Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Defiant Blagojevich Appears Before Illinois Impeachment Hearing; But During Final Arguments Questions From Legislators Are Not Permitted; White House Press Briefing Centers On Where the Stimulus Bill Goes From Here, Why No GOP Members Voted For It

Aired January 29, 2009 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. ROD BLAGOJEVICH, (D) ILLINOIS: You haven't been able to show any criminal activity. How can you throw a governor, elected twice by the people, out of office when the rules don't even require that you prove up elements of criminal allegations. And more than that, how can you throw a governor out of office who is clamoring, and begging, and pleading with you to give him a chance to bring witnesses in, to prove his innocence. To do more than just ask for a presumption of innocence, don't even give me that, let me make my case. Let me bring my witnesses in. Let me show you that I'm innocent and I didn't do anything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Illinois' Rod Blagojevich sounding more like a lawyer than a governor today. A short time ago, the embattled Illinois governor delivered closing arguments in his impeachment trial in the state senate. Let's go straight to Springfield, were we find CNN's Susan Roesgen.

He refused to appear for the last three days during the hearings, but I guess the senate couldn't lock him out of the closing statements. So he took advantage of it anyway.

SUSAN ROESGEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, actually, they could, Fredricka, they could have.

WHITFIELD: Why didn't they?

ROESGEN: I really think that the -- well, because I think their curiosity level was greater than their anger level. They actually talked about it because they were not happy because he was giving a closing argument, their own rules would not allow them to cross- examine him. But in the end they said, OK, let's let him talk. So he talked for 45 minutes and then he got out of here fast; 45 minutes, and the overriding theme, Fredricka, was the end justifies the means.

I have done nothing wrong, he said, repeatedly. But he also tried to stress that he's done a lot of good things, he says, for senior citizens in this state, for families in this state. And basically he was trying to say that that justifies overreaching, overextending the bounds of the executive office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLAGOJEVICH: If you're impeaching me and providing safe and affordable prescription drugs, by going to Canada and getting the same medicines made by the exact same companies, then the governor of Wisconsin ought to be impeached, the governor of Kansas out to be impeached, the governor of Vermont ought to be impeached. And while we're at it, let's go reach right into the United States Senate and let's expel John McCain and Ted Kennedy, because I worked with them on this issue of the re-importation of prescription drugs. And then let's not stop there. Let's demand that President Obama fire Rahm Emanuel, because he was the one who gave me this idea.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROESGEN: Wouldn't you just love to know what President Barack Obama has to say about that. Basically, Fredricka, he said this is setting a dangerous precedent, and if you impeach me, you might have to impeach a lot of other powerful people. He was talking about his own Canadian importation of drugs, his own cheap prescription drug plan for Illinois seniors. But you know, you can't do that. That's against the law now. You cannot bring in drugs from Canada just because they're cheaper. He tried to say, well, I thought it was a good thing, and there are others who thought it was a good thing, so I was leading the charge. If you don't like it, well, I tried to do a good thing and let's bring down everybody else who has ever talked about it or thought about it.

Whether or not -at that time, Congressman Rahm Emanuel, gave the governor that idea or not, I don't know. Maybe we'll hear later. But as you saw there, he tried to say, everybody should be impeached because what I did was a good thing, even if it wasn't quite legal.

WHITFIELD: All right. Susan Roesgen, thanks so much. We're going to be hearing from the impeachment prosecutor and monitoring what he has to say, in less than 15 minutes. At least that is when it is scheduled for, from here.

Live picture right now of the state senate gallery. We understand that the prosecutor, David Ellis, will be making those rebuttal statements, roughly 15 minutes after the hour. When that happens, we'll continue to monitor the events there. And bring it to you.

President Obama's massive economic stimulus bill is moving forward, but with a healthy dose of partisanship, and criticism at his heels. Now, the White House is trying to reach out to Republicans while defending the plan. Let's go straight to CNN's Dan Lothian in the White House briefing room.

Well, outside the White House.

DAN LOTHIAN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Outside, that's right.

WHITFIELD: Well, outside, for now. But we know soon you're going to be in the briefing room.

LOTHIAN: That's right.

WHITFIELD: When things are to get underway. For now, what can you tell us?

LOTHIAN: Well, what I can tell you is that Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, saying that the president was a little disappointed by that House vote yesterday. Especially disappointed because so many Republicans, all Republicans, decided to vote in one block. As you might recall, Mr. Obama had been saying all along that when he came to Washington, that this would be a different kind of Washington, of bipartisanship. And we heard as late as Tuesday, Robert Gibbs, himself, reassuring reporters at his briefing that he believed some Republicans would get onboard with this bill. But as we saw, that did not happen in round one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think the president understands that you can't change the way Washington works in just nine or ten days. But he hopes that members of the House and the Senate, from either party, will not look at this through a political lens, but instead what will work to get this economy moving again, to put money back in the people's pockets and to create -- save and created three million or four million new jobs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LOTHIAN: Now, Gibbs pointed out that the president reached out to both House Republicans, Senate Republicans, the Democrats up on Capitol Hill. He says you can expect more of that. The president continuing to reach out to Republicans, Senate Republicans, as the Senate version of this bill moves forward.

Fredricka, you know, this is going to be a much bigger bill, the bigger numbers than the $819 billion that the House bill had. The big question is, will we see some of the issues that Republicans did not like. Will we see that changing on the Senate side? They wanted more tax cuts. They wanted less spending. So, it will be interesting to see if you'll see less spending, more tax cuts in the Senate version, Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: All right. Dan Lothian, thanks so much. Of course, we'll go to the White House in less than 15 minutes from now. We believe where that briefing will begin and we'll talk to you again, Dan.

All right. An even more expensive stimulus package is taking shape in the Senate. Brianna Keilar is on Capitol Hill with a preview of that - Brianna.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Fredricka, with no Republicans in the House voting yes on this economic stimulus bill last night, all eyes on the Senate. Especially Republicans there, who now today are making it clear, they are not happy with this plan as it stands right now. Some of their complaints? Similar to what we heard from House Republicans. They want more tax cuts. They don't like the structure of the tax cut in this plan. And they don't like all of the spending projects. In fact, they have a beef with quite a few of them. This is Jon Kyl, senator from Arizona, and number two Republican in the Senate, just a couple of hours ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JON KYL, (R) ARIZONA: Republicans have appreciated the president's outreach to present ideas. But we are too often met with this response -- we won. And therefore, we're going to do it our way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Now, top Democrats in the Senate in an off-camera briefing a short time ago said that they have been bipartisan, they have been seeking input. They were trying to drive home the point that this is a crisis, something needs to be done. And that this is partisan bickering getting in the way of that. But Republicans say yes, this is urgent, but we need to do this the right way. And they're not really sure this is the right way, the Democrats are going about it.

I should also mention to you, Fred, that all of the opposition here not necessarily coming from Republicans, there are at least a couple Democratic senators who appear to be on the fence. And have their own concerns about this plan.

WHITFIELD: We'll keep tabs with you. Brianna Keilar on the Hill. Thanks so much.

Most of us can barely imagine $800, plus, billion. But here are some of the numbers that we can all relate to perhaps. The tax cuts included in the plan that cleared the House, that is, would add roughly $12 to $13 a week to the paychecks of workers earning less than $75,000 a year. And if you don't have a job, it would add about $25 a week to your unemployment benefit. And if you're buying your first home, it could mean a whopping $7,500 credit on your income tax bill.

Keep in mind all these numbers are highly subject to change as the measure makes its way through the Senate, and then back to the House.

All right. Well, you might have heard Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, in his closing statement there, before the state senate. Now a highly anticipated state rebuttal from the impeachment prosecutor, David Ellis. Let's listen in.

(BEGIN LIVE FEED, IN PROGRESS)

DAVID ELLIS, IMPEACHMENT PROSECUTOR: ... some decisions, but in his own words, every decision. This decision like every other one needs to be based on that, speaking of the Senate seat, legal, personal, political; nothing in that statement about the people of the state of Illinois, nothing in that statement about the little guy. The governor mentions witnesses. All these witnesses he couldn't call. I tried to make the point to you, I hope I made it, our case was not built on what other people did after the governor directed them to do things, whether they succeeded or not. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Our point was on his words; his secretly recorded words. And who in the world was more qualified to testify about the governor's words than the governor himself. But where was he. He could have put himself under oath and faced my questions and more importantly, much more importantly, faced your questions. But he didn't do that, did he? He was even here. He was even here today, but he wouldn't put himself under oath. He wouldn't face your questions.

He talked more about the evidence with Barbara Walters on "The View" than he did in this chamber today, where he's facing impeachment and removal from office. He could have been here, and he wasn't. He could have provided the context for those recorded conversations, and he didn't. He could have denied he said those words. But he didn't. Not one word in that speech about the vacant U.S. Senate, not one word about the Tribune Company, not one word about the pay-to-play allegations. Nothing about any of that. He simply says there's no evidence and walks off the stage.

No evidence? Sixty recorded conversations by a federal agent. He swore to each one of them. Unlike the governor, a federal agent who's already sworn, by the way, took an oath under penalty of perjury and said, I listened to every one of those tapes and I checked those transcripts against the tapes and that's what he said. Look at the tapes we do have. Check them against paragraph 68-E. They're right, if that helps. And we all know how easy it is to understand Governor Blagojevich's voice. You heard those tapes. Was it hard to tell it was him?

Special Agent Cain swore to all of that. That is all unrefuted testimony; 60 different conversations. Where the governor is trading a -- using his official acts, using his official power as some kind of a chit for personal gain, unrefuted by this governor. He comes in and says there's no evidence and gets off the stage.

He says walk a mile in his shoes. Well, if I were innocent, and I were in his shoes, I would have taken that witness stand and I would have testified and I would have told you why I was innocent. The governor didn't do that. As always, the governor plays only by the rules that he chooses, even today before this tribunal, he plays by his rules, not yours. Under the governor's rules, you don't ask him questions. Under the governor's rules, he talks and you listen. No questions.

The governor's right that impeachment should be rare in removal from office. It should be rare. It is rare. I think it always will be. In judging by the looks on your faces, back from that first day when I walked in here and exhibited the articles of impeachment, I could have heard a pin drop in the room, to today, to the looks on your faces right now. Everybody in this room is taking this seriously...

(END LIVE FEED, IN PROGRESS) WHITFIELD: All right. We're going to continue to monitor the remarks there from the impeachment prosecutor there out of Illinois, David Ellis, who is giving his rebuttal to what we heard earlier from the Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, who said he is not guilty of any criminal activity. And this prosecutor here saying un-refuted, he comes in and says there's no evidence and gets off the stage. He would have, he said, under most circumstances come in and actually listed all of his activities, but he didn't do so. We'll continue to monitor the developments out of Springfield.

Meantime, right here, is White House Spokesperson Robert Gibbs. Let's listen in to the White House briefing.

(BEGIN LIVE FEED, IN PROGRESS)

GIBBS: Just a couple of quick things and we'll get into your questions.

In addition to the calls that he made yesterday to foreign leaders, he also called last night, the Prime Minister Aso of Japan. Also in addition to later last night the president signed disaster declarations for both Arkansas and Kentucky and spoke with both of the governors of those two states to notify them of those signatures.

You all, I hope, were at the Lilly Ledbetter signing this morning. So you know a little bit about that. And then -- and we'll try to conclude this at an appropriate time. At three o'clock, the president will take a group of you into the -- a meeting with the president and Treasury Secretary Geithner. I know the president is anxious to make a few remarks there. About stuff that's been in the news the last couple of days, particularly stuff that was on the front page of our newspapers this morning relating to CEO bonuses, which he will get into at those remarks.

With that, let me take a few questions -- Jennifer.

QUESTION: The military judge's ruling in the "USS Cole" suspect case at Guantanamo. I'd like a comment on that, first of all. But also kind of a bigger picture, I mean, you guys have asked for a delay in all the trials there. Does that throw a kink into that? How does that affect the broader effort to step back and take a look at those detainees?

GIBBS: Well, let me -

QUESTION: Can you repeat the question, because we can't hear.

GIBBS: I'm sorry. With the new Zamboni? Yes, the question related to -- come on in, guys. All right. No more -- the place is now sold out, so no more tickets.

This was -- Jennifer asked a question about the ruling that just came down, which did not grant a stay for the military commission, in one case. We've just learned of the ruling here, as you did. And we are consulting with the Pentagon and the Department of Justice to explore our options in that case. I believe that all the other trials were stayed, which I think continues to give us what we need to evaluate who is at GITMO and make the decisions commensurate with the executive order that the president signed.

But we're working to get some consultation on that, and when we have some, we'll certainly let you know about that.

QUESTION: To be clear, what you're saying is the action in this one case, you don't believe throws a kink into the ability to evaluate the entire situation in the status of the detainees there?

GIBBS: Not at all. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: You mentioned that the president was going to be talking about executive bonuses. There is the report that came out in the New York comptroller's office, a short time ago, saying that the corporate CEO, many of them of companies that have received taxpayer dollars were paid massive bonuses, totaling more than $18 billion. Is he going to be addressing that in some way? Can you elaborate?

GIBBS: He will address that. I will elaborate and I will give you the one-word answer that he gave us this morning -- outrageous. I think he will expound on the outrageousness of what he read.

The president spoke during his inaugural of an ethic of responsibility that we needed to see reinstituted in certain aspects of our country, particularly in our financial institutions. Whether its government or the financial system, we're not going to be able to do what is needed to be done to stabilize our financial system if the American people read about this type of outrageous behavior.

We started the beginning of the week with a bank that's in some trouble, interested in purchasing a $50 million jet. I think the outrage on the Hill and some phone calls, and some outrage here probably stopped that. But obviously we're asking a lot of the American people to take extraordinary steps to stabilize our financial system. The president is committed to doing what is necessary to do that. But shares the frustration of the American people when they read about, I think it was the sixth largest year of bonuses. And I don't think anybody that's opened their 401(k) statement has found out that this was the sixth best year for Wall Street. He'll address that in some more rage.

QUESTION: Specific measures that will be brought forth?

GIBBS: One of the things that the president is doing today is he met -- had his economic daily briefing, that included Dr. Summers, Christina Romer, Secretary Geithner. They are working on -- that is a portion of what they're working on as it relates to going forward on the financial stability money that Congress has appropriated -- Helen.

QUESTION: What can he do?

GIBBS: That's what we're looking into, and that's what we're working on recommendations for. You know, I think the comptroller of New York had some -- asked the president to look into this. And I think he shares the comptroller's outrage in this. QUESTION: Two things. One, he met with CEOs yesterday and I realize that was before the comptrollers report. But did he say anything about this? Because the two gentlemen who introduced him yesterday, their combined five-year compensation package is $150 million. Did he turn to them and say, you guys are cutting jobs and yet you're making $150 million?

GIBBS: The president talked about responsibility with them yesterday. The president doesn't meet with CEOs where he doesn't talk about responsibility. They specifically talked about the jet purchase. Again, I think the president has been very clear on the notion that what has to be done will not be able to be done unless the American people have confidence, not just in the decisions that government is now forced to make to address these crises, but more importantly, that they don't see some of these actors behaving differently.

QUESTION: Let me just follow up. In the TARP legislation last fall, when the president was a mere senator, it was clear from any of us who were following the legislation that executive compensation, the steps that they were taking to have taxpayer dollars not go to that, were minuscule at best. And the people who were preventing anything from really happening were Chris Dodd and Barney Frank because they didn't really think there was something you could do, that there would be a way that Wall Street would find their way around whatever law.

And yet, President Obama supported the legislation.

GIBBS: President Obama, or mere Senator Obama, and many others did in order to get the money we needed to get our financial system going again. I think it is fair that this president believes that the results of that first set of money have failed to live up to the expectation that all of the American people have for it. That's why this administration, and this economic team, are taking the time to evaluate how we move forward. And again, the principles that we outlined for the Senate, before they approved a second batch of money, to be used by this administration, included reigning in executive compensation, and ensuring that excessive bonuses aren't part of that.

Again, part of the meeting that you'll see the beginning of today is a continued discussion on moving forward and making some of those decisions, as it relates to that next set of money. But, Jake (ph), understand the president shares the American people's outrage on this. You know, it's-there are a lot of words that you can conjure up to describe that story. I think outrageous was just the one that I can bring to you here today.

DAN LOTHIAN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONENT: Robert, on Tuesday you talked about how you felt that some Republicans would come onboard with the stimulus package. Now we know that did not happen. This morning you said the president was a little disappointed. I'm wondering if the president is in hindsight is looking at this and saying perhaps there should have been more concessions, perhaps he shouldn't have made the joke about smacking me over the head. Is he looking back and saying --

GIBBS: I don't think they're not going to do that. I think he seems fine with that recommendation.

LOTHIAN: But is he thinking, if I had this all to do over again, I would do it differently?

GIBBS: No, I think if he has it to do over again, and the truth is he has it to do all over again now in the Senate. And we'll have it to do - I promise I won't make any - I was looking up lacrosse metaphors, but I figured that was way out of my league.

(LAUGHTER)

The president wouldn't do anything differently. In fact, the president didn't do anything differently last night after the vote where, as you mentioned, none of those Republicans supported the bill, but still came over to the White House to continue a cooperative relationship to get something done for the American people.

Look, old habits die hard in this town. We get that. But the president understands that changing the way Washington works isn't likely to happen in just 10 days. But he believes the time that he spent with the Republicans when they asked to come down here, and they did, or the time that he spent going to Capitol Hill, or the time that he spent last night is a worthy investment of his time. We have a responsibility, the president and Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to do something for the American people. You know, probably each day that I've been here this week we've had some statistic at least in this town to remind us of where we are.

The president, I think, looks forward to the day in which this government, and myself at this podium, aren't reminded each and every day about those statistics. We saw earlier in the week businesses that are shedding, I think 100,000 jobs in two or three days' time. Tomorrow isn't going to be that day. We don't talk about these statistics, because we're likely to get a number for economic growth for the fourth quarter that's fairly staggering. And today we find out that more Americans are receiving unemployment benefits since records began being kept on that statistic in 1967.

He believes that the time he put in, and the time he will continue to put in, to listen, to consult, and to work with both Democrats and Republicans is important, because we owe it to the American people to get them a piece of legislation that puts money back in their pockets, creates jobs, and gets this economy moving again.

QUESTION: A follow. Was he caught off guard by the fact that 11 Republicans voted - sorry, Democrats. Sorry, Democrats voted against this? And is he going to reach out specifically to the Democrats?

GIBBS: Look, nobody's looking at any label to see who to, or not to, reach out to. His hand is, was, and will always reach out. I think it's safe to say we didn't presume we would get 100 percent of anything. We probably won't get 100 percent of our proposal, or get 100 percent support from either Republicans or Democrats. Again, that doesn't stop the president's efforts to push forward. And I think we, you know, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that last night was a big step forward for the American people in getting that package one step closer to the president's desk, and one step closer to making the lives of the American people a little bit better in what we all see as a very tough economic time.

QUESTION: The tone in there, it sounds like he's just going to continue doing what he did to try to get Republicans to vote for this in the House. Doesn't he need to dramatically ratchet this up, getting Democrats to compromise, working the Republicans, making changes to the bill?

GIBBS: Our test on this bill, and our test on seeking these ideas is not whether they come from one party, or whether they need to be compromised with another party. Instead, it's how best do we put forward a package that meets the principle of putting money into people's pockets, spending money to help lay some long-term investments for economic growth, and put people back to work right now.

He doesn't believe, and he said this a number of times, that any one party has dominion over good ideas. We'll continue to listen, strengthen the package. I presume that the package that comes out of the Senate will be different than the one that came out of the House. As I said, this will be a long and winding road to getting something on his desk.

QUESTION: Any specifics on what he's doing, who he's calling, changes he's considering? Any specifics on what he's doing differently this time?

GIBBS: Again, I don't -- I think I said earlier I don't think he's going to do a ton differently. The key is he's going to continue to listen and to reach out. I think, again, I think as we go forward on down this line, we'll see him continue to reach out. And my presumption is that we'll pick up support on both sides of the aisle on this.

QUESTION: How much? Do you have a ballpark?

GIBBS: Can't use baseball now. Chuck?

QUESTION: I want to go to the "strengthening", you specifically used that word just now, actually, and in your statement yesterday, which implies that there are parts of this bill you guys don't like. Or would like to see improved?

GIBBS: Well, again, the president --

QUESTION: Can you get into what it is that needs strengthening in this bill?

GIBBS: I don't have specifics -- what's that?

QUESTION: (OFF MIC) GIBBS: I don't have specifics to enumerate. I think the president said to House Republicans and Senate Republicans that obviously the bill that will work its way through both sides of the aisle is probably not exactly what any one person would write, regardless of their party.

QUESTION: But there has to be, I mean, there must be - to have the word "strengthen" in there implies - I mean, is it infrastructure? Do want more money for infrastructure, the spending ratio is not correct here?

GIBBS: Well, we're working on - as I've said, we're working on insuring that the spending ratios get money into the economy quickly. He talked with Republicans in the Senate about infrastructure spending. He's talked to House and Senate members about tax revisions.

I don't -- you know, we're going to continue to work with, and listen to folks on any number of these items.

QUESTION: What infrastructure types - the two biggest area?

GIBBS: I would say two of many areas. Again, Chuck, the test is this, if you've got an idea to help strengthen the bill, bring it to our attention, and we'll work through that process. Again, I don't think this process is not going to -- it didn't end last night. Again, we took a very important step forward in getting legislation to the president's desk, and hopefully legislation that will improve --

QUESTION: In other word, "strengthen" implies there was something he didn't like in the House bill. IS there something that he singled out -

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: During the course of the week, a couple of things that he didn't -- that he agreed with but something he didn't think should be in the bill, and we'll continue that process.

QUESTION: Was there a serious talk about this at the cocktail party last evening?

GIBBS: I did not attend the cocktail party last evening. I went home to read a book to my son. I do believe - well, did the subject come up? Yes. I did not read my (INAUDIBLE). No, I read something on mummies to Ethan.

But yes, the subject certainly came up. You know, the president also wanted last night to be a little bit more social, you know, so that individuals could better get to know each other and understand where they're coming from in these legislative disagreements.

But again, you know, the president's outreach on this will continue. We'll have some folks over probably this weekend to watch the Super Bowl.

QUESTION: Members of Congress? Leaders? GIBBS: I will get a list of that for you.

QUESTION: Members of the press?

(LAUGHTER)

GIBBS: But, you know, again, the president believes, and has believed this, that this type of outreach is important, not just on this bill or on this issue, but as a way of setting about a tone in Washington that can get things done for the American people. Many of you heard the president often quote the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. And I think that's the tone that he'd like to see dominate these debates and dominate the ishts that we discuss each day in Washington.

QUESTION: On another matter, did the president ask the State Department or NSC staff to draft a conciliatory letter to Iran?

GIBBS: The president -- neither the president nor the secretary of state has requested or seen any such letter that I think was reported in an overseas newspaper. So I think that sort of closes the book a little bit on that. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: Robert, on Mr. Elmendorf, yesterday the CBO said there are going to be billions and billions more needed for financial stability. Does the White House concur in that? And if so, how soon might we see a request?

GIBBS: Well, again, the financial team continues, the economic team continues to meet on this subject. Chuck asked this yesterday. To meet on -- and the president talked about this with leaders of Congress. He's talked about this with us, and understanding that, a recovery reinvestment plan is just one part of what has to happen in going forward to get the economy moving again.

Financial stability being a big chunk of that, in addition to financial re-regulation, which he talked about yesterday with Paul Volker. Part of the meeting that the president will have today with Secretary Geithner will focus in on some of these decisions. I don't know about specific spending numbers.

I know the president has talked about, and I think the American people understand, that this president will do what is necessary to ensure, one, that we don't suffer any sort of financial collapse, and that we have the resources that we need to ensure that banks are lending money to families, to small businesses and to large businesses. I don't want to get ahead of those decisions coming to the president and him making them. Obviously, again, it's a big part of many different avenues that we have to work through to get the economy moving again. (INAUDIBLE)

QUESTION: Robert, on the stimulus, on the politics side, is the White House compiling and will it release, as this debate moves forward, state-by-state analysis ofjob losses? And does it support the efforts of America Coming Together, Moveon and other groups that were supportive of Senator Obama during the campaign, putting together television ads and other things to put pressure on Republicans to get behind this stimulus effort?

Those are two political questions. I have a policy one after that.

GIBBS: Let me -- if you can allow -- if you'll allow me to rephrase a little bit. I think you're asking me about a story, an earlier version of a story that I want to tell you doesn't reflect the president's thinking. And I want to -- but I also want to split that off a different analysis of jobs numbers or transportation spending numbers, or school rehabilitation numbers, or any sort of analysis that the economic team may do.

What I want to do is separate, I think, the political part of that story and the analysis that may be done not for political argument, but to show and demonstrate for the American people where the investments -- where the money is going and what investments they're going toward in this economic recovery plan. We've certainly talked about individual projects. We'll talk abbout the way money is certainly spent and the effect that we believe it will have on the economy. I think those analyses are being done on both sides of this.

QUESTION: The answer is yes, it's just not political?

GIBBS: Yes, it's just not political. Your policy question?

QUESTION: The CBO was asked by Kent Conrad to evaluate any ways to more rapidly spend out the money that is in the stimulus bill. And the CBO reported back to Kent Conrad that there are several ways to do it. Two specific ones I want to ask you about: waiving requirements for judicial reviews and allowing contracts and grants to be awarded outside the normal competitive bid process.

Since those kinds of things were regulatory or speed bump things, Democrats often supported, I'm wondering if the administration is open to reviewing those kinds of things if in fact they impede spending of money that you believe would be essential to helping the economy recover?

GIBBS: Let me give, for you, in this answer what the president told the governors when he met with them, I guess this would have been sometime in mid- to late November in Phiiladelphia. Because this was an issue that was raised, I think maybe by Governor Schwarzenegger or by one of the other governors, regulatory red tape, so to speak.

And the president simply said, you know, if there are things that we can do to speed money into the economy as it relates to infrastructure spending or things like that, he's more than happy to take a look at them in order to get this money infused into the economy, and putting people back to work as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: Is he willing to ask Democrats to put that specific language in the bill, because oftentimes that's what's required to get over these hurdles.

GIBBS: I think we would want to look at exactly -- I've not looked at the CBO report that you mentioned specifically, but all I can say without reading what specifically they told Senator Conrad, but that the president shares the opinions of both Democrats and Republicans that we should seek to do this as quickly as is reasonably doable.

You know, I was asked about this yesterday, about the notion of, well, if you only have 75 percent spent out in 18 months, what about this other 25 percent? And I think it bears repeating that regrettably, we are not likely to wake up on the first of January in 2011 and find everything going so great.

So, there is money that we'll spend out after this 18-month period that will create jobs in that first and second quarter of 2011. We don't see that as a bad thing, because we're going to need jobs created and money spent in those quarters in 2011, and certainly probably beyond that.

QUESTION: Does the president endorse or support these outside groups pressuring Republicans with TV ads and other things? Does he have any message for (INAUDIBLE)?

GIBBS: The president's not going to referee what individual interest groups on either side of this do, except to reiterate --

QUESTION: Is this a political environment toward compromise?

GIBBS: I think the president's own actions in reaching out to Republicans demonstrate his willingness to do what is necessary to bring anybody involved in this process along so that he or she can support a recovery plan that the American people can be proud of. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: Martin Feldstein, who's a noted conservative economist who has been hailed by Democrats as sort of supporting the idea of a stimulus package, in today's "Post" wrote that -- called the stimulus package an $800 billion mistake and detailed reasons he thinks the particular pieces in it are not actually stimulative, won't have the result.

I guess the question is, is the president open to conversations over the next couple of weeks with conservative economists who argue not that there shouldn't be a stimulus and not that it shouldn't be as large -- some of them even want larger -- but that the pieces of this are the wrong piece, and is he open to potentially hearing their argument and potentially changing the plan?

GIBBS: Let me address a couple of...

QUESTION: And also if you could tell us who he's supporting in the Superbowl.

(LAUGHTER)

GIBBS: All right, hold on that one for a second. Let me take your tougher question first.

I think part of my answer bears on exactly part of your question, which is, you mentioned that even among economists, conservative ones, there are varying opinions of the size of the stimulus package. There are inherently different opinions on what should be encompassed in the varying sizes of stimulus packages.

I know that, if you go back and read the op-ed, I know, for instance, one of the things that Mr. Feldstein mentions is he disagrees with the notion that the President's $500 tax cut will be paid out in a lump sum, and that's just not true. One of the reasons that we fashioned the tax cut in the way we did was precisely to take into account the notion - and we've seen this in the past couple of stimulus attempts by Congress and the President - that lump sum payments that people tend to get, one-time checks, tend to go into savings at a rate far greater than spending. Because people get this one-time check, but understand that it's not going to continue, which causes them to save the money. Which is why the tax cuts in the President's plan pay out a little bit at a time so that people that may get $20 or $25 more in each pay period will get used to spending that $20 to $25 each pay period. They'll understand that if I get it today, because I got paid, that I'll get it in two weeks because I get paid, that I can change my spending habits by that amount of money through the course of the tax cut.

I do think there are just some general disagreements, as you mentioned disagreements even among conservative economists. There's disagreements about what we believe create jobs and what Mr. Feldstein might believe.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) ... the question is, you talk about him wanting to reach out to Republicans and - has he have any interest in bringing some of these folks into the White House and sitting down and talking about it?

GIBBS: I don't know the precise answer to whether he's interested in bringing some of those people down, per se, to talk. Obviously he reads the fine "Washington Post." and listens to their arguments. Again, you know, I think if you look at other - others - some that helped Senator McCain that have weighed in on what they think is a quality stimulus package.

But again, he's always open to listening to ideas from across the political spectrum, and different political parties.

QUESTION: And the Superbowl question?

GIBBS: Oh, the Superbowl question. You know, I've not asked him specifically who he's rooting for, but I will - which I will do. I know he has a tremendous respect and affection for the Rooney family, who we saw at many different points along the campaign trail. The best breakfast place we went to in the entire campaign was a place that we went with Mr. Rooney on - in Pittsburgh - exactly. Without prejudging who he roots for, I know he has tremendous affection for the Rooney family.

Jonathan?

GIBBS: You talked for a couple weeks now about the multi-legged - is it three-legged or four-legged stool? And I'm wondering when you're going to show us a little more leg.

GIBBS: Only I can do this in here, Jonathan.

QUESTION: What are those legs? Specifically? And when are we going to hear anything about the housing plan? About the financial rescue plan? And about this regulation plan?

GIBBS: As I said earlier, you know, meetings on each of those continue. Again, the President met with Mr. Volker yesterday to talk about regulations. He met with his economic team this morning as part of his daily briefing on financial stability and the recovery plan. And I've done this a couple of different ways in here. But I think roughly you have, whether you're talking about stools or pillars or what have you, three main areas. You have a recovery and reinvestment plan, which is moving through Congress; you have a financial stability package; and you have financial re-regulation. I think involved in some of that in different areas is a housing plan and things like that.

I don't know that it's tremendously pertinent to get caught up in whether there are three stools - three legs on this stool or four or rungs or what have you. I think the American people understand that we have to deal with, and the President also understands that we have to deal with each of these in order to move the economy forward. I'm not sure which part of the - which leg housing is. But I think people that understand whether you're living in a neighborhood where the house next to you got foreclosed or you're not now living in the neighborhood because the house you are in got foreclosed, you may not understand which leg of the stool you're on, but you understand it's a problem that has to be dealt with. We'll have, I think, soon more information and more on many of the things that you mentioned, be it housing, be it regulation, be it financial stability, that members of the cabinet and the President will talk about.

Yes?

QUESTION: The international aspect of it, the international leg of the stool, that was discussed (INAUDIBLE) that is supposed to be discussed in London, people say that it's not moving anywhere. Specifically the Russians are - and not only the Russians -they are completing that the financial stability forum, which is like the setup - (INAUDIBLE) - that all the major countries should be in. But the (INAUDIBLE) countries - Brazil, Russia, India, China - they are not there.

GIBBS: Well, I think what the - and the President talked about this when he was a mere senator and a candidate. That if one entity takes steps and it's not followed by other countries taking steps be it regulation, stability or stimulus, that you're likely to see capital flows change all around the world. You could - we certainly saw it back in September. The President talked about, again, the - Candidate Obama talked about that in September: working together in unison, all of these countries. And I think you'll hear more about some of those specific plans as we lead to and get closer to going in April to the second round of this in Europe. QUESTION: Back to Iran, Robert - Iran and President Ahmadinejad, the speech yesterday calling for profound changes in the U.S. policy and end to support of murdering Zionists and an apology for U.S. crimes.

GIBBS: I think it's best instead focus not on what the leader of - one of the leaders of Iran might have said, but instead what the President believes. That we must use all elements of our national power to protect our interests as it relates to Iran. That includes, as the President talked about in the campaign, diplomacy where possible. And we have many issues to work through it. An illicit nuclear program by the Iranians, the sponsorship of terrorism, and the threatening of peace in Israel are just a few of the issues that this President believes the Iranian leadership should address.

QUESTION: The dialog you speak of, can the President have a dialog with someone who speaks in those terms?

GIBBS: As the President said back in the campaign, it's unsure exactly who that dialog would be with in Iran. Again, if - in order for this to happen, there has to be some preparation and an understanding and a responsibility by both sides in understanding what's going to be talked about and the responsibilities that each side has.

QUESTION: Now that the Congress has acted - or I guess not acted, where is the President on the digital TV conversion? Does he believe that doing it as scheduled for February 17th is going to cause undue hardship and confusion? And if so, is there anything unilaterally he can do to postpone it?

GIBBS: A good question that let me take. I don't - obviously, during the transition, the President's team asked that Congress consider this. The Senate did and the House did not. So let me take that question and...

QUESTION: Well, to follow that up...

GIBBS: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. A number of Democrats in Congress want to restore the so-called fairness doctrine, which before it was repealed to plug only electronics media and not to any print or...

GIBBS: I thought we were talking about DTV.

QUESTION: Well, does the President believe that...

GIBBS: I'm pretty sure I did not - I don't think I got an answer to my question. I think we were talking about DTV and now we seem to be swat somewhat - I'm going to go back to baseball - far afield on the fairness doctrine.

QUESTION: Since you mentioned it, from the field, does the President believe - does the President believe that this selectivity of some media and not others is fair, and if so, why? GIBBS: I have no information on the fairness doctrine. I will endeavor to get some clarity on DTV.

Cheryl?

QUESTION: Robert, something you said earlier struck me, you said that it's going to take longer than ten days to change the ways of Washington. Does the President believe that the vote in the House was a result of sort of the deep, ingrained patterns of the parties voting along party lines? Or does he think it was the result of philosophical differences over the - whether this bill would in fact work?

GIBBS: Well, I think that's, in many ways, a question to ask those that exercise that vote yesterday.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) ... you're assessing the bill and the vote and the...

GIBBS: It's hard for me to speak to the mindset of either collectively or individually members of Congress. The President and his team formulated a proposal that they thought in a framework and principles that they thought would put money back in people's pockets and spend money to create jobs. That's what we endeavored to do and what the process endeavors to do as it moves forward.

QUESTION: Can I follow that, though?

GIBBS: Sure.

QUESTION: Robert, you're the one that said changing the ways of Washington. What did you mean by that?

GIBBS: Well, I think there's any number of ways. Obviously we've had a several-day discussion about bipartisanship. We've had - we've talked about different vote counts. We've talked about nominations and confirmations. And we've seen somebody - certainly some people in this room seemed surprised at the lengths the President will go to - to reach out to the other party, regardless of the results that happen on any given day. But that's not going to change the President's desire to do that reaching out. And to try, as I said earlier, figure out a way that even while we disagree, we don't have to do it in a way that's disagreeable.

QUESTION: But I guess the question is, doesn't your statement imply that it was politics as usual? If you say, you know, there were no republicans, it will take awhile to change the ways of Washington, doesn't it imply it's a political move by the Republicans?

GIBBS: Again, I'd leave it some to them to figure out the motivations. I think we all believe, Democrat or Republican, Congress or the executive branch, that we're going to be held accountable to the American people to get something done. Again, whether it's unemployment claims, whether it's GDP numbers, whether it's layoffs, we're in a crisis that requires us acting quickly to get something done. QUESTION: Real quick on Iran, a follow-up. Is it the President's view that the military option with Iran is still on the table?

GIBBS: The President hasn't changed his viewpoint that he should preserve all his options.

QUESTION: Robert, on the question of bipartisanship...

GIBBS: David?

QUESTION: On the question of bipartisanship, you keep talking about the President wanting to reach out and continue to take in ideas. The House Republican Whip just sent out an email this afternoon, maybe while you were talking, accusing the White House of issuing political threats rather than engaging in bipartisan activity and actually naming you as one of the people making threats. Can you engage in bipartisan activity if you're being accused of making political threats against the Republicans?

GIBBS: I don't think I've...

QUESTION: That's cantor.

GIBBS: Again, it's hard for me to step into the mindset of any individual and talk about the motivations for why they think I'm threatening people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're really innocent. You're really innocent.

QUESTION: But is there a policy here..

GIBBS: I think many people in this room have written that when I seem to be overbearing, in their words, that I don't think I leave a lot of misimpression as to what that overbearing might be. So, I think I've been fairly mild-mannered today. I don't think I've - at least to my knowledge, not threatened anybody. But, you know, again, I think this is a little bit about what I talked about, about changing the way Washington works. You know?

QUESTION: But what I'm asking is can you just change one end of Pennsylvania Avenue?

GIBBS: No, but I don't think we're going to. I think the American people will demand that we change it at both ends. And I don't think that we're going to be able to address America's problems unless or until we do so.

But, you know, I think it's important not to get caught up in a typical email back-and-forth between this podium and the Congress and that sort of thing. You know, as I said, the President understands that old habits die hard, and that's not going to stop him from working each and every day to make sure that something gets done worthwhile for the American people.

Jonathan?

QUESTION: Two questions. Is there anything in the stimulus bill that the President considers as sacrosanct? And then - that that he wouldn't sort of negotiate over? And then secondly, the President's home team, the White Sox, as you know, have they invited him to toss out the opening pitch. A long tradition for presidents. Is he going to do that at Cominski or will he choose, perhaps, the Nationals here in Washington or the new Yankee stadium up in the Bronx?

GIBBS: Wow. Some plethora of choices. We have choices for questions. I saw the invitation from the White Sox. I will check on that. He did that before and it was a lot of fun. There you go. We can go to the Nationals game and maybe the White Sox, too. He loved that. I'm sorry, your first...

QUESTION: Is there anything in the stimulus package that he considers as sacrosanct that he wouldn't be able to negotiate over?

GIBBS: I think you've heard the President talk about believing that the make-work-pay tax cut that he ran on in the campaign, and that is part of this bill, is something that he believes quite strongly in. And I think as he listens to other ideas, I think he's decided, both as a campaign platform and more importantly what makes good economic sense, is to put money back into the pockets of people who have watched their wages decline as they've worked harder, as their bills have gotten more expensive, as their expenses have mounted. I think that's something that in the meeting both here in the White House and up on Capitol Hill, I think it's been reported that he said that he felt comfortable with those provisions.

QUESTION: Could I just follow up on the rationale of that? Because one of the major problems out there is consumer debt, and you're saying that, first of all, you'd like to discourage savings like laying out something in the rebate. What is that?

GIBBS: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold it. Let me just stop you about halfway. The question that was asked was about Mr. Feldstein's op-ed as it related to a lump sum payment. And I did not discourage - I hope everyone saves money. I didn't discourage savings. I simply said that if you look at the economic principles of a lump sum payment in its form of a $300 check has been given before, or a $500 check for a worker in this plan or a $1,000 check for a family that has two workers, that economic studies show that lump sum payments tend not to be spent out as quickly or as fully because people and consumers recognize that it's a onetime payment that they're not going to see during their next paycheck.