only a capt. card will give industries it long term direction and they can make investments and start creating jobs. let me close with this project as you know, i am a scientist and not a politician. like you, i choose my career because i chose my career because i want to make things and all things and leave a legacy for those who will follow. i changed the course of my career to focus on solving the energy problem because this is, in my opinion, the defining issue of our time. it is the most critical issue affecting our economy, our security, and our planet, and this is the chance to build up something great and this is about your job and your country, your future. i want to remind you of another "from "wayne gretzky. he said," you can never score if you do not shoot." it is time for america to shoot the puck. thank you for your leadership on energy and thank you for building a better america. [applause] >> thank you secretary chu for those inspiring remarks. he is a true friend of the building trade and demonstrates that to us every day. the building trade looks forward to many years of close collaboration with dr. chu and the department of energy. brothers and sisters, that includes today's session. please take a look at the workshop schedule for this afternoon. you'll have the opportunity to information -- to get in-depth information about the information we got this morning. becalmed -- the meeting is in recess until tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a pool -- in a few moments, a few more comments about the regulation bill. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 eastern. we will have a senate judiciary committee oversight meeting on the rights division of the justice department. that is what it 10:00 a.m. eastern. the couple live events to tell you about this morning. the senate judiciary committee holds an oversight hearing of the civil-rights division of the justice department. that is here on c-span at 10:00 eastern. live at 11:00 eastern, the house financial services committee looks into the bankruptcy of lehman brothers. witnesses will include secretary of the treasury tim geithner, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke, mary schapiro, and former lehman brothers executives. >> we still have a best work force out there and people who cannot read or learn and 80% of the people in the work force, we have to do more with them theme if it is bill clinton for 1987 are last week, the cspan video library features many unique individuals and as new faces, politicians, reporters, and experts you can follow. watch it, click it, share it. every program since 1987 is now available free online at the cspan video library. >> banking committee chairman christopher dodd say -- says he has not yet met with republicans to go over financial legislation that will be voted on this week. you will more about the issue from the republican member of the committee, senator bob corker of tennessee. >> democrats and republicans have worked very hard to put for the bill for financial reform. we are not there yet we hope to achieve bipartisanship but the process has been ongoing. you have been reporting on the talks over the last few months. let me share a couple opening fox this week. i will then turn the microphone over to mark warner and we will answer questions. americans have suffered terribly as a result of the economic crisis in the country, 8.5 billion jobs have been -- 8.5 million jobs have been lost, houses have been lost, retirement plans been wiped out in a matter of minutes as a result of the economic collapse of 2008. we have seen the devastation all across our country. we came to the brink of a major meltdown of all financial institutions approximating the great depression of the 1920's. we have avoided that. obviously, a lot needs to be done to make sure we never end up again in a situation where the gap exists in our financial institutions. we should never again find future in spanish -- institutions -- future generations without the tools to respond to a situation like this. lastly, we want to make sure that we are providing the kind of innovation and creativity that allows our financial services sector to provide the jobs, the credit flow, capital form, so our economy can grow and produce the kind of opportunities that america has historically provided. we are trying to achieve that with this legislation. we did not take this lightly at all. we're committed to making sure that the bad decisions on wall street never again lead to the kind of disasters and economic results that occurred on main street. we're committed to making sure the taxpayers never again are put on the hook for massive bailout such as the bush administration paid out in the fall of 2008, and the early weeks of 2009. wall street and a republican friends are entitled to their own opinions. that is something in great abundance around here but no one is entitled to their own set of facts. here are the facts -- i will touch on them briefly and turn to senator warner to talk about the corporate our bill ends too big to fail. shareholders lose, creditors lose, there is a liquidation of assets that occurs. there's no room whatsoever. senator warner and centre corp. worked on the legislation a title one and title to a rebel. we have new protections for consumers. never before have consumers receive the kind of attention with in the financial-services area that they deserve. our bill provides that independent consumer protection division bureau that will allow for independent rule making an examination and enforcement of those roles. consumers cannot be left behind in the process. our bill old wall street and accountable and mandate drew transparency of large banks who cannot gamble our money in the shadows of the financial system. those are the major point of the bill. wall street and a republican friends want to leave in place the status quo. that leaves us vulnerable to another economic meltdown with no changes in law whatsoever. too big to fail will be in place. you need to understand without the changes we are talking about in this legislation that l, institutions would have that implicit guarantee that the government would bail them out. we want real reform. we want these companies put out of their misery. instead of the ideas, the big banks are reading from the same false talking points. they wanted to believe that our bill leaves in place a bailout of wall street. why are the wall street firms taking the republican side in this bill? big banks and wall street, are they against the bill because it is not tough enough on them? our legislation does that. i am hopeful this week that the efforts we have been making over the last couple of months will produce the kind of legislation we should have. i am pleased that the administration and the leadership of congress, senator reid in particular, are moving forward with this bill. it is time to act. there is still room for conversation but the talk is almost over and now we need to move and make decisions about whether or not we will support this legislation. the events of the last week or so including a major investment firm in new york, without cutting into the legal matter, this leaves no doubt that our bill would prevent that kind of thing from happening that is what the public needs to know. we would leave the american public vulnerable once again of the kind of shenanigans that have occurred in largest financial institutions across this country. and now senator warner. >> i appreciate the opportunity. i would mention i had major dental activity and part of my mouth is numb. if i start drooling, raise your hand and asked me to wide myself. --wipe myself. i want to pack the center for it is important work on this legislation. . he wants to make sure the taxpayers were protected. he also want to make sure that he would end the too to fill and to make sure that we never again be in a place where a large firm, we would never be in a place to unwind that firm in a way that did not threaten the whole financial system. if we look back 18 months when the first crisis started ago we did not have any of these things in place. yet, regulators that did not share information. had a lack of transparency -- we had a lack of transparency that created the interconnectedness. when the crisis did arise, we had to act in an -- on an ad hoc basis because there were no procedures in place to unwind these institutions. senator corker and by a number of other colleagues from both sides of the aisle have worked hundreds of hours and months and months trying to get this right. there is no democratic or republican approach to get this right. we understand the unforeseen implications of our actions. we want to make sure that we get innovation capital. let me tell you what we have done. we realized that the regulators did not share information. who was looking into the depository part of the banks? we decided we need to create this is a systemic risk council that would have these things in place of the chair information. the financial resources office on a day to day basis collect all the information and analyzes this level of interconnected desperate we would have known the kind of counter ploy exposure that a ied hat. we did not know that in 2008. we said that these firms that get large and interconnected, we would put speed bumps and tripwires to prevent this crisis. one thing we found that many of these institutions did not have the appropriate capital reserves. we allowed the systemic risk to happen without higher capital reserve requirements. we looked at the liquidity rate. not the liquidity rate but the leverage institutions. we have seen reports that institutions have off-balance sheet activities. we have to look at ways that we can make sure these firms are not over leveraged. we are creating a home and set, a whole new category of contingent capital, debt that would conver to equity. if a firm was getting its self in trouble. the conversion -- the pressure on the existing shareholders will make sure that management takes the brunt. we have required that the management of these firms will put in place a process where they can demonstrate to the regulators that they can orderly unwind themselves in a bankruptcy process. we agree with our republican colleagues that bankruptcy should be the preferred process. in the past, these firms were so interconnected and there were international implications that there was no orderly way to do this. we allowed the regulators to sign off on their own funeral plan for these farms. if this whole process does not work, you have to have that out. we didn't want what we saw in 2008. we put in a resolution process that is a death sentence for these firms. management and stakeholders would be wiped out and these firms would go away. the republican leaders have said that if we create some fund that allows these firms to stay alive so we can do an orderly and one process, we should fund that. the republican colleagues said the way to fund this is to have the financial industry refund of this. ultimately, there be a recruitment process at a resolution to make sure that those benefited -- those who benefited it will pay it back. are there other ways to do this? if there are other ways to get at this issue and protect the taxpayer and make sure we never have a process that leads to a bailout, i know senator corporate and i have said there may be other ways but we need to have specific suggestions. we look forward to working with our colleagues to get this right. i want to thank the chairman for allowing senator corporate and other members to work through these issues. i think we can get a great bill any bill will spend. >> any questions? >> the republicans say they have 41 signatures to block the bill as you have written it from the floor. how will you maneuver around that? are you in the negotiations to amend this $50 billion fund? >> the door is open. my republican colleagues on the committee and the leadership knows that senator warner has pointed out that i am here to work with them there and i am waiting for that knock on the door. to fire broadside against the bill without making some critics of suggestions, this was a republican suggestion, the prepayment of the bill. what are the big banks objected to this? small banks get assessments every day to pay for -- to avoid the eventually they may fail. there are fees that small banks peg. why should not large institutions who have assets of more than $50 billion have a prepayment? that is our view. this is one that came out of left field. i am willing to listen to other ideas as long as we don't expose the taxpayer. as i read the letter from the republican leaders, the words about filibusters were bought in that letter. -- were not in that letter. the fcc is moving on actions here. -- the fdic is moving on actions here. they are talking about a filibuster a bill that would address those issues as we do in our legislation i will work on the assumption that the glass is half full and when we bring the bill up maybe this week, it will have the votes. this will allow us to debate this legislation, consider amendments, and move forward. if we can get specific ideas, that will help us. >unless you move forward, you'll metal find the answer to the question. >> [unintelligible] >> i hope this week we can get to the bill. we will not object to a motion to proceed. there will be no need to file a cloture motion. >> it sounds like you think the republicans do not want to be involved theme i talked to our colleagues. >> we want our colleagues to work on these issues. this has not been a partisan effort at all. quite the opposite. i know the republican members of this body are frankly tired of being asked to both no on everything. they want to be part of a solution and they have good ideas and many are in this bill already. we welcome more if they can come forward. they want to be a part of the solution. they do not want to be told to both no. they don't want to explain why they have major investment banks that are getting sued for malfeasance and they are sitting on the site -- sidelines to allow that to occur again. >> do you have plans to drop the $50 billion fund from the bill? >> there are other options to that. we would consider any other options. the suggestion of this came from the republicans. we agree with that because it made some sense. >> a fund could create a moral hazard but it is laughable to assume that the dollar amount get to all the way through a resolution process. the way you get a resolution process ease you allow the fdic to borrow against unencumbered assets of the institution. we heard questions about who would be included. we understood the fact that you need to keep the lights on so you can do an orderly dissolution of a firm. we worked on no more conservatorship, no more minutes of these firms. receivership, these firms need to be put out of business and then the part of the firm that is systemically important can be transferred to another firm em th . >> we're talking about a $50 billion fund over multiple years for these institutions that have access -- assets in this amount of money. it is laughable. this is not the only way. we thought this was the way -- i was looking for common ground in putting this bill together. this is the only common ground we have achieved. his ironic that talking about too big to fail, they have latched onto a proposal they were the co-authors of. there was a suggestion of a trust incident. the one of the treasury to borrow. one concern we all had was if you had this interim of keeping a lights on for a period time, if you had treasury borrowing, you beat subject -- you would be subject if there had been no entity pre funded by the private-sector and that investment would be recouped, we looked at who would benefit. you could have this window where taxpayers could be exposed. if there is another way to get at this -- we worked up this -- we worked on as a long time -- we will look at anything . >> senator corker said this could be solved and about 5 minutes. i suspect he is right but we need to have that five minutes. we need to find out what it is that people are talking about other than the accusation. if there are ideas where we can do this and bring people together and insulate the taxpayer, i am happy to do that. i am not rigidly holding onto this. but one thing i hope we have in common is that the american taxpayer should not be charged for unwinding a firm that got itself in trouble. why should the american taxpayer take that -- pay that bill? that is the point that mark warner and bob corker worked on. if there are other ways to do that, i am all ears. >> [unintelligible] guest>> my view is our bill didt include certain things and there are merits to the idea but that is not part of our bill. we're working on the derivatives section. over the weekend, they were to an understanding. let me make it clear that the shadow economy that marquardt talked about is one of the major reasons why we -- that mark warner talked about is what the major reasons we ended up where we did. one market can price and connect instruments, everybody benefits. when it is done in the shadows, you get yourself in trouble. you have to begin a conversation on the assumption that it is transparency on these instruments. that is the best hedge against getting us in difficulty again. there are exceptions that could make sense, and i would listen to that. i begin with the presumption that we want transparency. there are conversations going on how to resolve this. >> the republicans argue that if you create a fix for a meltdown, it will come. can you address that philosophically? >> we will have another economic crisis in the country. the idea that we think we can draft legislation and the world will never face an economic crisis, it goes beyond our borders. there was a problem in greece a few weeks ago. it was the headline about a problem in a small country that posed risks to the financial system globally. a few years ago, there was the market in shanghai that represented less than 5% of volume of the new york stock exchange which declined by two 0.1 night. within 24 hours, that's all exchange in shanghai had an effect and every other market around the world. this is a global economy we are in. the idea that we will not have another economic crisis, we will. when these things happen, instead of having an implicit guarantee that you get a bailout -- that is the present situation -- you get bailed out. our legislation says that is over with forever. bailout are historic terms. never again will you be bailed out. on winding those invitations have to be done intelligently. this is something that takes a while to put in place. the presumption that banks got a business, liquidation occurs, creditors lose, all those things occur under our bill. >> what happens overseas, you are unfairly controlling american institutions and you cannot regulate what goes on beyond our borders? >> to some extent we can. we want to have harmonization of rules. there's an appetite for it. this is in europe and asia and elsewhere in the world and they would like to see that we don't want everyone rushing to london like it did two years ago. there's an appetite for that. after this bill is passed, we should try to achieve that. >> the presumption is toward bankruptcy and the republicans agree with this. one thing that has not gotten focus from the press is the funeral plan that has to be approved by regulators that will take into account the international holdings so that there is a path that shows how to do bankruptcy even with international holdings. no rational management team would ever prefer resolution. in bankruptcy, there is the chance you could come out on the other end. in resolution, you are going down. this funeral planned approach takes into consideration the regulators to sign into that. >> do you think you will have to compromise on this bill? are you taking a gamble and you will see what the republicans will do? >> i am going under the assumption that people want to make a good bill. if there are ideas that people can bring to the table and make a better bill, the doors wide open as it has been. if the ideas are not forthcoming even if they are bad ideas, obviously, wez@ú would reject tm and move forward. cuthis comes down to the basic question of whose side are you on? what more do you need to know about the near meltdown of the financial system in this country, 8.5 million jobs, seven millions homes, retirement accounts, credit seized up, we can to the brink of financial collapse. what more do you need to know? if we do nothing, it is the status quo. we are vulnerable once again. we need to change and write these regulations that will allow for a regulatory structure to protect us against that kind of event occurring again. that is the choice on wednesday and thursday, to debate this issue and bring their ideas and end up with legislation. millions have been spent over the last number of weeks and months to stop this bill. on wednesday and thursday, democrats and republicans in the united states senate will decide which side of the equation they are on, change, establishing laws and regulations to protect us, or on the other side that said no, the status quo. >> i have been 20 years around the markets. akin to this thinking that i might of missed something. this is complex and you can have arguments. the status quo was not working. the acting chairman and the members of the committee realize this. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> senator bob corker talk on the senate floor about financial regulation. floor about the financial legislation. >> mr. president, you and i have that number of conversations over the last weekend regarding financial reform. we've had a lot of conversations over the last year regarding financial reform. and as i have watched the public discussions over the last several days, i have been greatly distressed. as a matter of fact, i spoke this morning to a large number of businessmen in nashville, tenn. the candidly became sole angry thinking about the way the debate has evolved, that i had to think about it coming up here today and controlling data and using that in a productive way. maybe their rhetoric has changed a little bit throughout the day, and i know that my friends from virginia and my friend from connecticut had a press conference earlier today to talk about some of the issues that are being talked about rhetorically. and let's say that what is happening right now -- and it is unfortunate for the american people -- what is happening right now is that both sides of the aisle are trying to herd of goats with language -- up folks with language that does not do justice to this, very difficult, something very much needed in this country. there have been a lot of discussion about this funding mechanism, this $50 million -- this $50 billion bailout fund, if you will -- and those are somebody else's words by the way, not mine. let's just talk about this and i know the american people are probably tuning and in some cases and wonder how we are jumping into this without a lot of dialogue, but the fact is that we have a financial regulation bill that i hope will come before us and that will dills something called orderly liquidation, so that when a large institution fails, it actually fails. i think that is what the american people would like to see happens. there needs to be a mechanism in place -- if the firm is systemically important to our country, there needs to be the tools in place to make sure that it actually goes out of business. i don't think people in tennessee like to say that when a community bank fails, it actually goes out of business, but when a large wall street firm fails, we prop it up. we could have a colloquy over this, but the fact is that that is something that is important to address in a bill. a bill certainly needs to deal with the revenue. we need to understand and know that we can have a process for derivatives are cleared and we don't have anybody building up a lot of money instead of doing it on a daily bases. . and we need to deal with some of the issues of consumer protection. so, mr. president, there's been a lot of discussion about how we create something called debtor in possession financing so that when the fdic comes in and seizes one of these large firms that fails, it has the money to -- to keep the lights on and to pay payroll and those kind of things while it's selling off the assets of a firm like this. the fund that's been discussed in this bill that's going to be changed i know -- and i'm fine in this bill that's going to be changed i know -- and i'm fine perfectly, perfectly good -- but this fund that's been set up is anything but a bailout. it's been set up to, in essence, provide upfront funding by the industry so that when these companies are seized, there's money available to make payroll and to wind it down while the pieces are being sold off. now, a lot of people have said this is a republican idea. there's no question that this is something sheila bair has proposed. the fdic wants to see a prefund. the treasury would like to see a postfund. they'd like to see it come after the fact. i want to digress for a second and say that i hope the reason that treasury wants a post-fund is not because in lieu of having a pre-fund of $50 billion from these large institutions, they want to see a bank tax. as a matter of fact, i'm going to be surprised if, after republicans argue against a pre-fund and it's changed and the administration comes back and chairman dodd comes back and we end up with post-funding, both of which do the same thing, i might add, and both of them work, it's going to be interesting to me to see if whether that argument basically has led to treasury then having the ability to come back and -- and do a bank tax. i think at the end of the day, that's something that they've been wanting to achieve, and it's interesting how this debate is evolving. but -- but let me go back to this -- let me go back to this pre-fund. at the end of the day, i think what all of us would like to see happen is to see these funds, these institutions go out of business. and so do you put the money up upfront to take them out of business or do you put it up on the back end where, in essence, what's happening is you're borrowing money from the taxpayers? so would you rather the industry put the money up so the taxpayers are not at risk or would you rather that not happen and during a down time, when it's procyclical, you actually get the firms to put the money up after the fact? i think both of those, by the way, are nice arguments to have and i think they should have been debated in the committee and we can debate it on the floor, but at the end of the day, to make the total debate about whether it's pre or post, neither of which are central to the argument -- both work, it doesn't matter -- it really doesn't matter. either way, you've got to have some moneys available as working capital to shut a firm down. you can borrow it from the taxpayers -- i don't know if the taxpayers would like that much, and you can do that after the fact, as i've said -- or you can put it up upfront by the industry. either way it's going to be paid back by industry. i will say that in the dodd bill today, there's a post-funding, that if there's any shortfalls, the industry will pay that back. so, again, it's kind of a debate that ends up being silly. in fact -- the fact of the matter is, i know it's going to be changed. the essence of the bill, though, is the fact that you want to make sure that -- that these firms unwind and they go out of business. so let me just -- some of the arguments that are being made, pre-funding of resolution creates a system where certain participants are effectively designated as a protected class as a result of them paying into the fund. i think it's ludicrous. that's -- that's a ludicrous argument. now, what we could do, if it would make everybody happy, is instead of getting the large firms to pay, we could get community banks to pay too. i don't think there would be many people that would be interested in that, but if we want to get everybody in the country and get the community banks in tennessee -- i'm not interested in that, i don't think the senator from virginia is interested in that -- but if we want to do that, we can ensure that nobody's part of the protected class. so i find that to be a ludicrous argument. here's another argument. "this allows such firms competitive funding advantage over smaller institutions, like community banks. banks." so in other words, if you're saying that these large firms, if they fail, they're going to go out of business and it's going to be more painful than bankruptcy, that somehow they're protected. i find that -- or have a competitive advantage. i find that to be kind of ludicrous and i hope that argument is not used. it probably will be but i won'te it won't. then there's one i've read recently. the fund is a signal to credit markets that the u.s. government stands ready to prop up, bail out and insulate large financial firms. that's an interesting one. i mean, the fact of the matter is that the -- we're talking about orderly liquidation. the existence of the fund allows managers of large financial institutions to conduct riskier practices and, therefore, counterparties will not feel obliged to perform due diligence because, in the event of stress, there's such a financial slush fund available to bail out unsecured and short-term creditors. you've got to be kidding me? i mean, that is absolutely the opposite of what is intended. now, let me -- let me say this before somebody tunes out. i think this bill has problems. okay? and i think there are issues that need to be resolved around orderly liquidation. the senator from virginia and i both know what they are, and there are some flexibilities that have been granted to the fdic, to the federal reserve and others that need to be tiented because -- tightened, because there are just some words that should say -- instead of saying "shall" "say "may," when you're telling an agency what they have to do or what they may do. so there's much in this bill that needs to be fixed. and i want to say, as the dodd bill sits today, i could not vote for it. i absolutely cannot support the bill. but what concerns me is 9 rhetoric -- but what concerns me is the rhetoric, the rhetoric that's being used to talk about something that is very important to our country. and it's being used on both sides, i might add. on one side saying they're, you know, the republicans want to protect wall street firms. i can tell you this. i think there is very few republicans that do not want to see financial regulation take place. and i think there are very few republicans that don't want to see it done the right way. and, candidly, i think most republicans and democrats are listening to community bankers. they're not listening to wall street, would be my guess. so that rhetoric to me is -- is off base. the rhetoric on my side of the aisle saying that -- that this orderly liquidation title basically keeps too-big-to-fail in place, the central pieces of it, that's not true.are there some things around the edge that need to be fixed? yes. and my sense is, as i've said on the floor before, we could fix those in about five minutes if we'd just sit down and do it. and i don't understand, i do not understand why the rhetoric has gotten where it is. i'd like to see us pass -- pass a bill that makes sense. now, the kind of things we should be talking about, okay, not the fact that -- that this is a bailout fund. and, by the way, whether it's pre or post, that debate -- it doesn't matter to me. the fact is, we've got to have some debtor in possession financing available to wind down these firms, sell off the assets, make sure the stockholders are absolute toast, make sure the unsecured creditors are toast, make sure that it's so painful -- so painful -- that nobody ever wants to go through this. we absolutely need to do that. the american people need to know that we in congress are not going to prop up a failed institution. that they're going to live the same life and capitalism that everybody else has to live. people in tennessee when they fail, they fail. the kind of things we ought to be talking about and have been talking about -- and i think can solve -- is -- i think we ought to have more judicial involvement in the process. i think we ought to improve the bankruptcy process so that -- so that these large institutions have a more viable route through bankruptcy. i think we ought to deal with the disparate treatment of similarly situated creditors and the fact is, the way the post funding in this bill is now set up, we don't -- if a creditor receives more money than they should, that money is not recouped. we know how to fix that. i know the senator from virginia and i both know how to fix that. those are the kinds of things we need to be talking about. creditor prioritization -- prioritization. there's no question that right now in the bill certain creditors can be treated differently by the fdic than others. we need to be looking at bankruptcy stacks so that people understand how much they're going to be paid back and they're going to be in the same order that they anticipate being in. we need to be tightening the definition of a financial firm. right now in the bill, the way it reads, an auto company can end up being part of this. i mean, right now it's not tight enough. auto company may be a stretch, but something other than a financial firm could be dealt with the way the language is now reading. and certainly for shiewrks fannie and freddie need to be treated the same as any other financial firm. we need to have a solvescy test to make sure that regulators that do not allow regulators the flexibility to protect firms in crisis. we need to make sure that there's a duration. in other words, if the fdic comes in and has to take over, after due process, tangs takes over one of these firms that has posed systemic risks, we need to know that there is an end date. the senator from virginia and i agree that conservativeship should not be on the table. this is not a receivership. these firms should not go out of business. language is not in there right. there are a number of things like this. i could go on and on. i'm probably boring much of the watching audience if there is any, with some of these technical issues. but those are the kinds of things that we in this body ought to be talking bflt and, they're important and they matter, but to use up time -- rhetoric, rhetoric that in essence is used to sort of brand something in a way that really isn't the way that it is, to me, is not productive, and i didn't come here to do that. and i think, again, i think both sides of the aisle have tried to cast the characters in certain ways. it's sort of this herd process that happens around here, right? i mean, everybody wants to get everybody on the same femme so what we do is use rhetoric. it sort of quharnlings people up and gets everybody -- everybody on the same team. i don't like that process, mr. president. i don't want to be a part of that process, mr. president. i have joined in with other republicans to try to make sure that this bill gets in the middle of the road. i've done that on the basis that both sides, both sides are going to deal with good faith. i know that the senator from virginia knows that we went through a process with this bill where we voted it out of committee in 21 minutes. 1,326-page bill we voted out of committee in 21 minutes with no amendments. the stated goal was to make sure that both sides didn't harden against each other and that we could negotiator a bill before it came to the floor -- came to the floor. we'd negotiator a bipartisan bill. that's why it was stated that we did that. i mean, how can responsible senators, 23 senators, both of which -- all of which have problems with this bill, how can you vote something out of committee in 21 minutes with no amendments unless you know that a negotiation process is going to take place afterwards to create a bipartisan bill? nobody in their right mind would have agreed to do that. and so what i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, what i would say to the folks on the other end of pennsylvania that seem to be -- turn the rhetoric up, i take it as a commitment, as a commitment, from my friends on the other side of that we're going to negotiate a bipartisan bill and we will do that in good faith. and also to expect the same on my side of the aisle. that we are going to negotiate, in good faith, to get a bill. and before it comes to the floor, before it comes to the floor, before it comes to the floor, the major templet pieces will be worked out. the issues surrounding the consumer. the issues around liquidation. and the issues around consumer protection. as i mentioned, there are a number of issues that we need to debate here on the floor. to me, they are outside the realm of the template itself. i hope that this body -- i know the senator from virginia, and i have worked with him a great deal. we have come from a world that was different than this. i have become greatly distressed. i get distressed at both sides of the aisle when we have an important issue >> students created a five minute video to illustrate the challenge is that america is facing. here is one of the second place winners. >> this is your average american. she is concerned about health care. >> if we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on medicare and medicaid then every other government program combined. >> president obama spoke of the increasing cost and concerns of the social with medicare. this is a serious issue and raises numerous questions. >> auspices, accountable health care organizations, $800 million for wheelchair's and comparative effectiveness, $300 million, the list goes on. >> the seniors have raised many questions and concerns regarding the medicare benefits. >> they say they will pay prescription benefits up to the point where you have spent $2,500 per it after that amount, everything you spend is in a doughnut hole. >> securities for our seniors, by strengthening medicare will provide savings for better fat benefits and guaranteed access to their doctors. with this legislation, we will begin to close the doughnut hole. >> i cannot tell the amount of patients i see on a daily basis and tell them they cannot pay for their medications. these are medications they need. they have 13 medications each day, sometimes two or three times a day. >> i live on social security net for the bills are paid, we have less than $100 each week for food and gas and everything else. i am proud that my state representative is helping to make prescription drugs more affordable by closing the medicaid done a whole. >> as you can see, this topic as the most impact on the scene as citizens of arab nation. my grandmother gave her perspective on our health care affects our. >> we are losing a lot of money. they will take some money out of our pension for medicare. i am not really sure what the cost would be for us. >> studies have shown that senior can pay up to six times what a middle-aged person pays for health care. >> the best part of it is that we get a little more money than what the numbers do now. we will lose a tremendous amount. future generations will have to pay for it and that is not good either. >> medical associates had information regarding how medicare proposals had affected their patients. >> you can say anything to the people in washington about the health care depart -- debate, what would you say? >> i think they are trying to attack too much of it at one time. do one piece of the time, ceo works, and move on from there. >> what ever you do will impact state health care. the cost-benefit issue is so difficult. >> >> you have to do the things that are tough to do to pay for it. you do have to cut out the half a billion dollars out, then you have to start cutting benefits or raising premiums. >> another person gives his opinions regarding the debate in november at the chamber of commerce. >> you know, medicare serves nearly 50 million senior citizens per day. unless reform the system in which it is delivered, it means that you paid nurses and doctors less. and you pay hospitals less. so, i'm very concerned about the proposal. first the american people have a moral obligation to fulfil our commitment to the seniors today. the cuts, if they occur under this administration, will not be so severe that you would be denied health care. the cost of health care is going up three times faster than people's wages do. in order to bring in the uninsured, it will cost more money, unless we can slow down the cost of the growth of health care over time. that means that taxes will go up and healthcare premiums will cost -- someone has to pay for it. >> the house bill does two things. there are 46 million people uninsured and gives about -- and gets about half of those into the market itself. it does not slow down the increase in cost. it increases the cost to your parents and family and to the taxpayer out there today. i'm very hopeful that the u.s. senate will be able to do something different. to slow down the healthcare growth. >> on christmas eve of 2009, the u.s. senate passed a healthcare bill. a conference committee is not been set to begin meetings this month to develop a compromise bill between the senate and house versions which both chambers will then vote on. >> i think the main people who need to address health care, they are the ones who will suffer the most. >> healthcare is a big challenge. there are a lot of different opinions out there. i think we should all respect each sides of the argument. no one person has the answers. many times in the politics people just try to attack each other rather then the problem. i would encourage people to keep an open mind. it does not mean you cannot disagree. fife i'm very hopeful that n come together in a bipartisan way. i'm hopeful. >> to see all the winning entries, visit this web site. >> in a moment, today's headlines and garfunkel's. later, the civil rights oversight meeting. -- in just a moment, today's headlines and your phone calls. and we will look at how americans feel about government with carroll doherty of the research center. later, we will talk about volunteering with patrick. and ken