why didn't the administration address the significant excess capacity in the u.s.? possibly by merging chrysler and gm. why did the administration instead favor a merger between chrysler and fiat and on what did the administration base its conclusion that the new chrysler will be viable in the long run? did the administration take into consideration the effect that the aid to gm and chrysler would have on other auto manufacturers in the u.s.? what underlays the determination that the u.s. treasury should hold approximately 10% of the new chrysler and 60% of the new gm? by taking such significant equity stakes in the two companies, the administration has embarked on a disturb disturbing and i believe difficult road. we've been assured the administration would stay out of day to day management and it will not allow politics to influence the decision-making process within the companies. on the one hand, that's very reassuring. on the other, it illustrates the inherent difficulty posed by large government interventions in private markets. if the government intends to be

more transparent than the bush administration was and the clinton administration was prior to that. to make, the real fight is about transparency. the fight was over executive privilege when it was putting congress against the presidency. you do not normally see that when both parties told the congress and the white house. if i hope at some point that the control of the congress and the presidency come to differ over the next two years, i think you are going to see this clashes and that is when you will see whether -- with the extent to which president obama is committed to transparency. i happen to think there is an enormous value with being able to shield some of your highest advise from public scrutiny. if you want the unvarnished honest advice of your visors, you are best off not splashing what advice they give you on to the front pages. i will use a congressional example. i do not think many members of congress would want to have made public the internal e-mail between them and their staff over what to vote on a certain bill and what considerations they take. that is the type of

it is my home the administration will take the findings and recommendations seriously. we owe the commissioners a debt of gratitude for their service. the best way to show gratitude is by listening to them and charting our course based on where they revealed consensus is possible. finally, mr. president, will congress and the administration heed the commission's bipartisan findings and recommendations? i'm fearful that won't be the case. why do i say that in it appears the administration's preparing to take big risks in the negotiation of the start follow on treaty with russia. specifically, the president announced that he intended to seek a treaty that moves below the lower level of strategic nuclear forces permitted by the so-called moscow treaty. some reports suggest administration is seeking to go as low as 1,500 deployed nuclear weapons or a 30% reduction from present levels. i'm not going to prejudge the correct number of our nuclear forces. i will say, however, that i agree with the commission which referred to -- and i quote -- "the complex decisionmaking proces

re-the administration on its bank policy and its handling of banks. is morning a look at several banks that are returning tarp money lent to them. "the new york times" and others rightabout this and the net result of having lent to the banks. here are the results -- banks the return taxpayers' money will remain dependent on other forms of government aid, among them are enhanced deposit insurance, incentive payments to modify home mortgages and federal guarantees on bonds that banks sell to raise capital. the treasury has collected about $1.8 billion in interest payments. it might reap up to $4.6 billion as the banks seek to expunge other investments known as warrants. we will focus on how to read the obama administration. joining us to help interpret that is john shaw. if you have to pick below points to consider on how to grade the administration on its bank policies, would you say? guest: it is too soon to tell with the agenda for the financial-services industry, whether it is working. they inherited a very complex and chaotic situation. you start ou

the obama administration has set forth a plan for the two companies post-bankruptcy. choosing to bypass the normal bankruptcy process the administration presided over the restructuring through an alternative, ad hoc process. today's hearing i hope will give us the opportunity to understand how the administration came to the conclusion that this support was warranted and expectations about how the new taxpayer investments will be managed and ultimately unwound. i look forward today to understand what considerations drove the outcomes of both the gm and the chrysler negotiations. why didn't the administration9 address the significant excess capacity in the u.s. possibly by merging chrysler and gm? why did the administration instead favor a merger between chrysler and the italian car maker fiat and what did the administration base its conclusion that the new chrysler will be viable in the long run? did the administration take into consideration the effects that the aid to gm and chrysler would have on other auto manufacturers in the u.s.? what underlays the determination

we have several members of the administration up here, and given the pace of the new administration, i think spending a friday evening doing anything but being in a catatonic state is really an heroic effort. i know that the panel will be lively, and it just by way of one housekeeping business, you will get to ask most of the questions tonight. you need to reach into your back in right -- pullout a card and write your question on the card. people will collect them and give them to me. if you do not have a card, just write it on a piece of paper. i just want to set the stage briefly for this panel. change is a word we have heard over and over again during the past few months. we heard a lot of it during the course of blasters campaign, and i think for a reason. -- the course of last year's campaign. in november, after eight years of conservative leadership -- i wanted to say it failed conservative leadership, but they told me to pull my fangs in. the american people went to the polls prepared to send a clear, decisive message that they were ready for a shakeup in washington. the >> the

obviously the obama administration is putting off. and particularly vice-president cheney in making this big effort to connect, be more transparent. but there are politics in at as well. >> i imagine there are differences and the differences may or may not be bigger than we think once we start seeing more classes between the branches. these internal task forces that the administration has set up, you are more transparent than the bush should ministrations was and the clinton administration was prior to that. to me, the real fight about transparency in our administration, the claims of executive privilege, when it was putting the executive congress against the presidency, you don't normally see that when those fights with both parties told congress and the white house. if, i hope, the control of the congress and the presidency come to differ over the next few years, you will see those classes, and you will see the extent to which president obama is committed to transparency. i happen to think there's an enormous value to be able to shie

, on behalf of the administration. [inaudible] >> it's not right. >> what does that mean? >> it means i don't have any policy or personnel announcements regarding dennis ross. >> that doesn't necessarily mean the story is wrong. is that what you are suggesting? that i am suggesting if i had a personnel announcement to make regarding dennis ross, i think they should. [inaudible] >> i'm telling you that the president has enormous confidence, the president doesn't have any personal announcements to make. >> i have no personnel announcement to make. >> she didn't make every traction and i am not going to belabor that. >> i would be one busy man if that were the case. >> can you translate some of this, three times presently set talk about the fermentation should between south korea and the united states when responding to a question about the north korean threat. did he ask for an assurance from the president that if there's a military strike against south korea that the u.s. will respond to that? that it's unequivocably un

. >> it was an awful lot better than the brief that was written in the bush administration. there is no question, a personal statement. there were some things in there that should not be in there. they did make an effort -- they are trying to make arguments and eliminate arguments the bush administration has made. the administration is trying hard and moving slowly. they announced yesterday he asked for presidential memorandum extending benefits to same-sex couples for travel benefits and health benefits. it is a complicated area of law. we are constrained by doma so he is trying to do what he can do within the confines and extend those benefits and said clearly he wants to be working with congress to support the legislation that would extend benefits and to repeal doma. no one thinks it is fast enough right now. i know the president cares about this and is working on, he wants to reverse do not ask, do not tell. >> what she said. in the stand when people are impatient with the pace of progress. i would say in our defense progress is mostly in the right direction and there is

the amendment number six strips the inclusion of operating rules on administrative simplification. i am concerned that the enzi amendment would undermine efforts to reduce the administrative burden when health care providers both public and private by deleting the inclusion of operating rules. operating rules are important because they build on existing standards to make electronic transactions more predictable, consistent regardless of the technology. operating rules reduce costs and administrative hassles baiji taking out and leaving in words like standards and procedures but taking out operating, the operating folsom goes to the heart of it. the current affordable health choice act of administrative simplification standards that allow doctors, patients, hospitals and payers to more efficiently carry out administrative transactions and would reduce the it ministry if hassle in this area. the administration of health care claims alone cost ten to 14% of doctors, practice, revenues. we estimate section 22 could save anywhere from 25 to $30 billion. now, so that's what his amendment

and the public being able to see what the administration is doing. the question is how does the public really communicant with the administration. how does a regular citizen or member of a cs major policy concern or issue no to the administration. lisa, do you want to? [inaudible] one of the things that goes along with transparency, this administration is using technologies in ways that you have not seen before, and has a very vibrant website and is really encouraging interplay on the website. so i think that obviously is one with it the other way as sort of the traditional way which especially for acs member scott talking to all of us. we really do want to hear ideas. this is an administration that is very eager to hear good ideas right now, so i don't recommend regular mail to the white house because just last week received an invitation to an end i drove party. [laughter] >> it was being irradiated someplace. e-mailed answer the website and talking to all of us. >> i think this white house, it's a very, very vibrant part of the white house. not jus

on another topic, i wrote to the president on monday about my continued concern that the administration has not formally withdrawn legal opinions, including the white paper that provided legal justifications for the bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. the letter was prompted by recent speech by the director of national intelligence. he asserted the program was not illegal, but he later clarified that. in a speech to the american constitution society, you said the following -- i never thought i would see the day when the president would act in direct defiance of federal law by out of rising warrantless interfaced surveillance of american systems. the president himself has several times said during the campaign that the program was illegal. now that you are attorney general, is there any doubt the wireless -- or loss wiretapping program was illegal? >> i think as it existed at that point was unwise in that it was put together without the approval of congress. as a result, it did not have all the protections and strength it might have had behind it that now exists with r

and finally on terms of the obama administration, again without making too much of it, the obama administrationfaces something of a bush or the republican administration's bill face and i think the most acute form we have seen in recent years, or ever in the democratic party, he has a party that is deeply split on trade and globalization issues. i want to point out to you that last week 104 democrats in the house signed on to a bill that really called for a total revamp yet u.s. trade policy and stopping and going back and looking at fda's before going forward. now, i understand, you know, congressman can sign built and doesn't cost them anything but i think it is an importance of what the obama administration will face. in that regard let me shift from their to the regional questions, but before i do so, a place where it's going to come to trade policy and certainly will be to the floor in the administration when it besides do so, go forward with regional initiatives. and that is the pressure to increase the u.s. demand in terms of labor and the environment. the most recent demand in the house

much of the administration's political policy and legal agenda seems to be strategically responsive to the success of the federal society legal agenda. [unintelligible] rather than the one that we can achieve and how can we move toward that society? in the heart of the context of legal policy, where do you think we need to be going? >> as you watch how he approaches the enhanced interrogation techniques and the military commissions of those issues, this is somebody -- i cannot know if you heard his speech on this report of issues. he believes in this document and understand what it means for people in this country. because of who he is and where he comes from, you are going to -- you already see part of the fabric of the decision making that is happening in the administration. as we come into office, we have come in with a number of serious problems where we are having to react which is what leads -- it is reactive on some issues and a clear agenda on health care and education and the economy. over time, hopefully, we will see more of a movement out of your office. >> but that certainl

earlier this year, in the mohammed case, the administration currently maintained that the prior administration's sweeping assertion that the very subject matter of the case was a state secret. and that that should prevent judicial consideration of the case. the case was about torture. a few months later, another case was brought against the government for unlawfully spying on its own citizens. and our administration again sought outright dismissal arguing that litigating the case inevitably would require the harmful disclosure of state secrets and that the court need not examine any actual information on whether the case might proceed. it's too secret. we can't -- we can't even talk about it. what do you mean a remedy with rights? this is a right apparently without any remedy at all. it's too secretive to talk about. don't you -- don't you get it? it's so secret we can't even hear the case to determine whether there's a right or a wrong involved. or whether it's a case brought in error. so we remain encouraged that the administration is taking a fairer review of the state secrets privilege. and

it is great to be here and part of the administration. it is great to work with our friends in congress and bring you the change that many people in this room work long and hard to bring to washington. >> you are the general counsel of the office of management and budget. ron talked about the very aggressive domestic agenda that the president has been undertaking. in this administration, the omb has become a power house across the range of questions, not just putting together the federal budget, but the administrators are very active -- the administrator is very active on healthcare, climate and energy. you have the cio which is implementing transparency. they even did personnel. is this just the natural accretion of power in through the executive office of the president? you have worked in state government, at the justice department. is this just more and more authority, by necessity now moving into compound the fence that surrounds the white house? what is your reflection on the way this omb is operating in the context of this very aggre

and the administration said the findings don't need to be distributed. the president pledged when he signed the stem cell executive order to use science in a non- political way out -- way, to be transparent and not prejudge things. do you have any comment on this? >> i have not seen those females. -- e-mail's. one of the things we spoke about in this administration was coming in danger was a policy -- the result of a court case that would require action in the absence of legislative acts. this administration has always maintained that the best course of going forward wasn't through administration action, but through a process that included a use of congress. covers made an important step in that on friday in a moving forward on legislation that will, for the first time, mandate the curtailing of greenhouse gas emissions. that is the preferred method that this administration would like to see addressed and discussed. >> will the president recommend to the senate to drop the tariff position of the house? >> he has concerns about the positions. i think the

the administrators are looking at this process. as well as the outcome from that process which is how much money is going to economically distressed areas. we have seen in a number of states, i referred to michigan, 77% of the funding that has been obligated to date in michigan is used in economically distressed areas. we are seeing similar figures in mississippi and idaho. it is giving us some sense that the provisions are being adhered to and we are seeing money flow to economically distressed areas as part of the economic recovery funding. >> does your agency had any kind of mechanism to make sure the money obligated to use in order to actually put it to good use rather than abdicating the money that has it sit there? movement -- >> we are seeing the project move very quickly from obligation to advertisements to underway. we are looking at 5,000 projects that have been approved, 1500 of those projects. we are seeing projects move very quickly through the pipeline. the dots are committed to that, as are the local governments. we a

we all expect the obama administration to disagree with many determinations by the bush administration but the criticism of the ndic extends beyond the previous administration. the report by the g.a.o. back in 1993 cited 19 other drug intelligence centers that already existed. whose functions the ndic duplicates. it's not just the previous administration. long before that, we've recognized that this is money that should and could be saved if we closed down the center. as reported in "the hill" on may 14, a review of o.m.b. agreed. they concluded the ndi crmbing's efforts were duplicative of other intelligence agencies. a spokesman for d.o.j. said the resources for ndic should be realigned to support priority counterterrorism and national security initiatives. mr. chairman, this is a center begging to be shut down. i don't need trow mind anybody here of the problems we're having fiscally. we're running the biggest deficit we've ever run. we have public debt that's just astounding. we have unfunded liabilities that should make us all shudder and we simply can't keep a center like this op

i would just@@@@@@@@&@ @ @ @ @ r the obama administration is ahead of previous administrations. >> the only two so far, right? >> so far. >> do not over claim. we are up to four. >> things are moving along. there were only a few nominations in the bush administration and most of the people when we talk about confirmations, september, that kind of thing. >> that is it on timing. we were up to four. what kind of people will be put on the court? to counterbalance and balance out the conservative judges particularly on the court of appeals that president bush and previous republican presidents have put on. what kind of attributes to uc president obama looking for in selecting judges? >> i can speak from the transition standpoint where we worked on this. it was clear that he was looking for very capable, intellectually gifted lawyers, jurists, law professors. that was first and foremost. clearly superior qualifications. i think my sense of the extra factor that -- the distinguishing factor was more just a sense that this was a person who understood -- who had a sense of why they wanted to b

there are a couple questions about whether the administration is being too tepid in its support for [unintelligible] and there is skepticism about the continuation of policy on state secrets and more questions about that. these are some of the things we talked about. here is my favorite question. i offered you time to close up and get some final thoughts and maybe reflect on this which is my favorite question of the day. what does the obama presidency mean to you? so take any of those topics. we had hundreds of questions here and i am sorry i did not get to them. if anyone wants to talk about military tribunals and why they are necessary, or state secrets, feel free but answer that question. what does the obama presidency mean to you? >> i think it really does mean change. there are some things that are government things and components, turf battles, all this kind of stuff. i think it really does mean change and i -- for me, it means the fact that there are so many people that are in this room who are going to have an opportunity to contribute and participate in terms of government se

approach for india verses the bush administration or the clinton administration before that. is there a new priority? what would the problems because of those priorities? >> that is a great question. number one, i think now, because of the prominence in capacity and organization of the indian american community, there is the very narrow band with win which the administration would move -- within which the administration would move. you can't ignore india, you have to pay attention, to the great credit of the americans, that is one thing. secondly, the bush administration, the nuclear deal was such a big deal in terms of the amount of effort it took to change the congress and the legal system and the international framework, that is like giving birth to an elephant. i am going to mess up the metaphor because we have a new mother now. to follow up on that, there's not going to be anything that big you can do for a long time. that needs to get sorted out because it hasn't been implemented. there is going to be dismayed that india hasn't passed a liability law to enable u.s. compa

the nc event number 6 has the operating rules on administrative simplification. i'm concerned that the enzi amendment would undermine efforts to reduce the administrative burden on health care providers both public and private by deleting the inclusion of operating rules. hospitals to carry out administrative transaction and will reduce the administrative hassle in this area. the administration of health care kinds alone cost 410 to 14% of doctors practiced revenues. we estimate section 22 could save anywhere from 25 to $30 billion. now so that's what his amendment does. to be sure, though, i did consult with omb. i want to work with you, and we've had a good time working together. >> yes. >> they were concerned that by striking the requirements, the standards be unambiguous could likely lead to more variations in which information is required and how it would be collected, et cetera and to the extent the greater variation undermines the very savings. so we want to decrease variations and we're concerned that the very intent of it -- instead would goa against the

new york times columnist david brooks talks about the administration -- the obama administration. then, the health and human services secretary testifies. the you're watching public affairs programming on c-span. >> coming up on tomorrow morning's "washington journal." jarrett allen of the hill paper has written about detainee interrogations'. and for the sixty fifth anniversary of d-day, we will talk to john mcmanus, author of "the americans at normandy." >> today, the labor department reported in 9.4% unemployment rate for last month. that is half of a% higher than -- that is half a percentage higher than in april. it is an hour and 15 minutes. >> i would like to welcome the chairman for holding this meeting. they will brief us on the most recent unemployment data. this morning's release reported may job losses totaling 345,000 . almost half the losses in recent months, but an unemployment rate of 9.4%, a jump of have of a percentage from the previous month. workers at part-time workers who cannot find full-time employment, the unemployment rate jumps to 16.4%, the highest rate s

it has been all over the lot. >> what influence did the administration have on that issue? >> the influence we had is to work with the company to try to come up with a commercial approach to this question which is to say how do we best maximize the value of the government, the government is putting a huge amount of money into these enterprises and the only way we get it back is if there is a viable enterprise going forward. the question we ask the company in each case is what is the smallest amount you have to give because you would like the smallest burden you can have, what is the smallest amount you have to give consistent with building a successful enterprise? every single stakeholder, we challenge the company to make that kind of determination, and that was the role we played. as i said to an earlier question, we are not the management, we are not running the company, but we are the provider of capital. we had an obligation to challenge them, to make sure they were acting in a fossil and commercial fashion. that is what we tried to do. >> let me ask one more question. d

i just would like your opinion on the current administration, the bush administration, the future administrations in a position to where they can't cut off those shipments because it would be perceived in the international community as being too harsh but yet make the american public aware that we're actually fueling the north koreans' military machine k. i have your comment on that? guest: sure. that is correct. in large part. i think the two countries that i think are most responsible for propping the north carolinians up because it is a failed state -- the north koreans up, because it is a failed state. they don't produce anything besides things -- narcotics and ballistic missiles and w.m.d. that they sell on the market. but china has been i think number one in terms of investment and aid to north korea. south korea has been a big supporter of neek neck's economy. and sos -- so have we. we did it under president clinton. we did it under president bush in the latter part of his administration and right now what i think president obama and his administration are grappling with is whether we're g

rogoff what is the administration's plan after the 18th month expressed -- expansion would expire?>> it is looking at a two phase process the 18 point* expansion is the first phase that is what has been lost in the dialogue the administration is not asking for the authorization process to come to a ) thus far as we are concerned, work on a long-term reauthorization should continue through dialogue between the administration, house, senate, and we should have a meaningful conversation about what we should be doing in the next 18 months so we can do longer-term extension and come to agreement on the finances. we can have a multi-year bill with a financing mechanism with the economy where it is the administration is not comfortable talking about revenues at this time that is why the president's budget of 2010 has an increase for highways, transit, albeit more from the general fund. you asked about the specifics but in addition to the metropolitan access program which is the concept captured in this bill there is a livability component that also bears resemblance to some of the things

the fact was that the prior administration had set in place a set of procedures that if the companies did not present a viability plan that was appropriate you would call the loan. you have not done that and instead, you are putting in place a plan. i just want to get the record straight on that. let me talk a bit of money about -- a bit about the money that has gone into this. we have $50 billion in gm, $16 billion in chrysler and a $5 billion in the suppliers. my understanding is, and i see some of the other senators moving along around a little bit with section 136 money in the energy bill, how much has gm applied there and how much do you expect to get in another pocket, if you will? it is all our money. >> first, a small correction, i think the total u.s. government commitment to christ service $12 billion. the remaining funds are from the canadian government. >> $81 billion. you know, we had a guy named mark zande appear who told me that if we put $1 in these companies we would end up between 75,000,000,100 25 billion and obviously we are are blowing past that. -- $75 billion at

the problem isn't with the federal highway administration. it is somehow, they can't get their budget under way. i'm going to turn now to this proposal, the 18 months which the chairman said you were a good soldier on. i have a particular concern with the mta. the status quo, what are we going to do about cost effectiveness. secondly, i hear some bizarre rumblings that someone has a bright idea for some new cost effective measure. he couldn't explain it. he said omb was working on it. we never managed to get rid of the exitting process. we have some concerns about that. the case of my agency, sir, first, i can't agree with you that with the policy. senator boxer announced today. july 22, clean bill, no changes in the policy. 18 months.15 >> let me speak to that it is not what the president proposed. >> i have to admit we haven't seen every part of it. >> it includes a live ability component. he wants to see in the 18 month ipish tiff. that would be part of this. yes, it does have an issue related for the cost benefit analysis. if we brought t

the administration, the current administration is trying to avoid hypocrisy. we have heard the president talk about the a de-nuclearized iran. the iranian government denies it, but the larger world and believes it is a nuclear program. we were going to ask, wouldn't that give the president more leverage in pursuing some of these other programs that we have to get an answer to that at some time. it is a good question. it is one i am interested in also. as far as twitter as a reliable source of information i think you raise a goodpoint. i would take issue with one nico said about the foreign media been under blackout. we have a great course, they're writing to us every day on the front page under pressure. foreign journalists are working iran. we prefer obviously that information that we trust people we know to the others. that said, asnico alluded to, there's a much information to me fromiran in some ways and twitter is just one of them. the idea that you can corroborate information reported by twitter seems hard to believe, but if you do label it as, for what i

the u.s. troops are rolling into his city. last january, two top administration economists argued if we enacted the stimulus which has added, you know -- will add almost a trillion dollars to our debt, that if we did that, we would keep the unemployment rate at or below 8% this year. this level has already been exceeded; correct? >> correct. >> isn't there from an economic view looking at the poster in watching the rising unemployment which trails the economy as we all know but looking at the president's projections of 8%, 8.1% versus the current 9.4%, is that statistically significant in unemployment? >> yes, that's a significant difference. and to reach an 8.1% average for the year we would need to see the unemployment rate drop to well below 8.1% for a good portion of the year to hit that market. it seems difficult. >> yeah, and indeed as we go in the year the more severe -- we'd almost have to be in the 7% or 6% range at some point to be able to meet that need, which again worries me because these projections were used for the budget which means we're hiding

secondly, without belaboring it, i do take issue with the administration's request for low-income heating assistance. i understand that the amount that is being requested by the administration is significant in historical terms, but it still represents a reduction below last year, and i would think that ought to be corrected. let me simply express one concern about your budget for nih. i have been on this committee since 1974, and we have steadfastly, regardless of which party controlled the white house or the congress, we have steadfastly insisted that allocations to research on diseases be handled by scientists rather than politicians. and so, we have always resisted efforts to direct a specific amount of funding at a specific disease. as you know, and i understand this happen before you were appointed, but as you know, in the administration's initial request, they have crossed that line, and they have moved to request a specific amount of funding for cancer and autism, to the exclusion of almost every other disease. i don't think there's anybody on this panel who is in love with cancer

ago on april 20, the obama administration, to their credit, added the current leader of that group to the terrorist list under executive order 13224, following u.n. recognition of him as an affiliated with al qaeda or the taliban. according to the treasury under secretary of financial intelligence quote, he commands a terror group that sought to see violence and fracture international unity at the 2000 olympic games in china, end of quote. etim's relationship with al qaeda has grown since it was invited to conduct training in afghanistan in the late 1990's. in 2005, abdul was admitted to al qaeda's shur council and he was invited to come in. on november 16, 2008, a chinese citizen took -- was appointed by only as a leader of two organizations, al qaeda in china and islam and also confirmed by abdul sulemam. the detainees held at guantanamo bay are affiliated with the group. according to the detainees' sworn statement, many acknowledge they had trained at an etim training camp from june to november, 2001 and several confirm that the camp was run by abdul. . following the u.s. invasion

the administration's plan is to do his bit by bit, step by step. ople will get more comfortable as they start seeing the benefits of these kinds of investments. host: john lott, response? guest: people are incredibly happy with the health care that they get right now. 90% of people, even among the elements -- even among the uninsured. the vast majority of uninsured are happy with the quality of health care that they actually received. only about 2.3% of americans are uninsured and dissatisfied with health care quality. 3% are dissatisfied in every way. we are talking about these kinds of changes where the government will go in and we will say did we have decided you cannot get this kind of surgery, even if the doctor in you decided you wanted. -- even if the doctor and you decided that you wanted it. they are going to be having all sorts of political decisions that will get involved in the kind of health care that people will get. host: independent line, ohio. jim, good morning. caller: we can talk about policy, health care, pensions. today we are r

the administration's picked up -- or -- where the bush administration left off in three pending cases. thition lambic foundation and others. during an april television interview, you stated that in your opinion, the bush administration correctly applied the state secrets privilege in these cases. now tomorrow the senate judiciary committee will begin marking a bill. last year after hearings were held on this manner in the 110th congress, attorney general sent a letter expressing the justice's department's views on the state secrets protection act. the department of justice had several concerns regarding this legislation. chief among them was the constitutional questions raised by the proposed legislation. this bill seriously limits the ability of the executive branch to protect national security information under the well established standards articulated by the supreme court. my time's up but let me just finish this question, if will you, mr. chairman. i'd be grateful for that. for that courtesy. but i also don't want to -- i don't want to get on the wrong side of the chairman. >> yo

i think the administration believes legislation is possible to get through the senate and two his desk. >> would you doing to get it through the senate? >> to get it through the house. >> the iranian opposition groups list the terrorist organizations the e.u. has removed them with the president considered doing the same? >> i don't have any information on that we can have somebody look that up for you. >> what the president has said i believe they would threaten to veto the defense appropriations bill because of the of 22 measures. the defense appropriations committee increase eight -- just increased funding does the press still stand? >> absolutely. secretary gates has outlined a very robust plan to change our defense procurement to invest in weapons systems and mouth -- manpower that make the most sense for the future. he and others have determined that is not the part of the program and secretary of defense advisers suggest they would recommend that the president vetoed the bill. >> another thing that may be presumptuous, but senator schumer speaking at georgetown on wednesday said

over the past several months, the obama administration has been working to manage an historic crisis n the auto industry. president obama inherited an auto industry that lost 50% of its sales and over 400,000 jobs in the year before he took office. two companies, general motor and chrysler had received substantial loans from the prior administration and were requesting substantial additi additional assistance that only the government could provide. without this assistance, both of these companies faced uncontrolled bankruptcies and almost certain liquidation which would have cost significant job loss with a ripple effect throughout our entire economy. even so, president obama was unwilling to put additional taxpayer dollars on the line unless these companies and their stakeholders were willing to fundamentally restructure, address prior bad business decisions, and chart a path towards long-term financial viability without ongoing government assistance. therefore, the president decided to give both gm and chrysler a chance to work with their stakeholders to make them stronger, leaner a

and there will be no reauthorization under the administration proposal. and the effective stimulus will be gone, and the existing law under their plan would stay in effect, and that means funding and a substantial lower-level than was authorized in the 2005 bill. and the economy will suffer very severe job losses. as well as not enjoy the benefit of the 6 million jobs to be created over six years of our committee bill. >> mr. chairman, could i speak to that for a minute because the transit program is also authorized under that program and i think it's important to point out, the president is focused on economic recovery, and probably the greatest danger looming could really start to economic recovery is as jeff pointed out the eminent bankruptcy of the trust fund. that's not going to happen in october. that's going to happen this augers. >> the last week of august. >> and what the president has put forward as a plan to get us past that crisis. deputy secretary was required yesterday to send a letter out to every state dot warning them of the bankruptcy in