Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Reading of the Constitution; Journal: Autism Study a Fraud; Boehner's Agenda; A Look at Elizabeth Edwards' Will; Hearing Continues For Michael Jackson's Doctor; Bill Daley to Be New White House Chief of Staff

Aired January 06, 2011 - 11:13   ET

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

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Live from Capitol Hill, and live from Atlanta, Studio 7, I'm Fredricka Whitfield.

Hello, everyone.

Right now you're watching a live reading of the U.S. Constitution there in the House chambers, a first for these lawmakers.

At first, the intent was Republicans were going to read it. Now you are seeing a bipartisan reading, but not without first some clarification on the purpose and the derivation of the Constitution that's being read. You saw that earlier, at the top of the hour, and now in concert, an exchange of reading between Republicans and Democrats, of course beginning with the new House Speaker, John Boehner, followed by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and the list goes on.

So, on Capitol Hill, our CNN Congressional Correspondent Brianna Keilar is also watching this.

So, Brianna, this didn't take place with complete harmony at the very start. There had to be some discussion about the derivation of this Constitution, this document that all would be reading. Why was that so significant?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It was discussion about exactly what type of -- I guess what the language that is going be read, because, as you know, there are certain parts of the Constitution which, as you can imagine, would be very unsavory for someone to get up and have to read.

For instance, Article 1, Section 2, the three-fifths clause that says a slave is equal to three-fifths of a white person. Of course that was later amended. And so the version that's going to be read on the House floor today, and is already being read by Democrats and Republicans, is the version as amended.

You're not going to be hearing about the prohibition of alcohol, for instance, which was put in as an amendment and then later stripped out. So you're not going to be hearing certain things.

And you had Democrats who just really wanted to get on the record. For instance, Jesse Jackson Jr. saying, you know, this is very important to me as an African-American, it really speaks to why I fight for the things I fight for as a lawmaker, and I just want to be clear on what we're going to be reading here today.

Obviously, the insinuation there, that this is going be sort of a more politically correction version of the Constitution. And you heard Republicans saying that they had been talking to scholars, they've been talking to the Library of Congress about exactly how they would proceed and move forward to, I guess, show the document that is as it is today -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: So this becomes the first order of business today, the day after the swearing in of the House Speaker. And that, after John Boehner laid out what he believed to be new rules that all would be adhering to.

Why is this so significant? Where does this come from, the importance of reading this Constitution today?

KEILAR: You know, I think, obviously, observers will point to the fact that, through the midterm election, where Tea Party folks played such a vociferous role, one of their I guess sort of rallying cries was, go back to the Constitution. And when they criticized Democrats, one of their points was that Democrats were overreaching, that they were going beyond this document which is the blueprint for governing. And so, certainly, some critics have said this is just pandering to Tea Party folks. But you've also heard yesterday, it struck me, then- Speaker Pelosi making comments about the Constitution as well.

I think Democrats and Republicans are trying to own this. This did start as, obviously, a Republican idea, but then Republicans sent out a -- what we call a "Dear Colleague" letter, inviting people to participate. And there you had it right there, Fredricka. The top two Democrats in the House kicking it off there with the top two Republicans as well.

WHITFIELD: Now, how long is this expected to last? And then what?

KEILAR: Yes. This is going to take -- the guidance that I got from one senior Republican aide is they're thinking it's going to take probably two to two-and-a-half hours.

And I think another important point to make about the Constitution and how that's playing into how Republicans are choosing to govern the House of Representatives, now that they're in power, you mentioned the rules changes yesterday. And I think what you were getting at was there is this one rule that's kind of interesting.

Republicans are saying that if you are going to introduce a bill, you have to make a point. You basically have to make an argument of saying why it is based in constitutional authority, that you have to explain why it's OK to put this forward according to the Constitution. So that's something else that's going to be a change in this Congress with Republicans at the helm.

WHITFIELD: All right. Brianna Keilar, congressional correspondent. We're going to get back with you.

Meantime, we're going to listen in to a little bit more of this reading of the U.S. Constitution on Capitol Hill.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- "he shall sign it. But if not, he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, which shall enter the objections at large on their journal and proceed to reconsider it."

REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R), VIRGINIA: My apologies.

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green.

REP. GENE GREEN (D), TEXAS: "Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall" -- "if after such consideration, two-thirds of the House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent together with the objections to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered. And if approved by two- thirds of that House, it shall become a law."

GOODLATTE: I thank the gentleman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: A live view of the House floor right now, where they are reading the U.S. Constitution. You are looking at these live pictures as it's under way. Lawmakers are taking turns reading all seven Articles and 27 Amendments, start to finish.

Historians say it has never been done before in this fashion.

Let's listen in.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- "regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standards of weights and measures to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, to establish post offices and post roads."

GOODLATTE: I now yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hensarling.

REP. JEB HENSARLING (R), TEXAS: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

GOODLATTE: I now yield to the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Inslee.

INSLEE: "To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations." WHITFIELD: All right. This reading is not Tea Party activists, say many. Republicans say they want to show the new majority in the House is committed to the U.S. Constitution.

All right. Other big stories we continue to follow. And we're going to continue to monitor the reading of the Constitution from the House floor. Other things we're following.

Allegations now that a study linking autism and vaccines was not just flawed, but an outright fraud. That's the conclusion that the British medical journal "BMJ" is saying. They're calling it an actual hoax.

We'll tell you about the specifics of the fraud allegations. And you will hear from the doctor as well who is at the center of this. He denies falsifying any data.

We'll examine the impact on public health due to a drop in parents actually vaccinating their children, and we'll also talk about what this means for parents of children diagnosed with autism.

We begin with Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen.

So, Elizabeth, exactly what is being said of Dr. Andrew Wakefield's study?

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SR. MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: You know what, Fredricka? It is extremely rare that you hear the word "hoax" used in conjunction with medicine.

This is a study that was published in one of the most prominent medical journals ever, and now people are using words like "hoax." They're saying this doctor just made it up.

So let's look specifically about what Dr. Andrew Wakefield allegedly did. Let's start right here.

He says that he looked at 12 children who were previously normal, and then received a vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella. Now, he says that, then, those kids developed autism. So it makes you think, well, the vaccine must be to blame.

Well, it turns out that one, two, three, four, five of these kids were really not previously normal. They actually had signs of autism well before they received the vaccine. So that definitely puts into doubt many of his claims.

So, again, let's look at another set of nine children who were part of this original set. But you're talking nine kids who were said to have autism. They were diagnosed with autism, according to Dr. Wakefield.

Well, when you really look at the data, according to this new report, three of those kids, no, they didn't have autism. And again, as you said, this is said to be not just a mistake, not just sort of shoddy medicine, but actual, complete -- well, basically lying -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: OK. So now what is Dr. Wakefield say about all of this?

COHEN: You know, Dr. Wakefield did an amazing interview with my colleague Dr. Sanjay Gupta, an exclusive interview only to CNN. And let's take a listen to what Dr. Wakefield told Sanjay.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Since 1998, you have obviously been dealing with this. But these charges that are a big deal in the world of science, that you paid patients, that you did not randomize them, meaning you selected patients that you thought would be better for your study, and now the most damning evidence of all, that perhaps these numbers, the dates were all fabricated to sort of make a case, did you have some sort of preconceived notion of a link between the vaccine MMR and autism before you conducted the study?

DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD, CONDUCTED AUTISM STUDY: Absolutely not. Dr. Gupta, please, I urge you, go and read my book. I will send you a copy. I'm not trying to promote my book, I'm not trying to make money.

Take the book and read it and understand the truth. You will understand it. Many people don't.

The parents understand it. They get it, because they've lived it. OK?

And the claims to whether the vaccine caused their children harm or not came from the parents, not me. I didn't have a preconceived notion about this at all. I hadn't heard of autism since medical school.

And this was a clinical examination of children on the merits of their clinical problems by the best people in the world, the best clinical experts in pediatric gastroenterology in the world. And they came to the diagnosis, not me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: So, Elizabeth, Wakefield says that parents know this, they understand it, they live it. So what about the impact of this conclusion that this study was a hoax? How might that impact parents now?

COHEN: You know, Fredricka, you and I both know parents who are really anti-vaccine. They agree with Dr. Wakefield. They think vaccines are the devil and that they give children autism.

Today's news I don't think is going to affect them much. They are true believers, and they will say this is yet begin establishment medicine trying to clobber Dr. Wakefield. However, I think you and I both probably know more parents who are on the fence, parents who were nervous about getting vaccinations. Parents who wondered if maybe Dr. Wakefield was right, that vaccines are bad.

I think those parents may today say, hmm, maybe I will get my kids vaccinated, maybe I'll stop worrying about it because it seems to have turned out that Dr. Wakefield was lying.

WHITFIELD: Well, it will be interesting to see whether this adds more confusion or more clarity. In fact, Elizabeth, we're going be talking to one parent, a parent of children with this disorder, autism, who will say that this is a daily fact of life, living with it.

Next hour, we'll be talking to Louis Conte. He's the father of three sons, two of them diagnosed with autism. More on that.

Meantime, let's go right now back live to Capitol Hill. And this time, after House Speaker John Boehner had the opening salvo and the reading of the U.S. Constitution, now he is talking live to reporters about the purpose of this exercise today.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

BOEHNER: We outlined on September 24th, when we put the "Pledge to America" out there, our commitment to the American people that we would repeal this job-killing bill. The American people understand this bill.

The members of Congress all get a chance. They have all had to debate it during their elections, they've all had a chance to discuss it. And the fact is, is that the committees are not constituted yet, and we want to begin action.

So I believe that it's fair.

When it comes to spending, you'll remember that we called for 2008 spending levels to be enacted going back to August, in a speech that I gave in Cleveland, Ohio.

On September 24th, we made clear in the pledge that we want to go back to 2008 spending levels. And if we would have been able to move on September 24th, we would have been able to go back to 2008 spending levels. But we're halfway through the year.

I will say this -- we will meet our commitment to the pledge in this calendar year. There's no ifs, ands or buts about it.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) why it's OK for one person to set the budget for the entire Congress and not have an open vote, democratic vote, on this.

BOEHNER: As you're probably all aware, the Democrats in the House last year did not pass a budget, did not pass any of the appropriation bills, which has left us in a position where there is no spending limit under the law.

And so between now and the time that a new budget is enacted by the House, someone has to set a spending limit. And under our rules, we decided that the chairman of the Budget Committee was in the best position to do that.

But it will only -- it's only in effect until the new budget -- a new budget is enacted.

QUESTION: Mr. Speaker, you put out a statement on the debt limit. Can you be a little more specific in what you need to see happen on spending in order for a debt limit to pass the House?

And could you envision the House not voting on that early this year?

BOEHNER: As you're aware that this debt limit issue is out there. The reason we have to increase the debt limit is because Washington continues to spend more money than what we bring in.

And if -- if the House is going to move an increase in the debt limit, I think we have a responsibility to cut spending and to make changes in the process by which we spend the American people's money.

I think it would be irresponsible to try to deal with a debt limit without taking corrective action so that we're not facing this each and every year.

QUESTION: Mr. Speaker?

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Coming back to what Dan was referring to, you said, well, the committees aren't constituted yet. Why not just wait a couple of weeks, go through the regular process?

We heard so much criticism -- I mean, at the very least, you know, people say, you know, this is bad PR, why not just wait a couple of weeks and do it the -- the usual way?

BOEHNER: It is no surprise to you and it should be no surprise to our Democrat colleagues or to the American people that we want to repeal the health care law. This is a job-killing bill that is in the way of what the American people want, and that's a better chance at getting a job.

QUESTION: Mr. Speaker?

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: What is your timetable for legislation to replace the bill that you intend to repeal?

And will it include a ban on insurance company restrictions on preexisting conditions? BOEHNER: We have called for the repeal of the health care law and replace it with common-sense reforms that will bring down the cost of health insurance.

We'll deal with a resolution next week instructing the committees of jurisdiction to come back with their ideas about what those replacements ought to look like.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: (inaudible) the votes in the House to repeal the health care law, but in the Senate, it's pretty clear that you don't. In fact, the Senate doesn't even have to take up the bill. President Obama could -- could veto it even if you -- somehow Republicans could muster up the votes.

What's the point in going through this process?

BOEHNER: We made a commitment to the American people. We're listening to the American people. They want this bill repealed, and we are going to repeal it. And we're going to do everything we can over the course of however long it takes to -- to stop this because it will ruin the best health care system in the world, it will bankrupt our nation and it will ruin our economy.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Don't you think it's a waste of time, though, to take so much time...

BOEHNER: No, I do not.

I believe that our responsibility to do what we said we were going to do, and I think it's pretty clear to the American people that the best health care system in the world's going to do the drain if we don't act.

QUESTION: But, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office just announced today that repealing the health care bill will add $230 billion to the debt by 2021. Are you worried about the signal that it sends when you vowed to cut the debt, that the first major legislative action you take will increase the debt?

BOEHNER: Well, I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit. CBO is entitled to their opinion, but they're locked within constraints of the 1974 Budget Act.

Listen, even the actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have made clear that this bill will not save the kind of money that was predicted earlier.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Mr. Speaker, what should -- what should the world expect of this Congress? Is this going to be return to partisanship and bickering, a beginning of the 2012 race? Or will it be more productive than that?

BOEHNER: No, I'm very hopeful that -- that all parties have listened to the voters in the election and -- and if everyone in Washington is in fact listening to the American people, I think there's an awful lot that we can accomplish.

The American people said, "There's too much spending; you've got to get spending under control." So I would hope that the Senate and my friends down at the White House heard the same message that I heard.

Secondly, the American people said, "We want our economy fixed." We know that spending hurts our economy. We know the job-killing health care law hurts our economy. These are the kinds of things that the American people expect of us.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Speaker Boehner, you said the CBO is entitled to their own opinion. Does -- how do you move forward without -- when you -- with legislation of your own in this Congress if you don't trust what the CBO says?

QUESTION: That has been, sort of, the -- the, you know, nonpartisan...

BOEHNER: CBO can only provide a score based on the assumptions that are given to them. And if you go back and look at the health care bill and the assumptions that were given to them, you see all of the double-counting that went on, you see the fact that the doc fix wasn't even part of the bill.

This is why CMS has made clear that they do not believe that the passage of this law will in fact inure savings to the American people.

QUESTION: Mr. Speaker...

QUESTION: Just a follow-up, Speaker Boehner: If you disagree with CBO and you think it will save money, why did Republicans exempt repealing health care from your own requirement that any bill be offset that goes to the floor, that increases any -- anything to the deficit?

Why exempt...

BOEHNER: Well, if you -- if you believe that repealing Obamacare is going to raise the deficit, then -- then you would have to have some way to offset that spending. But I don't think anybody in this town believes that repealing Obamacare is going to increase the deficit.

QUESTION: Mr. Speaker?

BOEHNER: Last one.

QUESTION: Any -- any -- whatever bill you use to replace Obamacare with when you get to that point, will it -- will it be a universal health care bill? Or is universal health care still a Republican goal?

BOEHNER: We'll let the committees do their work on how we should replace this and what the common-sense reforms will be. They'll have hearings. It will be a bipartisan process. And we'll let -- we'll see what they come back with.

Thank you all.

(END OF COVERAGE)

WHITFIELD: All right. After reading the U.S. Constitution on the House floor, new House Majority Leader John Boehner there explaining what he believes the focus will be for the 112th Congress, saying spending limits will be on top of the agenda, enacting a new budget, and repealing what he calls a job killing health care law, and replacing it with some other type of reform.

So, all that while a continuation there on the House floor of the reading of the U.S. Constitution, the entire Constitution. Historians say it's a first. Both Republican Democrats are reading it. Republicans say they want to show that they are dedicated to upholding the ideas of this document.

So, we wanted to test your knowledge this morning, as well. The U.S. Constitution is the shortest one in the world, so how many words are actually in it? A, 980; B, 2,700; C, 4,400; D, 7,600. What do you think? We'll have the answer after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right. Welcome back.

As House members read the U.S. Constitution in its entirety, we wanted to ask you this question: How many words are in the U.S. constitution. A, 980; B, 2,700; 4,400; or 7,600. The correct answer, right there, C, 4,400. If you guessed that one you're right.

All right. Right now, again, members of Congress are in the process of reading all 4,400 words.

Let's listen in.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To controversies to which these United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states, between the citizens of different states, between the citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states and between the state or the citizens there of and foreign states in citizens or subjects.

(END OF PROGRESS)

WHITFIELD: All right. Reminders from the House floor on what the Constitution says. We will check back on the folks on Capitol Hill momentarily. Meantime, right now let's talk about jobs. The job picture got a little murkier today. First time claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week. The U.S. Labor Department said applications rose to 18,000 to 409,000. The week before, claims fell below 400,000. The first time that had happened in two years. Analysts say claims need to stay below the 400,000 mark to make a dent in the unemployment rate.

So you're online. So are we. And we're tracking all the stories that are trending for you. Elizabeth Edwards' will. Well, that has been made public. And that apparently has a whole lot of people talking today. Not necessarily just jobs.

Sandra Endo is in Washington with more on the will and what's being said.

SANDRA ENDO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Fred. That's trending today on Twitter and CNN.com if you want to take a look. Elizabeth Edwards, as you know, recently lost her battle with breast cancer and now we're finding out details of the will.

She left everything to her children. Jewelry, clothing, furniture, everything. And made her eldest daughter, 28-year-old Katherine, the executor. There was no mention, Fred, of her estranged husband, former presidential candidate John Edwards.

WHITFIELD: OK. Something else that is also trending. No relation to what's going on in the Edwards family, but something else that I guess a lot of folks are familiar with every day and that would be Starbucks.

ENDO: Oh, yes. Getting a new look, Fred. Starbucks is changing its logo. They're dropping the lettering all together, making the mermaid the center focus. And, actually, Fred, it's not actually a mermaid; it's a twin-tailed siren from Greek mythology. And, actually, Starbucks is named after the first mate in the Herman Melville book, "Moby Dick."

I didn't even know that.

WHITFIELD: I didn't know that. You know, quite frankly, I see the green symbol. That's kind of what my eye zeros in on. I never really paid attention to the symbol of the woman there. What's the matter with me?

ENDO: Really? Yes.

WHITFIELD: I guess I'm not that observant.

ENDO: Well, you know what's funny? The original logo -- and you can check it out on CNNMoney.com -- was considered too racy because it showed the entire siren altogether. But a lot of people are commenting on Facebook.

Let's take a look at some of the comments. Michael Woodruff writes in, "Changing a logo is going to change the way the world sees Starbucks? It's a cup and a high priced one at that. Who cares.:

Another Facebook user wrote, "Forget the logo. Why don't they try making a consistently decent cup of coffee for my five bucks."

WHITFIELD: Oh, my.

ENDO: Yikes. Yes.

WHITFIELD: People get very edgy about their coffee.

ENDO: Oh, yes.

WHITFIELD: Their likes, dislikes.

OK, well something a lot of folks can relate to is, sometimes your cell phone does funny things, it has a mind of its own. It'll start calling somebody and you don't even know it.

What happened in this case?

ENDO: Yes. This is hilarious. I mean, it is just a funny story trending online on all the blogs today. A Chicago SWAT team responded to a call Monday evening at a middle school and they were there for three hours searching for supposed suspects. TV helicopters were even circling around the school.

And they found out it was all because of a panicked wife. She got a call from her husband's phone and she heard garbled up hip- hop/rap music and she had thought her husband was kidnapped.

WHITFIELD: Oh, gosh.

ENDO: But it was just a butt dial. We all know that happens. You know, when you sit on your cell phone, it's calling the last person you dialed. So, pretty embarrassing, and obviously, today the people at the school did not want to comment.

WHITFIELD: Oh, OK. They wanted to remain silent on that one, unlike the phone that blurbed (ph) on everything.

All right. Thanks so much. Sandra Endo, thanks so much for that. Lots of fun on that trending items there.

WHITFIELD: Meantime when we come back, we're going to live to Los Angeles for the latest on the hearing for Dr. Conrad Murray, accused in the death of pop star Michael Jackson. More on that in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Day three in a hearing to decide if Michael Jackson's doctor, Conrad Murray, will be tried for manslaughter in the singer's death. Testimony gets underway less than two hours from now. "In Session's" Beth Karas from our sister network truTV is outside the courthouse in Los Angeles with more on what to expect -- Beth.

BETH KARAS, TRUTV CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Fredricka.

Well, actually, the hearing is going to begin a little sooner, in about a half an hour. Some of the Jackson family members have already arrived. Katherine Jackson is here, LaToya is here, and a couple of the brothers, not sure exactly which ones, but Jackie and Randy have been here in the first few days of the hearing.

Some really compelling testimony yesterday with the first paramedic on the scene describing what he found when he saw Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson was -- he already dead, he was dead, according to the paramedic. He was cold to the touch, he was turning blue in his hands and feet. His eyes were dry, which indicates that he hadn't just died.

In fact, the paramedic said he had been dead at least 20 minutes, maybe more. But Conrad Murray didn't want to call it, didn't want to pronounce him dead. Insisted he go to the hospital, and that's what they did and he was pronounced at the hospital.

WHITFIELD: And what was said, if anything, about how Dr. Murray behaved and what his composure was, how forthright he was with information?

KARAS: Well, a witness before the paramedic, a bodyguard testified that Conrad Murray was scooping up vials and bottles of medication and putting them in a bag that he ordered the body guard to hold. This is before telling the body guard to call 911. So it appears that Conrad Murray may have been more concerned about cleaning up the scene than getting help from Michael Jackson.

So the judge has heard about that. But also, once the paramedics arrived, Conrad Murray did not tell them about the medicine he gave Michael Jackson except for one sedative he said he gave him once in the night to help him sleep. No mention of this drug propofol, which is what killed Jackson, and he didn't tell the emergency room doctor, either.

WHITEFIELD: So not in two hours or so but in fact sooner, what's the expectation of what else might happen today?

KARAS: Well, the first paramedic is still on the stand and so he will continue his testimony. I expect that we will hear from more paramedics, maybe some of the cell phone records will be introduced because Dr. Murray was apparently on a call when he noticed that Michael Jackson wasn't breathing. Who knows how long Jackson hadn't been breathing and perhaps was dead at that point.

Abandoning a patient under anesthesia alone is a felony in many states. You do not leave the side of somebody under anesthesia and that is what Dr. Murray, by his own admission, did.

We're going to hear from the coroner who did the autopsy, and toxicologist reports as well as doctors who are experts to talk about the things that did Murray did wrong that doctors not supposed to. WHITFIELD: All right, "In Session's" Beth Karas with our sister network truTV, thanks so much, from Los Angeles. We'll check back with you throughout the day, appreciate that.

Much more in the NEWSROOM, right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right, there's breaking news, more White House staff changes to report to you. Our senior White House correspondent Ed Henry joining us now.

Who's in, who's out?

EH HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Fred, Bill Daley has just basically been named the new White House chief of staff. CNN confirming this, my colleague Dan Lothian and I each speaking to one senior official saying he's been named. We expect the president is probably going to make it official later today.

This is not completely unexpected. Obviously, Bill Daley was here yesterday meeting with President Obama. That was at least his second meeting with the president face-to-face in recent weeks. They'd also spoken on the phone before.

This is the former Clinton Commerce secretary. Somebody who most recently has been running operations for JPMorgan Chase in the Midwest. And so, he brings real vast business background, something this administration has been searching for with their economic team, but more broadly, the White House staff.

It comes at a time, when, as well, we expect that there will be more announced tomorrow. Gene Sperling is expected to be named the president's national economic council chair, the job that Larry Summers had.

And we've just gotten this, my colleague Dan Lothian has just told me that we've just also gotten word president himself, as I suggested, will make this personnel announcement a little bit later on today in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

We're getting details. Let's see, 2:30 p.m. Eastern time he'll make this announcement. Right now, the White House just saying it's a personnel announcement, but again, Dan Lothian and I each confirming with a senior official, it's going to be Bill Daley.

One quick note that's interesting, it's getting circulation this morning. There's was a "Washington Post" op-ed on December 24th, 2009, not 2010, so just about just about a year ago, where Bill Daley came out and really urged the president, the Democrat Party in general, to move to the center. One quick line quote, "Either we plot a more moderate centrist course or risk electoral disaster, not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come." Obviously, Democrats ended up losing control of the House in the miss term elections. But throughout this op-ed, he was arguing for a much broader sort of realignment, refocus for the Democratic Party. And now it appears that the president, again, he's not signing on necessarily to everything that Bill Daley is saying in the op-ed or everything that Bill Daley stands for, but by naming him as chief of staff, really the most influential job in the administration, this suggests the president has certainly gotten at least some kind of message from the midterm elections and is now moving very quickly to reshuffle the staff and maybe even reshuffle the agenda here.

WHITFIELD: And that kind of staff change certainly does underscore a difference in style for that job. Rahm Emanuel, who is now running for mayor of Chicago, who held that post Very different it may say a lot about the direction this White House may want to go.

HENRY: Yes, and what's interesting is, is Bill Daley, obviously, also from Chicago, the famous Daley political family, he's the brother of the outgoing mayor of Chicago, now Rahm Emanuel is running for that job, so a lot of folks who know each other very well.

But there is a difference. There are going to be a lot of people assuming right away this is just yet another Chicago person, somebody the president has known from Chicago long for a long time. In fact, when you talk to very senior Democrats inside this White House and outside, Bill Daley is not somebody who has been very close to this president.

In fact, I'm told by senior Democrats that's what's taking this a little bit longer, in terms of the last few days, this being drawn out, is that in part, the president wanted to sit down and have face- to-face conversations to see if they could really mesh. Just because they're both from Chicago, just because they're both political animals from Chicago, doesn't mean that they're the best of friends.

And in terms of Rahm Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel certainly supported some progressive policies when he was a congressman, but he was seen as somebody trying to steer the course to the middle a little bit here when he was chief of staff and got push back from other officials here. Maybe now after the midterm elections, Bill Daley will have a little more clout to say, look, we've really got to steer this in a whole other direction.

But this is a huge move for the president. We saw Robert Gibbs yesterday announce officially he's stepping down within the next few weeks, probably after the State of the Union Address at the end of January. You've got David Axelrod has already said he's doing the same to go to Chicago.

These folks are not going far. They're still going to be working on the reelection effort, still going to be advising this president, but when you put together Emanuel, Axelrod and Gibbs now within the next few week, all three will be gone, that is a huge turnover here and suggests there are going to be some big changes here at the White House.

One quick area where I think that could really affect a lot of our viewers is terms of the Obama agenda, which, you know, there's been so many stories about whether he's at war with the business community, whether he's been beating up on Wall Street too much. Again, Bill Daley coming sort of from Wall Street, having worked most recently with JPMorgan Chase -- and we've just confirmed in the last 24 hours as well that the president is going to speak to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on February 7th, a group that he's warred with health care reform, regulations and the like. So how this is going to affect our viewers, in part, is if this agenda all of a sudden becomes a lot more like we saw in December with that tax deal the president cut with Republicans and moves a little bit towards the middle, moves a little bit more towards cutting taxes, maybe cutting some government regulation, that's the kind of course that you can expect from Bill Daley. He's not going to secede on everything as chief of staff, but if you're in that kind of influential direction, it obviously means the agenda maybe steering in that direction.

And obviously, a lot of Clinton folks, as the Clinton Commerce secretary, Gene Sperling, as I mentioned, expected to become head of the National Economic Council tomorrow when the president makes that announcement, another Clinton veteran. So you also see the president reaching back to the old Clinton administration to kind of help him figure this out, dealing with now a very deeply divided Congress, Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right, senior White House correspondent Ed Henry, thanks so much. We'll check back with you. Again, that formal announcement coming from the White House, did you say around 2:30 Eastern time?

HENRY: (INAUDIBLE) yes.

WHITFIELD: Today, all right, very good. Thanks so much.

Much more straight ahead after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)