impoant, but i'm

not going say that weclose off all options, icluding the public option. he is for it, but with other ideas. >>peaking of epublicans, en mentioned and he mentioned, senatorolimpia snowe ad if she could urn outbeing te only republic on abipartisan bill. >> e's on of the most moderate republicans. she's one of six rom the nance committee that ha been working on. >> on republican participating. >> exactly right. so shes moresingled ot. and now with ted kenneds death, the demcrats have 59 of e 100 seats and you need 60 votes to cut off fill buster. they're thinkin if they could get all 59emocrats to te with thearty on that questi, they wou need one more republican. snowe seem most likel but she wou be in the spotlight. shwould be the 60th vote.

one f my collgues sked he, aryou willing to dothat? she said, i wn't comment on at. that's dangerous territory. there ay have to be a plan-to-that picks up at least a couple of other repblicans. e divide is notthe ony divideere. the democratespecially in the use are kind of all ove the lot. ere was a letter at onpoint from libers saing they uldn't vote for a ll that dn't have apublic option. there were blue dog cntrists that said they couldn' vote for it with a pubic option. did the president resolv that? the democrats in on place now? >> n. in the house is a little lss of aroblem, doyl because first the house rules are differt than the senae rules, because a bare majory st all you need. it is conech seveable tha you ha a revolt from thliberals, that they didn't gethe public option ora revolt frm the blue dogs if the costs aren't cu. buthe thinking is at the end of the day, they'll get a bill

out of the house, 'll be differenthan thesene and that's -- the rubber wil meet the road then when you esolve that. >> part the strategy is t get bills passed. they'lfigure this out in conferenc they don't neeto figure out the bottom line. just get bill past thesenate. doesn't have tohave a public option. ansit down at the table. >> what isthe imetable? gwen: whawill we se next? >> the coming weekis the self-imposed deadline by baucus, for a bipartisanbill. that doest lok likely othe than what we tked about. at some point, there going to have to move fast. >> theice president still thinks -- >> you have got a lit of when will go rst? the house cou move faster. they have bills ready to go to the rules and to e floor. but thers a numbeof especly conservative democratin the house that say, wait aminute. you are gng to mak me wal

the plank somehing thatis not popula in my district. i'm up for relection, let's see what the senate doe. >> let's talk abt what everody else is talking about. all the wonderful high-minde ubstance, is overshadowed by one moment on the house floor, two words. you lie, from oe wilson from north carolina. you're from north rolina. wanted to clear tt up for everybody. how much did that help or hurt what the prsident wasout to do? >> if i had power, i wuld joe wils's bank ccount to find ou how much rahm manuel pad him for is. thiscouldn't work out better. therehe white house is saing, time is - time for bickeng is over and then all of a sudden, u hear at the tow hall in the ugust. that's what e white house loves. the democrs in the house toay

on friday cided they're going to see if they could milkhis for longer b officially r nding congresan wilsonwho apologized but not on the foor. gwen: not with a lotof contrition. could you help clear up or thissue that he was shoing abt, which is -- seems to be the one that is aroused by most passion on the rht is will this cover illegal imgran or not? >> it is not a simple aswer. ere is language in the various bills. there's not just oe bill. saying nosubsidy for llegal immigrants. fine. but the republican criti, inclung people like oe wis say there's noerification in the bill. how do we know i we don't ask for proof ofitizenship whether or not you get that. the answer tthat is if youdo these tax sbsidies, theirs has meanisms of course, in which lega residence. gwen: the fedral governnt wot subsidize an illegal alien

ogram. >>it des expressly banthat but es it have adeqate enforcement? and is there a public opion? n an llegal immigrant buy this plan that the govrnment wod offer as a competitorto private insurers. the bills don'say they can't. and a congressial reearch serve says there's nothing in the bill at says -- gwen: how ca you stop? >>he white house today said they won't allow in thei plan, they wod bar illegal immigrantsrom buying the public - >> even in the change, which would have private programs as well, for hich you eally question where is the susidy ther accusations that are potet. gwen: tat's the bi question about the end o this weekfor me. how mu did the outburst and how much did the dbate that follod the outburst and the discussi of this issue, how

muchid it expose hat is really the probl for the president and or congre on thisssue, which is meem are so head up abt it that itis almost impossie to get the details out? they are really wored up out it. but think from talks to -- talking to membersof congress, there's a lot ofpeople dea set against it they and their members of congress won't vote for . not one rpublican said they would vo for this. okay. that's kind into that conversation. they cou get a bill throh without at. we talked a minute ago about he senate. i think in a way tha the notices of - noise of august d the town hal meetings, t told you here the dine might bes were. at does not mean you can't pass a bill. >> there py be mor people gwen: the court returne early toass a a bilthat could overturn finance lawand

sotomayor raised theey queson in the case. how far e they willing to go in overturnin existing aw. we got to listen in. >> i know we askedfor further brfing on this particular issue of oerturning thisbut are you giving up ear here argument that is there are statutory indicatn that is would erlook the question? >> no, but hat the ourt addressed specifically the washington right t life cae is theines bear to be drawn are not line thais are abiguous andnvite litigation thathold the threat of prosecution over an individual. gwenso justi sotomayor was trying to ge to the point of the heart of this. >> how idely is the supreme court going to open e door to corpate money and politican now? ifou remember when this case first came to us inhe spring, it had the narrow question. it rose from a ovie done by a

coervative advocacy grou it was an attack movieon llary clinton wh in 008 was running f the presidential eltion. they put o a moie that is called hillary, te movie. the case deefd when citiz's united wnted to put i on vide on demand ad the fedeal electionommission sid no, thatonflicts with the 2002aw that says you can't rght duing anlection season have corporate money that is spen -- fo or again the candidate ovebroadcastg. it is portion of - of the wide law hat is knwn by snsors and fine gold and mccain of arizona, nd russ fine gold of wisonsin. we start with ths narrow estion of this video on dand, did it violate the election law? sueme court here, andral argunts in march. it comes back thugh with ths wider question hat justice so the maier was ferring to. it says we're in the going to decide this question.

it tells us i june, tht it is going to decide thlarger question, of shuld long 57bding court precdent that sa, that government can actually estrict cororate eenditures and elections, an on candidates, should those stands r stabbe ever stand? are those violations of the righof free speech. what she was askig. it was the fir question. it idn't sound like question to be the first question. it g to the heart of t ing. do we have to rle brodly here or can e as ted olson argued, rule on he statutory question aling with the 2002haw. >> ths wasargued last spring. the normal cou term would have stard in october. so what is i that they had to do i in september >> they realized they wantedto adess the lager constitutional estion of -- you knowaws that are on the books in the stes and lawson the federal books hat say, that government canrestrict

corpore expenditures near an election time. and thats an important queion that frankly womn affct the 2010 races and futue races. when ty couldn't reach that, theyidn't have enogh, you know briefing on the larger question in june theyaid, come back in september and come ck early. the twsides will addresst. i thinthe idea is they could get a ruling out before the end of this calendar yea. and they already did a lot of work on the questi because the briefing had begun frakly lte in2008 and in marc. >> wait a minute. i ought courts liked to dcide cases on narrow grounds, rathe th wide grounds and i thought the upreme court espially and cef justice rberts -- very fond op sticking wih precedent and not overturning decisions they aeady made. wh happened? >> that's that's the question that lots f liberals hopethey will ask. they know chiefjustice john

roerts during t hearings talked about not wanting t jolt thsystem. and mccain and fine gold their briein the case, coming in invoed as afriend of the cour said a ruling that is is broad will jolt th system. their oint s lok, eletions are bout individuals havin their say, not corporate ney orlabor union money. what chf justice joh roberts uggested from the bench, are how lid are somepreceden when genral alaina kagan n representing the goverent in defending these egulations, said, the go back for 100 ears. for 100 yers, congress h been coerned about corporate alth in thelections and te corruptive efect. we haven't sctioned those or 100years. and this lay not be valid. >> is ustice knnedy going to behe swing judge? >> that'a good quetion. in almos every case, it is

kennedy, the swing ote. t here, just as he has consistently bn against gornment regulation in this area, 's very much in favor of broad political fe speech rights. fact, in a ke 1990case that is probab going to b undercut if not completely oveturned, he disnted. the majority. arguments was th they are looking for ways to rollsome of it back in. >> a you know that we're often surprised when we nally get a ruling. >> that's why we'rethere. and we're waiting ont. thk you, joan. >> today is course the ighth anniversary ofhe 9/11 ttacks. anniversarof the events that sparked wars in afghanistan and iraq iraq. ght years of heighted securi at home and eight years of unctainty about h to combat terror. except this year, we have a new administration cong with that. does that make a big diference? >> i'm going to switch for a

moment into french and say the more things change the more they stay the same. >> you said it in english. >> my french is s good. >> i is, go back to the campaign and lok -- barac obama said he would do in the war on trror, was he promised th he would be justas tough ortougher than eorge w. bush he wouldattack tarets in pakistan. atatement toprove he cou be a ha that got him in hot ater during theampaign from hillary and others. he also said that h would close guantanamo bay and bringthe judial parts of this war back under the cstitution. no more secret prisons no more extr legal suff. what happened? on the foreign pasht, he war, he didasically what he sa h would do. he staed to draw down the war in iraand shift resources to afghanian. in fact he didet touger or thebushies would say notreally

tougher, but the pretore trikes in afghnistanand iraq picked up. he went on charm offesive to set reltions wth the muslm worl thatill take a lon run. and on the legl side, i is a fferent picture. he announced tha guantanamo b would closed in a year, but it sn't happened yet ad nobody in the administratn can prome that it will hapen o -- on target. he uspended the military tribuns, they're back operatg again. there wasn't a way to hndled cases they figured out. he h review panel lok at the question of detenti witut trial. that's goi on. and renditio, sending suspects to other countries here they would be -- they came around and recommend let's keep on wit rendition, but, don't worry about it, we'll have the state department do tougher monitoring of wt happens on the other

end. i'm not sure a -- so -- it is really, candidate, obama becom prident obama and collides wi the harsh reality >> what is the harsh eality with rega to guantamo bay. this snded simple to close it. gave them year to deal with things thaare messy, in terms of rebaterating prisoners t other countriesand figurg out how toretryprisoners. it is setember 11th an we're a new months from a yar. >> peter, you obably have e sameonversation i have with meem if the white hoe. if they saidthere wasone cision they could have me a different y this year, it is the way they rolled out guantanamo bay. it jus turned out to be tougher and -- folks back hme, the whole idea of movingsome of these prisoners to maximum curity facilities in the united states tued out to be

wildly unpopul. they looked at knsas ad the kansians didn't want it. there's a upermax inmichigan where there's unmoment, yu couldemploy prison guards. th didn't want it. turned outpeople ineurope didn't want th. the europes are coming alng to some extent. there's some progress. there's 226 prisoners. 120 havet been rviewed yet and 98 are fro yemen and nobody can quite figure out where they wold go. it is a mess. >> let me ask bout theflip side, t anti-terror side. and in trms of th potency of al qaedawhat do we know at is point? eight years in and eight years ter trying to seek retribution and the w inafghanistan, where things stand? >> that's a god fundament question. i thk it is helpful f you go back and remember what it like in9/11 and the months after. we were all heang reports tht al qda hadthe capability to

do all inds of hings. ey blew up commuter trans in madrid, they blw up hoels in bali, there were t bomb embassies in urope that were inteupted. we know, they had plan hat was advaced to low up sevel planes in the lanta, using liquid in boles. what happened as a result of the bush administration's al fronts war on l qaeda, wi a lot of help from ther governments is -- that that organize as been reduced its numbers and its capabilitie there are probly still 300, 400 different estimates, real al qaedpeople hiding out in pakistan, cluding osama bin laden but they hav't goten near pulling of anything spectacular in quite sometime. obviously, iamic terrorismand milincy is a problem lots of aces but al qaed itself -- we don't kn preciselywhere

they are, becae they're not thank you. gwen: thank y all very much for tht. we tnk you everyone at home. we're done here, but the coersation continues onlin with your questionsnd our answers. that's the "shington week" webcast extra. you could fi it at pbs .org/"washington wk." we'll seyou next week n "washington week." we leave you tonight with another ok at today's9/11 obrvances. good nig. ♪ >> on a daywhen others sought tostop our confidence, let us rew our purpose how we came togetr as one nation as one peple,as americans. united not only in our gef but in our reolve to sand with one anotr. to stand up for the country we all love.

♪ >> corporate fundin for "washingn week" is provid by -- >> we know why we're here. to stand behind all ho serve. >> to eliver the technology vital to feedom. to helcarry hope to those in need. arounthe globe, te people of boei are working togetr for what matters most. nast whywe're here. >> majorunding for washington week" is also proided by he annenberg founation, the corporation or public broadsting and by ctributions to your pbs station from vrs like you.