even more. >> you said that leadership is needed from the republicans in order to have comprehensive immigration reform. in congress, they said that the white house needs to show leadership to pass comprehensive immigration reform. [laughter] >> only congress can pass a bill. the president and advocate, get them to the table. he can implore, provide ideas come to agree to a framework, has he already has -- but only congress can pass a bill. >> it raises the fee on visas. this will undermine the growing economy. any comment on that?

>> i do not think it will. the net bid states and india have of robust and vital relationship. -- the united states and india have a robust and vital relationship. nothing in this bill should interfere with that. >> under what scenario can the u.s. -- [inaudible] >> i cannot comment. that has not been raised to meet at all. >> thank you, madame secretary. >> thank you. >> let me do a few other topics and then call it a friday. [inaudible] >> in the gulf, today could be the day that the well is sealed for good. can you give us any indication of how that is going?

>> well, i would say, you will have directives from the national incident commander soon. the scientific team met and was meeting this morning, as they have in each big step along the way, to evaluate where we work, take pressure readings, evaluate the data that is applicable in making the next decisions. as you know, the storm delayed some of the activity on the relief well. it is our hope that, even as we have put the mud into the wild boar and cemented the well, that the final steps that will kill this well off once and for all will resume and will hopefully come to fruition. it would be nice to happen this weekend. it would be nice if we had at about 110 days ago. [laughter]

i say that not because the proximity of the president's trip, but because we have maintained, throughout this process, that was the end of this well. having that relief well. having visibility -- the stability of the entire well important-- that is to moving forward. i will send this. i repeat it because it is important to the government and the president. this would end -- a successful relief well would and this phase -- would end this phase, but not our commitment to this regent -- region. we still have oil to clean up. we still have an impairment to monitor and manage your and study. -- an environment to monitor and

measure and study. we still have assessments and fines to give to bp. we have a process by which restoration of the gulf will begin. the secretary will travel to florida with the president. they will talk more about that process. they will talk more about what we're shifting into in terms of the next steps of the process. it is important that the people in the region to understand and know clearly that our focus has been, for the past many days, what we think is now very much upon us -- a well that is dead. this well has not leaked oil for a month. that is certainly important to the environment and the people of the gulf. the relief well would kill this

once and for all. we will then transition to the next phase. >> looking a little bit further ahead, can you explain the white house goals and expectations for the president this week? he is going all over the place. there are a lot of fund-raisers and policy events. what does he hope to get out of it? >> he will hear him talk about the economy -- you will hear him talk about the economy, exports from other things. the travel includes, as you mentioned, a hefty amount of political travel for senate candidates, gubernatorial candidates, and for the congressional committee. some of the money raised goes directly to state parties to build campaigns -- a strong campaigns, top to bottom within the state. the president takes his role

seriously. we are obviously getting closer and closer to some very important elections where we'll make some important choices about going backwards or going for words. -- forward. >> it sounds like you're not going to give up on the relief well. >> i hesitate to get ahead of what i think the national incident commander is going to do soon. again, the way we have always talked about ios talked the -- about this is the importance of that relief well. one month ago, the ceiling cap largely prevented additional oil from coming out. the cementing of that increased that. we still have the relief well. >> how do you ever go back in and find out what went wrong in

the first place? >> there is a scientific and engineering process that is ongoing. i forget the name of it. i will get that. the investigation is headlined out of new orleans. it will look at -- one thing we want to do is look at some of the components and see the degree to which they contributed to what happened on april 28. >> is the president discouraged by the nature of the economic record request and a bit yes, has been for 18 months. -- by the nature of the economic recovery? >> yes, he has been for 18 months. i will tell you one priority of the president -- what he hopes is a priority of the senate when it comes back to do its business in the fall.

we hear allot about -- a lot about how important small business is to creating jobs. that is true. we now need that rhetoric to match the support from republicans on capitol hill. for the most part, they have voted against -- let's be clear. ending capital gains for small businesses, increasing the amount that small businesses can deduct based on their investments, and increasing, through community banks, the lending that is available for credit to expand and hire more workers -- that is tremendously important. i've been what happened earlier this week -- insuring that 160,000 teachers and classrooms want to go without teachers was tremendously important. -- will not go without teachers was tremendously important. i have said this millions of

times and i will make it 1,000,001. we looked at and continue to face the greatest economic downturn that our country has seen since the great depression in almost every person's lifetime. it is going to take awhile to get out of that hole. we will continue to work at finding whatever solutions are necessary for doing that. i think if you look at -- and i know this -- the president understands the millions without .obs facine what is economically indisputable is that the actions that were taken prevented something much, much, much worse from coming to fruition. >> what will it take to restore the confidence of the american people? in the spring, you got the sense

that everyone thought things were getting better. now -- >> well, as i said the other day, i think trajectory of april and august are different. what we're not debating is whether that is up or down. if you look at where we were one year ago or one year-and-a-half ago, the economy was contracting greatly. we're fighting an economy that was shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs. 750,000 jobs per month. we are adding jobs. our economy has grown. not as fast as the president or many of those who are frustrated would want. i would include the president as one who is frustrated. some events have happened, beginning in greece and europe,

that have caused people to become concerned again. >> this trip was a couple of days ago. any plans to get in the water? >> i doubt that will go out specifically on the guidance, but stay tuned. >> everyone wants to photograph that. >> are you guys bringing your suits? >> go ahead. >> i would bring my suit. but i'm not going to. >> give your speedo to someone else. >> the question is, will the get in the water and will there be pictures? >> i cannot say. why don't we worry about what

happens on saturday? i know it is friady. we have to -- i know it is friday. we have to preview whether or not the president will go swimming. [laughter] you guys can get together to maybe figure out -- check the aquaman box. [laughter] [cross-talk] >> was the president briefed about that yesterday? would an ipo -- with an ipo likely in the coming months, does he expect to get back the government's money? >> i want to state clearly -- and not -- and you heard on many occasions -- we're not

going to comment on an ipo. it is an ongoing process. once that process begins, the securities and exchange commission has purview over that process. i'm not going to run afoul of that. the president -- obviously we're grateful for -- i think the country should be grateful for the service and sacrifice of ed whitaker -- whitacre. the president was informed of this. i believe that his replacement is to cover proven -- a proven and well-respected and it -- individual who will carry on what ed and others have started in restructuring and on a company that -- an auto company that was on the brink of extension -- of extinction. they announced yesterday a quarterly profit.

they are on the upswing, as are the other auto companies. you have heard the president and the administration say, not necessarily in relation to the timing of ipos, but our belief is that, if you look at the valuation of the company and the investment you put in, we believe the money that this administration put in will be gotten back. i think the reason is -- i think this is important. the money that we invested came with managerial changes that had to be enacted. i think they understand that gm made a series of decisions that got them into a position with the type of economic downturn

that we had that, quite frankly, but the existence of the company in great danger. both of those individuals and the management structure and the work ethic at that company -- we saw the tremendous job that those were working each day putting the cars together. there is a man letters -- there is an understanding that they will have a second chance. this investment requires them to do some things differently. they are. and now, there is a much different story to tell in the underworld. it will only get better as a our economy gets stronger and more people buy cars. of heard these figures before. of the industry is -- you have heard these figures before. the auto industry is improving.

when the president came into office, they were selling at 9,000,009.5 million cars per year. we're now up to 11,000,011.5 -- 11 million and 11.5 million cars per year. it will continue to get stronger. >> as his philosophy on governing been vindicated by this? >> his philosophy that 1 million people should not lose their jobs without us taking -- doing what is necessary to keep them -- the president's philosophy that communities that are built around an generations of families that are built around the industry should not be abandoned without a fighting chance -- i think that has proven to be correct. the president would be the first to tell you that management decisions that were made to

change the direction and trajectory of the company and industry were important. everybody made sacrifices. most of all, the workers. they did what they thought they needed to do to keep an industry in place. they should receive a lot of credit for what has happened. >> are you familiar with this memo? >> no, i do not know what that memo is. >> maybe you can address that argument that this is not going to be a wave election because republicans are even less popular than the democrats are. >> my sense is that animal is probably in my in box. if you -- that memo is probably in my inbox. if you look at that poll, you see that the drop in ratings for

republicans is greater than any other political party. they continue to be less popular than democrats. if you look at that pulling you see -- that polling, you can see a change in the enthusiasm gap over the course of several months. quite honestly, i think the president has pointed out to the american people and others what those choices are. are we going to take an economic philosophy that got us into this mess and go back to that? are we going to take an economic philosophy that is getting out of it? i think that is what the next several months of this election will be about. i think we will do well in november. >> the white house -- does the

president feel the democrats are on little bit of your role right now? a roll rightt of now? >> democrats had a very good tuesday. in every state, we nominated the strongest candidates. in many of those races, we got opponents that, i think, most people believe make the chances of republicans winning many of those races less likely. >> is this a family vacation? can you really have a family vacation in 27 hours? >> the president use this -- it is important -- this was originally billed as an continues to be billed as highlighting the notion thata a region of the country that is

heavily dependent on tourism is alive, well, and open for business. for a number of these committees, certainly those closer to louisiana, mississippi, alabama. for a lot of these communities, you talk to the folks there. this was to be the first season since katrina, rita, and other natural disasters, that things would have been back to normal for the entire time. and we know that, well down the coast of florida, communities that never saw oil are being impacted economically. tourism in florida and along the gulf coast is the economy. this is an opportunity to highlight the notion that this important region of the country is still doing well and open for

business. it will provide the president an opportunity to talk to those who have been affected by the damage caused by bp. there is a desire to talk again with them about what has happened going forward to restore, both economically and environmentally, the damage that has been done. is going to have some fun. whether or not he gets in the water is definitely subject of debate. he will have the opportunity to enjoy the physical beauty of the gulf and do some work at the same time. >> this evening, the president is hosting a dinner in celebration of ramadan. as the president closely been monitoring the u.s. allies coordinated efforts? >> obviously the president has,

been briefed on the flooding that has occurred in pakistan. he has asked about the relief efforts there. he wants to ensure that all that and be done is being done -- can be done is being done to assist the pakistanis in what is clearly a devastating environment. >> in reaction to russia's announcement that it is fuelling the nuclear power plant in iraq, did we ask them recently not to do this? i would assume that we have maintained all along that we did not want them to do this. >> i think what is important here -- this is done under iaea

-- under the monitoring and the safeguards of the iaea. it is providing for the fuel and taking spent fuel back out of the country. it quite clearly underscores that iran does not need its own enrichment capability if its intentions, as it states, are for a peaceful nuclear program. i think, in many ways, this is a concept that closes that fuel loop. it demonstarate -- demonstrate and proves to the world that, if the iranians are sincere in the peaceful program, their needs can be met without undertaking

its own enrichment program, which calls into question its motive. >> wikileaks said it will release about half of the 15,000 documents it withheld. there is concern about the sensitivity. does this trouble you more than the initial release? >> i do not know that it would be easy to quantify the troubling nature of the initial release with this release as well. all of the releases have been troubling. we discussed the nature of what is in these documents, why there are laws in place to ensure that documents that are classified as secret and top secret are not posted on the internet.

it is a safety and security of our soldiers. if you go back and beginning -- to the initial release of documents and find what a spokesman for the taliban said about names that they found in those documents -- that they knew how to deal with those individuals. we're clear on what that means. i think we are clear on the danger that those who are helping in an effort to provide safety, security, and peace to the afghans -- how that is threatened by those who wish to do us harm and by those who wish to continue to garner attention for themselves by posting these documents on the internet. >> can ask one final question? that departure -- why should

that not be seen -- >> i do not know who came up with the notion of ethics czar. >> we like it. >> i know. i have watched your channel. [laughter] there are a number of attorneys and an added position in the domestic policy council who oversee our efforts to reform the way our government works and to ensure the highest ethical standards. understand that charge does not come from a participant in the counsel's office or any staffer. it comes from the president of united states. as the state's eleanor -- senator in illinois, he worked to change laws in that state.

they used funds to drive campaign cars, not just for your campaign, but just to drive around. somebody in the u.s. senate passed ethics reform in 2007. he has instituted here some of the toughest rules on closing the revolving door and ensuring that the people of this country know each and every month who comes in to meet with people and who they meet with. >> to clarify the earlier question on top kill vs static kill, yesterday, admiral palin said there was the possibility that there was more harm than good -- admiral allen said there was the possibility that there was more harm than good in trying to complete the relief well. are you implying that you will go ahead with the relief well? >> the powers vested in me are not the same as those of the

national incident command. i will let them make the final announcement on that. i think what admiral allen might have -- i did not see what he said specifically. there has been, and i said this earlier, at the to the big points along the way, the four different operations -- static kill, top to toe, ceiling cap, what have you. there has been a robust and vigorous discussion with the scientific team, largely headed by secretary chu. obviously, do no harm to the situation that we have now is tremendously important. i know there were meetings going on today to evaluate a whole range of scientific data around

the well, the integrity of the well, and other features. >> i want to not simply imply, but state clearly that the direction will come from the national incident commander question -- national incident commander. >> there was criticism when the first family went to maine after the first lady had encouraged others to go to panama city. can you talk about the symbolic nature of why they're going there? >> i grew up not far from there. i have for friends vacationing in the gulf right now. that region of our country is so heavily dependent upon visitors from -- throughout the region and throughout the country -- for the nature of their economy. that is what fills the hotels,

p. restaurants the president wants to highlight the health of the region, the vitality of the region, that it is open for business. we hope that others will do the same period.

religious freedom is something the president believes in. >> [inaudible] premature to open the plan? is civil. what changes? >> i to think they can make an answer.

[inaudible] >> how is new orleans laid out as an american city, especially since the administration gives stand-alone status? are there other things, financial issues and things of

that nature. >> this administration looks at everything. secretary duncan and education -- the premise, you turn a blind eye. i don't think the premise of your question is accurate. >> [inaudible]

the category, another category of still moving forward. >> i have not heard that. >> it is not retroactive. >> good question. i will ask somebody about it.

>> axelrod met yesterday with elizabeth warren. what do you make of that? >> she was here. it is an asset of the financial reform bill the president signed recently. it many ways it was an idea conceptualized several years ago. obviously, we have had people

looked at for that role, because the president believes that if you think about the intersection most people have with the financial industry in this country, it's getting loans for a house, it's getting loans for autos, it's credit cards. the reforms the president, she was here to talk about the office.

i did not [inaudible] next week. thank you, guys. >> [inaudible] >> tomorrow, a discussion on robert gates' announcement about cutting the defense budget. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] and the senate's call for greater oversight of for-profit colleges. later, a discussion of the 65th anniversary of world war 2.

our guest is founder and president of the atomic heritage foundation. >> harry truman was seen as a senator from the pendergast machine, and i always wonder if he didn't think the movie was looking at him and the political machine. >> donald ritchie on his new book, "the u.s. congress: a ver y short introduction." beth

reinhard. she's in hollywood, florida, actually. she's with the "miami herald." beth, let's focus first on the democratic candidates running for senate in florida. kendrick meek and jeff green have held debates this week. the first one was tuesday night. and there was quite a big of back and forth between those two candidates. i want to show our viewers a little bit and then we'll come back. >> why is he corrupt? the dennis stackhouse is one example. dennis stackhouse is a develope that's facing charges. kendrick meek is not attacking his mother but she did get a car and a $90,000 salary. his chief of staff got $13,000, all of it in cash. look what happened. every day we learn about -- >> every d we learn about your business dealings and how you treat your employees and how you come up with versions of why you went to cuba, you have more versions of why you went to cuba than baskin robins

has ice cream. you have three fingers that are pointed back at you when do you that. mr. eene, i have more integry in my pinky than you have in your whole body. host: joining us on the phone is beth reinhard from "miami herald." is this unusual back and forth for kendrick meek, specifically, but what's the tone of this debate between the two of them? guest: it's nasty. it's been that way for wee. they're two guys who have a content for each other essentially and that was obviously clear when they met face to face. this is the second time they've done so and they will do one more time on sunday. host: this debate, by the way, from tuesday night is going to air on c-span television tonight for our viewers who want to get the full effect of what they saw there. but this race is close. what is the latest polls showing between these two candidates, jeff greene and kendrick meek?

guest: it is a tight race. you know, greene -- sorry -- meek was the frontrunner for months and months. he was the only candidate in the race and jeff greene sort of burst onto the scene just last minute really and started pouring his own money, millions and millions of dollars into a tv campaign that shot him up to the top of the polls. now the polls looks likeand we' hypothetical matchups for this fall. if meek comes out of this primary and wins the primary and he goes to face mark rubio and charlie crist this fall it looks e out

ahead. so neither one of these candidates are looking good for the fall. but it looks like charlie crist would like jeff greene to win this primary. guest: right. meek's theory if he wins a lot of the democrats who are supporting crist, he has the lion's share of them, he recognizes that his big win over a billionaire and come back to the fold. but that remns to be seen. the governor is very popular with democrats and neither of these two democrats seem to have caught fire in the general population. host: well, charlie crist was in washington this week and he was raising money with who and where? guest: he was actually raising money with some democrats. actually the governor's secret

is he's bee doing this for years, he's been raising money from democrats for years. now even more so that he defected from the republican party so there are a lot of republicans who are fed up and wouldn't give him a dime. so he's become almost a fixture now on the democratic fundraising circuit. host: do you know how much he was able to raise this week? guest: i'm sorry, i don't. host: let's talk about the florida governor race for a minute briefly. what's the latest between the republican candidates and this race? guest: you know, this is sort of a living parallel live here. this is another race where you have an establishment candidate coasting for the nomination. you have a rich guy who has never held public office storm in. you have mccullum, longtime member of congress. the republican frontrunner for weeks and months and then rick

scott, this corporate executive, multimillionaire comes in, not quite as much as the last minute that jeff greene did, and starts counting the airwaves. and the polls for several weeks now has shown him at the front of the pack, at the front of mccullum. there's also an and president obama will be in florida -- host: and president obama will ben florida campaigning for kendrick meek and alex sink. an.

>> maxine waters reacts to involvement investigation in her involvement with one bank in california. tonight on c-span. >> this weekend, columbia university's provost on the state of education in the u.s. and the effects of stereotypes. sunday, a former cia agent on how to deal with iran. for a list of programs, visit booktv.org.

and books. for the full listing, go to booktv.org. "washington journal" continues. host: all week long we have been looking at ergy issues. monday we look at energy saving home and buildings. tuesday we looked at electric car technology. wednesday was the natural gas industry. today we will be looking at solar power. we are joined by thomas rooney, ceo and president of spg solar, a solar installation company. describe your company to us. as a: we aren described solar integrator. we developed projects for people through the designs and fairly sophisticated systems. and economic modeling and procuring tax rebates and so on and so forth.

and frankly, we even maintained almost all our systems for a decade or more through the maintenance and operations. host: how old is your company? guest: we have been around since 2001, one of the oldest solar integrators in the country. we are in california, north of the golden gate bridge. host: how much manufacturing do you do in the state of your product? guest: in the states we do all of these subassemblies, the raw materials from china, and we bring them to sacramento and reassemble. host: i want go back to the last 40 years, because jimmy carter was talking about solar energy. how has the technology for solar energy changed and developed over the years? guest: remarkably so. if youo back to the jimmy carter here, you see that solar is really the realm of satellites. the way to generate electricity in space is to draw itrom the

sun. solar has evolved dramatically. when our company was founded, solar was predominately put on home sprs. there was a burst of solar in 1983 and 1984, and laid dormant. the very fast acceleration of the computer industry has actually spawned a great deal of the technology advancements in solar, believe it or not. at the same silicon wafer for technology that drives a computer in some ways drives solar. technology has advanced remarkably in the last 20 years, so much so that the costs and the last two or thre yea have come down almost 60%. the costs have come down and technology advances. it has been a remarkable decade for solar.

host: you have been in business for 10 years. are you making money? guest: we are one of the very few companies that actually do make money in this industry. we make a fair amount. we are privately held, so we do not disclose financials. the vast majority of the solar industry has been like what we thought about with computers and dot-coms in the 1990's, which is to grow, grow, grow, and we will worry about profits later. i remember amazon.com, great business model, you'll be huge, but all you talk about is your burn rate, at much cash you consume. that would be the story for the solar industry. there are f companies that manage to be profitable and we are fortunate to be one of them. host: how mh government money does a solar company get? guest: we don't get any,

actually. host: no stimulus funds? guest: not for our projects. the project to develop for oer people -- when we developed a system for a timid a producer --, for a tomato producer in california, tax incentives would incorporate some of their costs -- host: so indirectly you are getting money. guest: absolutely. the entire energy sector is heavily subsidized. it is interesting that you bring that up, because a couple of studies have come out and the last year said that asked the question of howuch -- that have come out in the last year or so that ask the question of how much goes into energy production. the g-20 did a study based on 2008 data on, globally, how much government subsidy goes into all

energy production. it turns out it is one of the largest subsidize industries on the planet. i'm not talking about solar. i'm talking about fossil fuels all the way through solar. there was a study two months ago that said that roughly 2% of the world's gdp goes to energy subsidies, $550 billion. that study was commissioned by opec and others. 11 times as much subsidy goes to fossil fuels as to renewables. when people are waking up to is that the energy sector in -- is heavily what people are starting to pick up to is -- what people are starting to wake up to is thathe energy sector is heavily subsidized. the specific subsidy in the united states is the 30% tax credit that currently the federagovernment grants. if tomorrow at c-span was to b put solar plates on your roof,

30% of the capital cost would be returned to you by the federal government. host: thomas rooney is the president of spg sar. as we've done all week, we are talking about energy, and we're talking about solar energy. as to rooney, is solar energy ready to stand alone -- mr. rooney, is solar energy ready to stand alone as a capitalist enterprise, much like a car manufacturer? i know we can get to subsidi and held for all industries. but consol energy stand on its own? -- but can solar energy stand on its own? guest: it can trade one of the challenges the industry has -- it can. one of the challenges the industry has is that it is compared ta much more highly

subsidized industry. as the subsidies are coming out -- i brought a book with me that the congress commissioned in 2005. the republican congress and the bush administration commission at the national academy of sciences to produce this. it is called "the hidden costs of energy." fossil fuels have massive energy costs that have been hit dden. the cost of solar is plummeting extremely fast, such as that even against the disproportionate subsidies, solar will be less expensive than fossil fuels by the year 2015. but if congress was to take action based on their own report and actually begin to roll back the subsidies -- subsidies would be things like unfunded in transfer nuclear power plants

borne by the federal government. -- unfunded insurance for a nuclear power plants borne by the federal government. even against the toll-one subsidy disadvantage, solar will be -- a 12-1 at subsidy disadvantage, solar will still be more viable than gas by 2015. host: why do you get raw material from china? guest: the simple answer to that is that the two primary drivers that the government uses to stimulate this particular industry would be to create an need to-market, and that would be germany. they have the -- an end-market, and that would be germany. they have a solar market that is 10 times the size of the u.s. solar market. they have roughly the same solar content as the u.s.-cadian border. in texas and arizona, the sunshine would btremendously

stronger. what we see and germany is a tremendous manufacturi base to support that. that is one government position on how to grab next generation jobs. the other is the government of china. china is throwing tens of billions of dollars of stimulus in to manufacturing for the solar industry. they decided not necessarily to be an end market, but that they would like to be a manufacturing base. the vast majority of the world's solar goods are coming out of china because of the economic stimulus and support out of china is unprecedented in anything the world has ever seen before. also all the high-tech products and steel assemblies and what not that go into the soul is street are coming -- that go into the solar industry ar coming out because china has bought at a manufacturing base. host: st. louis, democrat, your first up.

caller: i was listening to him talking about subsidies he is getting, but ias upset -- i was asking the same question you are asking, why is he getting it fr china? even though they do have estimates money in china, i thinwe have money in the united states trade with the economy so bad, i want to ask your guest is it possible in the futurehat we can supply those needs that china is supporting for us getting the panels? why are they getting ssidies if they are not getting materials here? guest: i think your question is a fantastic one. what i would suggest is that we need to choose which of the methodologies the united states once so that we can lead again in the world in this area. solar and all forms of oral energy or where the job creation is going to -- all forms of

renewable energy are where the job creation is going to come from in the next 20 years. unfortunately, the united states is stuck in neutral. the united states has fallen to fourth place and will be in fifth place. germany, followed by italy, japan, and the united states, and frankly, at the czech republic may soon pass the united states. the hottest seller market is ontario, canada. -- the hottest solar market is ontario, canada. we have to earn at the right to have a high manufacturing base in the united states, and we do that by being the dominating and market. -- end market. the vast majority of the world market for computers is here. the other way to do it is through brute force. the chinese government has said that we may not be the end

market, but will put tens of billions of dollars into subsidizing manufacturing. i would love to see the united states to pick one or the other out for them, but we are stuck behind and falling quickly -- to pick one or the other algorithm, but we are stuck behind and falling quickly. to be honest, i don't think we have the kind of cash it is going to take to go head-to-head with china. until the united states ts out of neutral and being stuck between those worlds -- unfortunately, the technology leadership is coming from germany and the manufacturing leadership is from china. the best thing that companies like mine to do is find the best technologies, theost innovative technologies, and ways to source the material and drive costs down. job creation is going on, to the

point, but- caller's the government needs to have stronger policies for jobs in the united states. it is the jobs today said that we can have people employed today, but it also the jobs that will take place within the next 10 or 15 to 20 years. there is a window of opportunity now and if the united states does not take technology i leadership or manufacturing leadership, this window will close. we cannot win these fights if we do not take advantage of them when they're taking place. united states is the dominant player in the computer sector because we were there early and consistently. if the window closes quickly, be caller's question will the sat or reality -- sad

reality. host: does it help your company that several states have to have renewable energy as part of their portfolio? guest: yes and no. you have to ask what the penalty is if they do not have it. x energy has to come fro renewable sources by the year 2020 or what have you. those held at are some necessary. what you do is look at all of the -- those held and are somewhat necessary. when you do is look at the stat and the penalties. we had the act that said that certain agencies cannot dump a certain amount of pollution into the wate but there was no teeth to that. a lot of agencies just keep paying the fines and ctinue dumping.

there is not a penalty, if there is not a cost for not providing that, then, interestingly enough, it a lot of utilities have looked and said, wait a second, it is easier for us to just pay the fine or no fun and just voluntarily miss. -- no fine and then just voluntarily miss. host: pennsylvania, a.j., republican. caller: i graduated from one of two community colleges and a pennsylvania -- in pennsylvania. one was harrisburg community college. there was a former engineer from the 1970's, and one thing that was of concern was that currently we are using one wavelength for the production of the systems -- nasa technology will use three wavelengths.

another thing is chinese manufacturing. chinese manufacturing -- i am from lehigh, pennsylvania, so would have been allentown, the producer osemiconductor technology. they have certified manufacturing facilities that could be used for manufacturing silicon products. host: a comment to what he had to say? guest: he made some great point spread the first is multiple with links that can be used -- he made some great points. the first is multiple wavelengths that can be used. grabbing additional wavelengths instead of the first wave length is absolutely the sort of thing that is driving our industry forward. of'd be surprised, the kinds jobs that are being created are

astounding. molecular.d.'s in sciences from princeton running laboratories all over the world. the advance but in solar is dramatic, and it is exactly at -- the advancement and seller is dramatic, and it is exactly like your caller put it. slowly, very slowly, the united states market is becoming interesting to manufacturers around the world, and a lot of them are moving manufacturing facilities into the united states. a lot of the chinese panel manufacturers are doing sub assembly in the united states. discipline in they come aa lot of the manufacturing jobs they -- disappointingly, a lot of the manufacturing jobs they are bringing to the united states are low-tech. as strange as it sounds, ph.d.- level jobs remain in beijing and

shanghai, and they bring the caulking and sub assembly into the united states. to the degree that we become an interesting and more stable market around the world, you will see investment money clamoring to build and manufacture and the united states. these panels are large and are not cheap to ship across the atlantic ocean. how did you get -- host: you get interested and involved in this industry? guest: i have been in the clean sector for years. anything that is involved with the next generation technologies that enable clean production of water and energy and everything else that we need. i speak all over the world on water issues and energy issues. i kepteing approached by people who said -- specifically,

one of the most fascinating concept out there is the water energy nexus, the idea that there are thousands of incredibly intelligent people trying to fix our energy crisis, and there are, equally, thousands of people trying to fix our water cris around the world. what people are is slowly starting to figure out is that a lot of the solutions to the energyrisis occurred the water crisis -- hurt the water crisis. desalinization is an example. it is a beautiful way to create fresh drinking water. sydney, australia, has launched a massive desalination to fix their drugs. the problem is that it consumes an enormous amount of energy. a lot of people are looking at the nexus, what a lot of smart people are working on technologies -- what if a lot of smart people are working on technologies that simultaneously solve the water shortage and energy shortage?

host: indiana, please go ahead with your question on solar energy. caller: i have heard of a large solar farm in -- i think it is new mexico. how much energy does a large solar farm like that produce? what sort of maintenance or care to do it solar farms like thatequire? how many solar farms like that do we have in the u.s.? guest: that is a great question. the question is to large-scale solar technology. you first have to ask the question, which technology is being used? this is the technology were by photons, down from the sun -- sun andown from the immediately produces energy by

the rays hitting the solar pane with thermal, the water creates steam and it runs a turbine that creates energy. a lot of the systems were solar- thermal. those tend to the high maintenance and they consume a lot of water -- they te to be high maintenance and more critically they consume a lot of water. if you go into the mojave desert in mexico, yous have something with a lot of water, and you go back to the water-energy nexus. the new technology is using technology or the sunlight comes down -- where the sunlight comes down and there is no water.

very low maintenance. that is the next generation that is being developed. you would be stunned as to how many installations exist in the united states. size is also an interesting phenomenon. 10 years ago, a 10-kilowatt system -- it may be enough for a large home -- that was a different project. today, 10 mw, it would fit roughly on 10 acres -- excuse me, 50 acres. we have systems now being planned that are 500-acre applications. what people are really looking for -- i make the analogy to the computer industry. if you go back to the 1950's, the computer sector was not all that interesting to ibm and others, because we were going to have something like four mainframes being built at all the rest would be working off of

those mainframes. we have phones in our pockets that are more powerful than the mainframe's conceived them. we get away from the single large computing sectors to a much more highly decentralized. will we have today is thousands of small energy production centers be- what we have today is thousands of small energy production centers being built. you fly over something that is 500 acres -- instead, in your house and my house will have a smalsolar installations, every business wil have small solar institutions. -- solar installations. it will be a very decentralized system controlled by a smart grid. host: shreveport, louisiana, william, republican line. caller: i just have a lot of concerns about solar.

one is the fact that when you put them on residential applications -- in louisiana the is an incentive, 30% that the state of louisiana gives, but long term, i see the maintenance problems -- $2,500 to 35 fighter dollar parts, and every time -- $2500 to $3500 parts, and every time you have to replace that. the other thing i find interesting is that a school of engineering did a study and they said that the amount of power generated from a solar panel system over the lifetime does not equal the amount of power it took to manufacture the product. there are hidden costs that i am afraid we -- and i am afraid we

are throwing money -- there is an application for solar, but $20,000 for an application could be used more towards improving efficiencies in the home and air-conditioning to lower electric bills and things like be long-here it would term savings for the consumer and electricity -- host: all right, william, we got the point. mr. rooney. guest: he brings up a great point. first, it is not either/or. the industry expression is megawatts. take away the 1 digit usage. we should all start with energy -- take away the wattage usage. we should all start with energy conservation. other point that he made was that the energy required to manufacture solar panels is such

that you never get it back by putting it out in the sunshine. that was true tend to 15 yea ago. manufacturing efficiencies are such that the three to four k 40 yea att too thre for the system to pay back the ma-- a fact it -- it took 4 years to pay back the manufacturing system. solar systems allow 30-years- plus, so they pay back their debt and 18 months -- in 18 months after that you have a free energy. the cost of energy, the cost of solar, has plummeted, because of manufacturing efficiencies and technology gains. thousands of people have put solar other groups and they have paid off their entire -- assist

-- thousands of people have put solar on at their roofs and they have paid off their entire system. the other thing i would point out is when we talk policy and everything else, one of the things i have written a number of times about is that one of the most potent drivers for all industry right now is wal-mart. wal-mart has taken up the notion of renewable energy and solar in a way that has never been seen before. wal-mart has decided to become the world's new environmental know if-- i don't that is the case. the economics of the solar are very viable. i do not do business with them, but i have to tell you, they are the most potent force in the united states right now.

they are effectively demanding that they looked renewable energy. wal-mart, a would contend, is the world's most true business enterprise and in rms of driving down costs. they are driving tens of dozens of people to look at solar and -- tens of thousands of people to look at solar and what not, i think the verdict is in that it is a way to drive down costs. mr. and mrs. smith on elm power for 25hrefree years and realize that this is cost effective and where we need toe. host: would solar be where it is today without government incentives? guest: no, it is true.

regulated monopolies have been around for years. we would not have nuclear without the federal government. we would not have solar but for the federal government. government's obligation is to get new technologies and new jobs into the marketplace. when new technologies come along -- absolutely, positively, would not solar or wind or geothermal or nuclear if not for the federal government. host: massachusetts, democrats' line, go ahead. caller: i have a question about the development of solarnergy. for instance, the speed and in which the solar panel converts to energy, has that increased dramatically in the last 10 years? is there a foreseeable limit to how fast it can convert energy? guest: how fast? we are down to nanosecond's at this point.

question the caller's was how fast could we create jobs. if we put the solar panel on the roof now, how quickly could we get that done? the question was how quickly the energies produced -- the answer is literally the speed of light. we're talki about instant conversion. i am not sure if i understood the question -- host: i think that is where he was going. what about storch? -- storage. guest: the vast majority of electric consumption happens when the air-conditioning is required and at some time and so on and so forth. -- at summertime and so on and so forth.

but for these forms of energy to go as far as they can come up battery technology and -- as far as they can come up battery technology -- as far as they can, battery technology. the advancement of batteries for cars is really going to be a huge impetus. we see the chevy fuld and -- chevy volt and tesla and prius coming out. as the battery technology becomes much more advanced, we are seeing huge advancements there. we will be able to run our a.m. byator at 3 a:00 virtue of having it read to the battery. solar is getting a pretty backed right off investments in cars

and of the the -- else a p -- a piggyback ride off investments in cars and everything else. host: next call. caller:'m excited that you are here, because i have called my senator and the white house. there are things that bothered me about this. we are giving th chinese, giving spain, all this money to come in. there is no manufacturing jobs coming with this. we are abusing a lot of our water, which i am worried about -- are using a lot of our water, which i'm worried about, to do this. c-span has done a tremendous job on this energy, but i like what harrison ford said -- when al gore and pelosi and the president park their planes once in awhile, it may be america will wake up.

host: all right, what from that statement would yolike to comment on? guest: the concern that we are creating incentives for foreign enterprises to come in and build solar systems in the united states. i am concerned about that as well. the reason that takes place is that you're not the dominant end market in the world --. not the dominanend market in the world. the top two solar markets on the planet are in europe. the united states needs to be a more advanced end market. for that we need job creation. i would tell the caller that because of some of the shrewd moves made on behalf of the united states, there are chinese panel manufacturers that are moving jobs to the united states. suntech, the largest panel

manufacturer on the planet, is opening up in phoenix. as i mentioned earlier, they are moving some of the low-tech subassemblies, but it is job creation in arizona and phoenix. the more the united states becomes an end market, the more you will see that. what i hope we will see is the growth of u.s.-based manufacturing with the highest tech started in the united states and not for us to become an afterthought behind china and europe. host: next call for thomas rooney, virginia, pamela. caller: i will try to contain my enthusiasm for this topic. this is great. thank you so much, c-span. i am an industrial engineer who transitioned into environmental engineering. i would like to start of renewable company. i have been a contractor for doe.

i have a couple of questions, but how do you finand train your workers? do youave your own training program, or do you work with community colleges? for a startup, what is the biggest and barrier in financial and technology, and how would you mitigate it? guest: we do hiring all around the united states. we are a national enterprise, so we hire locally and trained locally. there is not sufficient employment base in the solar industry. most of those we hire we have to train, and that is a good thing. we are creating new jobs and training people. and yes, we do work with local community colleges and so on and so forth. the caller also asked about the

barriers to getting in as an entrepreneur. there is an incredible proliferation of new technologies in solar -- how the electricity goes from dc to ac. r houses are ac and there is a tremendous amount of technology like the inside of a computer, a computer the size of a park, that converts electricity from a -- battery--- computer the size of car, that converts electricity from dc to ac. it is more about, if you or entrepreneur, getting into the industry and understanding how to put together various technologies and the most elegant fashion to create the economic solution. solar is much more about

economics and then trying to save the planet -- than trying to save the planet. the smartest people are taking basic technologies and putting them together in t most elegant way and creating an economic solution so that somebody has 25 years of free power grid you could be an economist, technology experts -- 25 years of free power. you could be an economist, a technology expert, and effiency expert. you asked earlier if we are profitable or not. the reason we are profitable is that you're going into the next generation business techniques. whether it is hiring incredibly intelligent engineers, intelligent economic modelers, there is a place in this industry for smart minds. you doot have to own a technogy. you have to be ready to compete, and it is rough and tumble. you have to compete against the germans and the europeans and chinese. host: grand rapids, michigan.

rebecca, go ahead. caller: i am 51 years old and i have been for green ever since i heard about it. i think it is the most exciting thing that has ever happened. i wanto tell you about -- i called to ask -- when the presidt gave out the first time that everybody is screaming about -- i called the county asked what they were spending this money before, and they said not much, because the only thing they get is the fair grounds. out of all of this money, we get a dumb fairground. wh about the green technology -- we were supposed to get solar

and wind and all of that on government buildings. host: let's go back to stimulus funds. has your company received any of that money or the tax credit? guest: not directly paid one of the first and largest commitment -- but the -- not directly. one of the first and largest commitments was that a manufacturer in the bay area. as part of the american recovery and reinvestmt act, e lender is supplied with a huge loan guarantee. as a result of that, huge facilities are being built in northern california, interesting technology, so on and so forth.

companies getting direct support from the federal government, but our company? no. is there money from the stimulus to support it? yes, absolutely. if you call your local agency and ask them what they are going to do about it, and you get a lot of head scratching. we do not have a lot of people in the -- it is not that we don't have intelligent people in those commissions -- what we lack is national policy. the reason that china and italy and france and the czech republic are lengthening their strike against united states is that they have distinct and clear vision as to what they want to accomplish, and that trickles down. in the united states, we have been as fragment as one can be. we have to model against thousands of rate structures to figure out where solar is the

most viable. it is viable in almost every place, bute need thousands. it is not surprising that your caller called a local utility commission and got a head scratching. there is no real guidance out there. that is one area of policy on capitol hill that could be very powerful, to bring leadership in that area. host: thomas rooney is the president of spg solar. we arealking about solar energy on our week-long series on energy. ray, you with us? we're going to move on. california, hi. caller: i was into solar what i was in my 20s, but now that i am 50, i worry about the unintended consequences. i wonder if there is a grand

plan in the fact that solar means we absorb more energy than we ever have before, and whether this could lead to an overload of energy? guest: t earth receives the same amount of energy every day. you know, if you did a mass energy balance, when thesu sun shines on the solar panel, it is converted directly. it is interesting, but i do not know of we have long-range energy consequences from that -- if we have long-range energy consequences from that. interesting question, though. host: maryland, jane, hi.

caller: if you ready for my question? host: yes, we are on the air. caller: i would like to know if someone is interesd in job in solar, how we get trained fort with his company, if the person has a degr but it is not in engineering or solar. guest: to my knowledge, very few people have solar degrees i am an engineer. engineering is always a great background. we have people from all degrees of education. if you are interested in our company, it is spgsolar.com. beyond that, there are tremendously interesting companies in maryland. there is a great company that specializes in the

>> a gulf cleanup briefing by thad allen. democratic congresswoman maxine waters today said there is nothing improper with her role in california. . .

given the congressional schedule, it is possible that no hearing would be hellbent for months. even after the november elections. -- would be held for months. even after the november

elections. such a delay is unacceptable. it does not provide due process. it presents might constituents -- prevents my constituents from getting answers spreads its allies me from being respond -- able to respond to the charges. i am pleased that the committee released documents earlier this week, as i insisted. i have arranged this press conference to present my fax in the case and clear up ambiguities and misinformation. i recognize the transparency that i am providing may not eliminate and a judicatory hearing to reiterate, i am anxious to share these facts with you and the public because i have not violated any house rules.

i fully disclose all of my financial information as requested by house rules and, in fact, when the above and beyond what was required by repeated the disclosing my and my husband's financial interest is -- interest. neither myself or my staff engaged in any improper behavior. we did not gain any benefit. we are here today because i believe my actions and the allegations against me are not easily understood. today, i want to be absolutely clear about one thing. this case is not just about me. this case is about access for those who have not heard about the decision makers, whether it is having their questions answered or their concerns addressed. for the past 14 years, i have served in elected office, both

at the state and national level, and i have made one of my top priorities opening doors and providing access for small minorities and women-owned businesses. my advocacy and assistance in providing access for the national association is why we are here today. the national bankers association consists of 103 minority banks and i have worked with this association and their concerns for many years. i have focused -- i have spoken down their conventions in many occasions. i have participated in hearings about their issues and i have work to other federal agencies on their behalf, including the treasury department, fdic, and fannie mae and freddie mac. my telephone calls to their secretary of the treasury hank

paulson during the worst economic crisis this nation has faced in haiti years -- 80 years was to provide access to the national bankers association. it was represented to me that many minority banks had over alleged their capital and fannie mae and freddie mac and their associations wished to whether no their members capital was lost or if the government was responsible for protecting the capitol the day had invested in preferred stock. they had attempted to get a meeting with the treasury department, but had received no response. they saw me out to assist them in setting up a meeting.

the question at this point should not be, why i called secretary paulson, but why i had to. the question at this point should be why a trade association representing over 100 minority banks could not get a meeting at the height of the crisis. when i contacted the treasury secretary, i did not suggest any solution to the problem of the national bankers association. i did not ask for any favors from the national bankers association. i did not ask for a meeting before any individual bank, including one united bank. i did that suggest who would be participating in that meeting. i did not attend that meeting. there was no such thing as the trouble accept relief program at that time.

there has been a great deal of confusion over a conversation i had with the financial services chairman, barney frank. the conversation i had with chairman frank was a conversation several weeks after this meeting had taken place and after tarp programs have been announced. 1 united bank was not raising questions about assistance from tarp because my office's assistant to the national bankers association was strictly to provide access for a discussion about the impact of the financial crisis on a small and minority bank broadly and because there was no tarp program at the time of the meeting, i did not wish to get involved with 1 united bank about any individual assistance or about this new target program. because my husband had once served on the board of 1 united

bank and still held investments there, i felt i should seek assistance from chairman frank, a representative from the state or the hat -- were the bank was headquartered -- where the bank was headquartered. no government agency or their representatives have ever said that i requested any special assistance or compensation for anyone or any institution or a backbite influenced the tarp process in any way. there is also been a question about whether i instructed my staff not to get involved with 1 united bank and their interest in assessing tarp funds. my staff had only been involved in understanding the impact of the financial crisis on small and minority banks probably and assisting in setting up the meetings with the treasury department for the national

bankers association. i told my chief of staff that i had informed chairman frank about one united bank's interest, that weaver only concerned about small and minority banks, the chairman frankly evaluate their issue and make a decision about how to proceed. given that e-mails that the committee has offered as evidence, we communicated with each other clearly. it is not his about us. it is about those who lack access. i was honored to serve on a conference committee of the wall street reform and consumer protection act. i am happy to say that much of the legislation offered access to women and minorities for shareholders embarked accountable consumer, a financial protection and assistance for struggling and to -- struggling homeowner

spread that was included in the final legislation that was signed by president obama i am proud of the offices of minority and women inclusion that will be set up at the federal government financial institution, such as the fdic, all these agencies, continuing with my work about access will now have these offices of minority and women inclusion. hear me clearly. because of the need for access and work that i have done over many years, i've now opened up new opportunities by creating the office is closed minority and women and assistance at the fdic, the treasury department, at the federal reserve, among

others, to deal with the historic lack of access that minority and women and institutions have had in decision making, contract, and procurement opportunities. over the past year, and other nine others have been meeting with the national bankers association, the national newspapers publishers across association, the national association of black broadcasters, the national association of minority automobile workers, the national association of securities professionals, and the national association discussing the plight of minority businesses, their lack of access to capital, and the lack of support from their government in banking, advertising, consulting contracts. access is key to understanding the scope of this case.

this case is not just about them. this case is about fairness. we investigated -- the investigative subcommittee ignored key pieces of exculpatory evidence crucial to my case and that is extremely troubling. a truly robust investigatory process would have taken all the available evidence into consideration. i believe that if this had been done, we would not be here today. their nests is also key to understanding the scope -- fairness is also key to understanding this case. the case is also about my constituents and the american people. i've actually been touched by the outpouring of support by my constituents in los angeles and from friends in places like louisiana, texas, new york, illinois, florida, and even from abroad. i know the way that the american

people view congress. they hear talk of partisanship, power, money, of influence. congressional critics, it is easy to see a report of an ethics case and completely wash your hands of it all. but my constituents and supporters have seen the many inaccurate accusatory portrayals of my work and they know me better than that. they have encouraged me to fight. , there are some that do not believe in my philosophy or my methods. but no one should question why devotion to public service. therefore, i am asking us all to pause for a moment, set aside our cynicism, and considered to scenes. the facts of the case and my life's work in trying to provide access to those who have been denied. these two things will provide context for my constituents and your judgment. my constituent demands that i stand up for the values that

they elected me to represent. no improper accident -- no improper action, no failure to disclose, no case. i thank you again for coming today. i am going to ask my chief of staff, who will present to use some of the key facts in the case, and will also address some of our concerns would be -- with the sav. after the presentation, i will be happy to take your questions and answer them to my abilities. i will ask you to keep your questions to my experiences with the ethics investigation and process. i will not be entertaining questions about the supposed issue of race in this matter, recent media reports that have nothing to do with my case. let me just ask the camera guys

on this side -- you are distracting me. would you please move back? please when your lights go off, it bothers my eyes. please do not stand over on this side. move back to the front-row, please. please move back to the front row. i would appreciate it very much. thank you very much. >> hello. i cannot see from there. ok.

we want to run through some of the basics of the case. i want to share some informations with the that you might not be aware of that will give you some insight as to why we are at this point, why the settlement has been reached, why we think that the congresswoman has a good case. the basics are -- the question of whether the national bankers association for one united, whether or not there was a benefit, there was assisted, a failure to instruct, and whether or not there was -- there was a creation of an appearance. here we have the first letter that was sent by robert cooper, chairman elect of the national bankers association, requesting the original meeting from hank paulson. we have an e-mail from mr. michael grant, who is the president of the national bankers association on the morning of the meeting to bob cooper.

he was acting only in capacity of one united executives. i want to show that there was communication between mr. cooper on the morning of the meeting. here you see the current chairman of the nba. this is an e-mail to the entire nba membership. if you read the e-mail, and says, please see attached article today that maxine waters requested the treasury department was initiated by discussing -- bob cooper is in attendance at the meeting with treasury rebars in the membership and all minority banks, and we will update you of the outcome. as we go through these, all these documents are documents that were produced via subpoena

of the committee. they have these. this was a part of their decision making process. in the washington post, on that morning, it says that a number of hard-hit banks are minority institutions. at her request, a treasury department officials agreed to meet with some bank executives today. we have e-mails from the association and the president to bob cooper on the morning of the meeting. slide. after press reports in march of two dozen 9, we had a press certification -- press release from the nba that reads that the board determined that actions taken by mr. cooper were consistent with practices and authority granted him by the association. slide. here was the letter that was

sent by the national bankers association shortly after the meeting reiterating the purpose for the meeting the request for assistance to a broad set of banks in the association. slide. now we go to the question of the alleged benefits and the preservation of stock. response to the staff provided continued assistance to one united in their efforts to obtain legislation that ultimately resulted in one united receiving funding from treasury. i did something that directly resulted in a benefit to one united and a benefit to cover some waters. the preservation of the value of the response has been invested in one united will personally benefit the respondent. slide. the sav allege that one united received tarp funds, which

barney frank has already said that he drafted. the alleged that tarp fundy -- tar funding preserved one united. what did a benefit? how did that process work? they benefited under the capital purchase program within tarp. in order to do that, it is a multistage process. they had to raise approximately $20 billion in capital. they had to give a tax deferment from the fdic. they had to get an approval by the federal regulator. they had to get approval by the treasury department. this was all in the context of the treasury. it is clear that they did not benefit from section 1 of 3-6. -- 103-6. here is testimony from the

director of resolution at the fdic. it works critically undercapitalized, we want to make sure that collective action took place. kevin had to come up with an agreement to put $17 million into the -- and needed a waiver and these were assets to be considered capital. slide. skip down to here. there was a lot of discussion about tarp money. we had to put together a case for our board of directors. that is on the case i can make my own. we basically said and asked for, we recommended that they get deferred tax asset waivers. they asked corp. 48 months. we said 12. -- they asked for 48 months. we said 12.

they had 30 days to file. were you in favor of this action? she responds, yes. it was my recommendation and we do have a responsibility to protect financial institutions, a minority institutions in particular, but i'm also in favor of protecting depositors. they had some issues that we had been having discussions with them on, like compensation and other things that were brought to our attention, and i wanted them to stipulate to and ordered to cease and desist, and this order was public. >> what is her name, please? >> sandra shaw thompson. slide.

we go to the treasury department. you have correspondence from the deputy assistant secretary for public affairs. this was at the time when the news article started to come out. they tried to figure out when they got money and whether they had benefited. the wall street journal was told by a federal regulator, a state regulator, and barney frank that one united qualified for the december investment under section one of 3.6. -- 103.6. slide. the slide. this dates back to the current

administration. it shows an e-mail trail back to the previous administration. in a response to questions, they wanted to say, this happened in the previous administration. parked funds are awarded under two conditions. if the institution is the qualification defined in the statutes. tarp is insulated by outside influence. to come down here, you notice that this 7 e-mail -- this is an e-mail responding to questions, right? did the meeting in september related to the tse losses play any role in the decision by treasury to provide one united $12 billion in cp funds on december 19? not at all. we did not even know about it and tony was not involved in the decision.

slide trade " -- slide. >> can you hold the microphone up a little bit? >> i'm sorry. we need you to hear this. if you need me to start over, let me know. [laughter] did the meeting or the appeal contribute to the fact that it was the first community development institution to receive cp funds and one of the only three in the country? not at all. we did not even know about it. the request by any member of congress related to one united cpb application accelerate this consideration or play any role in the decision? not at all. slide. as we get past all the facts and there was nothing done by our office, we go to case lot from

the standards committee. they said something very important in the graves case. this is will these three did they said about treating a member in their investment class. very clear statement. the question that we have passed the investigative subcommittee time and time again is how they treat the councilmen investment as a uniquely held investment. >> when did they decide that? >> about six months ago. in the midst of our investigation, this statement was made by the standards committee.

another question is around the congresswoman's failure to instruct and the timing of the conversation with chairman frank. that thetice investigative subcommittee never asked not to myself or the congressman directly whether or not she instructed me to refrain. representative waters testified that the conversation happened sometime after the tarp bill was floating around congress. what i testified that the conversation happened in late september, early october. i testified twice to being made aware of the conversation being clear that chairman frank would evaluate this. why is this important? they refer to the meeting is happening in early september. in an attempt to try to place the meeting before the initial action by the congress to amend. in order to create this illusion

of conflict of interest. slide. here is testimony from the congresswoman in front of the investigative subcommittee. did you have discussions about the legislation? no credit at the point that i am understood that there are interested in tarp, i said to barney, that is your home. i cannot look at it. are you referring to 1 united bank? yes. i think that when you start to look at something like tarp, which is brand new, the chairman has more experience. they had branches all over the area. it was headquartered in his district. because he was chairman and knew more about tarp, i said to him, this is something that i cannot be involved with. at any point did you consider your husband's ownership of stock in the bank as a reason to not be involved? at the plant and we started to talk about tarp and they are asking for money, that may have

been one of my motivations. was new. they're asking for money and i did not know the implications of that. i realize that they were asking for money, i perhaps should take distance from bats. did you dig distance from that? i told barney, i cannot deal with that. slide. the statements are important. the congresswoman clearly articulates that her conversation -- the recognition that tarp was a reality and it was a legislative act that was on the table. she recognized that the investment credit conflict. next parade this is testimony from me introduce subcommittee. -- next. this is testimony from me in front of the subcommittee. i asked about what? they say one united bank. what happened after the

meeting, based on communication, results from a survey, at that time, no other bank has stepped up and said, we have an issue with the fannie mae and freddie mac peace. the conversations were look, we were approached by the nba by. one united has a problem. i do not want to be involved with this on this level. can you do it? the recall when that conversation took place? it was sometime in late september, early october. one of the things that is frustrating for us is that all the testimony speaks for the fact that the conversation was in late september, early october. the committee suggested any documentation or evidence that the customer -- conversation happened in the other time. finally, they asked, was their concern expressed? she appeared to be very comfortable that whenever the issue was, if there was to be a resolution, that party would

take a look at it and make a decision. slide. this is a recount of the testimony which corroborates the same thing. slide. it speaks to the fact that the congressman and i communicated about the fact that she had the conversation. this is for timeline purposes. how do you place the time line? there was an e-mail on september 19. here we have a correspondence from the national bankers association to all their members. we ask them to survey their memberships to we can understand what the death of the problem was with minority banks. here is their correspondence on the 17th of september. they had found no other banks that had to bid against exposure to fannie mae and freddie mac. slide.

september 19, you have any mail from me. it is a recommendation that -- you start with the nba. as the survey went out and time went on, it was a more narrow issue. here you have an e-mail from barney frank's staff chairman to another staffer on monday, september 22. it said, we have heard from one of our minority members this morning about this particular issue. come talk to me. slide. moving on to the next question. this is the question of assistance. if you read the committee's motion to deny our motion to dismiss, it says that the sec case in the late 1960's, compelled their adoption of the s.a.t.. -- sav. she worked for seven years to establish a bank charter on a naval base in his district.

he wrote official correspondence on behalf of the bank to both federal and state regulators. he attended meetings with folks from the bank would seek federal and state regulators. he instructed staff to follow up with regulators. he then purchased 2500 shares of stock and sold the shares for $10,000 profit. that is the case that the subcommittee is using to compel their sav against the congresswoman. i want to quickly run through what assistance was going on at that time and show the assistance was happening as mr. frank had said to his office and compare them to the things that happen allied. -- happens i'll line.

-- allen. when united bank discuss the problems in detail last week and told me that they are going to be monitoring the situation closely. what united also met with -- but told me they did not discuss the bank's problems with that office. congresswoman waters name is not mentioned. you have the draft letter, again, which they had possibly agreed to sign onto. the national bankers association proposal on the treasury. slide. you have any other correspondence between staff on the full committee and it is between staff having conversation about the conversation with fdic.

fdic does not have the authority to implement the nba proposal. there is conversation going on about how to solve this problem. that conversation was going on with staffers on the full committee. further, even if they are willing to be flexible, and how we will raise capital which is difficult for minority banks. slide. more correspondence. on september 22, i know you folks are going under for a third time, but i really need some guidance on what can be done about the national bankers association proposal. it is a huge priority for our

minority caucuses to have had major concerns and not to accommodate it in a pending bill. clearly, there are conversations going on between committee staff and the treasury department, but also the date. september 22. they're still talking about ways to solve the challenges faced by minority banks. slide. he said for me to step into the meeting with hank paulson and a commitment for a free tip from him. slide. -- commitment from him. slide. i have called a stafford -- have called over to treasury a number of times and reached out directly to secretary paulson as chief of staff and we have not been able to get a firm commitment from them about

whether they will pursue the national bankers association proposal. slide. slide. here is something i want to communicate again. september 23, this is michael grant, communicating with bob cooper, chairman elect about language that they will buy to seek as the nba it proposal in the context of tarp. slide. more correspondence. slide. war correspondents. -- more correspondence. this is a reflection of language that was worked on by the folks from the national bankers association. here on the 24th, you see the nd proposal, which is reflective of a previous language that we just

showed. it shows that there was a cooperative effort going on to figure out how to solve the problem. slide. slide. this is to show that at this time, the independent community bankers association also began to get extremely engaged in this issue. up to 22% of the respondents hold preferred stock. i want to show that even if we talk about section one of 3.6, a staffer testifies to the fact that there were up to 40 institutions that were impacted by section 103.6 let's talk about the assistance. you have to e-mail sent to a frank staffer. we already put that in context. on the 17th, there was a blast

that went out from the national bankers association showing the limited number of folks impacted. then we have one e-mail to chairman elect of the nba. 1 send e-mail to kevin cohee. this is important because the committee reads this as something that our office drafted that has been sent to one united for their specific purpose. then you have to unsolicited e- mails received from mr. cohee. here is the e-mail i am talking about that was quoted by the standards committee. it reads treasury draft -- did read this as something as i have drafted and sent to solve one united and their specific problem spread it clearly shows that this is -- problems. the treasury department came out

with a three-page bill to buy troubled assets. this was not -- this was that bill. it was not drafted by our office or to act on behalf of one united. it was a widely available draft of a treasury department bill. finally, let me get to the question of appearance. also in the graves case, they said the standards committee found that no relevant house rule or other standard of conduct prohibits the creation of an appearance of conflict of interest. the committee also did not identify household and standard conflict that a member is taking official action for personal benefit. either you are doing it or you are not. the appearance of conflict of interest only precluding a narrow circumstances. slide. if you read the motion to deny

or motion to dismiss, they cite a case of a demand -- of a gentleman. to justify, the only put in half the site. the committee believes that the circumstances giving rise to rep acceptance of gifts clearly and convincingly establishes that his efforts on behalf of coastal were received under -- this gentle man was convicted of several briberies. because he was convicted, that gives the appearance that what he was a bribe for was an official act. the charges, clause xxiii.

bribery statutes, things of that nature. the second is the spirit of x xiii, calsue 3. -- clause 3. it is charging you with attempting to do something and doing it at the same time. all these charges depend on the receipt of benefit and identifiable and actionable assistance. no benefit, no improper action, and a failure to disclose, no influence, and the case. -- no influence, and no case. >> thank you very much. i notice is a lot of information. you have not had access to the inner workings.

you have not had access to the inner workings for the ethics committee in the past. you probably yet were not aware of all the intricacies of these kinds of investigations. if someone who is accused simply goes into the back room and agrees to some violation, even if they have not been guilty of it, it would avoid all of the public press. it would be easy on the committee itself. it means they would not have to go through any judicatory hearing where they would have to subpoena people and get more information on the record. it would be easier and more convenient for everybody. that is normally how it works. but we feel very strongly that we cannot do that. we are proud of our work.

our work has been consistent due out the history of my career. we have committed no violation and we are prepared, not only to defend myself, but to open up the discussion about the process. is this process a good one? how does the standards committee work? should it be changed? should it be made it more fair? all those questions, i think, must be dealt with and we look forward to the opportunity to put some of these ideas forward legislatively. beyond that, my reference to the laws that i created and the wall street reform bill is something that i want you to focus on. some people say that the creation of the offices of

minority and women in collision have gone slipped into the bill. they did not get slipped into the bill. the wall street journal did a scathing attack on the fact that i had created these offices it so that we could have fair processes for hiring and contracting. this is what i do. this is what i consider as part of my responsibility as a legislator, as a member of congress. i want to continue to work on this process. and helped to open -- i want to open the discussion about this process. working with the other members of the congressional black caucus or the financial services committee is about that. when you heard me talk about the minority automobile dealers, they got caught out of any

assistance. we have lost 50% of all of the minority automobile dealers. when you hear me talk about the national black broadcasters, they do not get many advertisements from government. government agencies do a lot of advertising. when you hear me talk about the national bankers association, the government puts its money into banks. why don't they put money into minority banks? when you hear me talk about the national securities professionals on wall street who happen to be people of color, why can they get themselves a contract? they are expert managers. they are investment bankers. what is it about this process that excludes the folks who are taxpayers, who should be involved? the system has not adequately recognized that it is not open and available to everybody.

i, as an african-american woman, must be aware of what i can do to open up the system to everybody. this is what it is all about. i am pleased about the opportunity for this discussion. i would never have all of you in the room if this had not taken place. not that i would have desired it this way. i would have led for you to cover the work that i do on the financial services committee. i would love for you to be interested in these issues. i would love for your new for -- for your stations to be interested in that kind of work. normally, it is not sexy enough. it is not interested enough. i do not get hurt. others to do this kind of work do not get heard. we are in the middle of an investigation and a discussion is on. i welcome any questions. >> part of this is a time line

issue. the ethics committee, to you a few basic go and say, we have this case against you, we want you to take a certain -- did they recommend a reprimand? at that point, you said no? >> you must realize that in doing what i am doing, i am teetering on the border here. you're getting into a part of the discussion by the ethics committee that i cannot go into. what i am doing now is outside of the box, beyond what is normally done i think that is when you get into that part of

it, i have to not go any further. >> you said earlier that there was a process behind closed doors. there was a take-it-or-leave-it sort of impression. >> i will not go behind closed doors. i will not cut a deal. i will continue to talk about the fact that i have not violated any thing and they must go to an judicatory hearing. >> did you or your office to anything to reach out to or communicate with state street for their assistance to one united? >> we do not know who state street is. nobody in my office has ever spoken to state street. we have nothing to do with the capital that 1 united bank got

from state street. i even said at one point in time to investigators, why didn't you ask state street those questions? we know nothing about it. >> he said that he went out on the house floor against the recommendation of lawyers -- >> i did all the reasons why i am here. to make my case. >> has the leadership in kurds do not to do this? have you spoken with them? >> my question pertains to the office of the congressional ethics. former head of the house

intelligence committee is the co-chairman of that and you had some conversations with him in the 1990's over the cia drug trafficking allegations. is it proper for him to be co- chair of the body investigating you with that kind of adversarial background? >> the zero c e is made by members of both sides of the aisle -- oce is made up by the members of both sides of the aisle. they determine who sits on that committee. if i had thought about it earlier on, i may have challenge that. i just did not think about it. we are to people will really do disagree. -- we are two people who really do disagree. >> [inaudible] >> i think they just missed doing their work in such a way that there was no understanding.

they made some assumptions and they were not true. they did not do good investigatory work. >> after cooper goes to the first meeting with treasury, why did you get out of the issue then? do you feel that they use to you? do you feel like they were setting you up? >> i was not in the meeting. i understand that the meeting opened up pretty much in the way i would expect a meeting to open up. why they were going to that meeting to talk about the plights of the minority bankers who had invested their money in fannie mae and freddie mac, because they felt they were safe places for them to invest the

money and that somehow those investments are protected or secured by government. i understand some points in the meeting, mr. cohee started to talk about one united and he shared information that he had $50 million invested in fannie mae and what did that mean? was he going to lose that money? was the government going to make it good? that is what i understand took place in the meeting. the treasury department said to them, we have no authority to make good any lost investments. that is not written into our law. that meeting was over and done. they got no assistance and it was over. after that meeting, four weeks later, talking into being.

that is -- part came into being. that is when we learned he was now interested in tarp. it was at that point, if this is about one united and tarp, barney frank is your rep. your headquarters is in your district. talk to them, i am out of it. things have like unfolded in the way that they have because this is how government is. we were at a point in time where the economic crisis was ready for a spread the meltdown was going on. people take actions. things go on. i do not think that was set up or use.

>> were there any red flags? was there a conflict of interest even at that point? >> trade associations have representatives. small trade associations usually have representatives of one of their member companies whose big for them, particularly if they do not have a paid on going lobbyist of some sort. not only do these small associations use the offices and personnel of various members, but this is how associations work. he was representing the national bankers association. that is to iran as the meeting for.

-- that is to i arranged the meeting for. >> they focus a lot on the actions of your chief of staff. it seems to indicate an opinion that you were responsible. is he under investigation by the ethics committee? >> i don't know. >> why do you think not at the root of so much around his action? >> if you look at the e-mails that they were -- you would have to ask yourself, what did he do? what did he say? did he ask any agency of government for assistance? did he make a telephone call? did he ask the congresswomen to ask him? what did he do? that is probably why there is no investigation. no one can say that he actually took any action. that is my thinking. >> this may not be the main

issue, but do you think the ethics process should be changed? how would you change it? >> i am not opposed to the ethics process or any ethics process, but i think there has to be due process. somewhere in this process, you cannot file a claim after a certain date. i think that is designed so that members would not be accused or set up at the point of reelection. if that is the case, why do you have an oce that can release an investigative report on findings at any point in time as they have done in my case? once they have held it for a year, they say, they can release its. once they released it and it goes to the ethics committee, why is the ethics committee's responsibility in terms of the time frame? can they say, while, our

allegations right before you go on break. i know you'll be out six weeks. no one will be around. we do not have enough staff to get through these a judicatory hearings. we know you will not get heard prior to the elections. those kinds of things in the process must be stricken. they must be identified. the process must be one that can be negotiated fairly by anybody. >> is there anything that you would have done differently or anything that you did not do that you would do from that time. period? >> no. we had a letter from the national bankers association. you had requests in person from the national bankers association.

everybody who has been listed in this case said that. i stepped forward tuesday please meet with these people. when i called secretary paulson, i did not suggest what he should do. i did not say, meet with them and solve their problems this way. i said, will you meet with them? he said, yes. i would probably do the same thing. >> the investigative reports found that of the 363 banks the received a bail out in the fourth quarter of 2008, one united had the lowest ratio. 1.8. they also found that on october 27, 2008, the fdic issued a cease and desist order to one united. they were in violation of law did you pour oversight and some

weak loan regulation. is this the type of a bank that american taxpayers should be bailing out? >> if the fdic has information about banks, that makes them ineligible for being a bank or if they have some information that they should be investigated about that >> in addition, if they have information that they should have given to me, they should have done it. i do not know these things. members do not know how things are operating. that is why we have regulatory agencies to determine whether or not they are proper, whether or not they're operating under law. if they are not, then shut them down. or, if they feel there is information they should caution me about because they are

investigating or doing something that i should know about, they should tell me. nothing stops them from doing that. >> is it not odd that the weakest bank received a bailout and is directly related to your husband? is that not odd? >> i wish i could make this clear to you. i have nothing to do with the regulatory agency and how it operates in making those kinds of decisions. we depend on our regulatory agencies to make decisions about whether or not these banks are acting properly. if they are not, they should shut them down. >> on the record, one thing you should recognize is that that report was based on data from september 30th. it does not take into account the $20 million investment and tax treatment. at the time that they apply for the money, they were not a 1.8, they have a reasonable capital ratio.

>> at one point, you talk to the sting out of it. could you give us the date on that and -- you talked about staying out of it. could you give us the date and what you said? >> i will not pretend that i know exactly what i said. if you look at the testimony, when the witnesses try to go back and remember everything they said, it comes out in all kinds of different ways. one witness but that they had done something that they -- thought they had done something they had not really done. i cannot give you the exact words, but i cannot -- but i can tell you, we had a conversation. >> i have a question about the meeting with barney frank.

did you have any evidence that the talks with barney frank took place in september. that seems critical to your time line. he says he does not remember. that is incidental to part of the case, but it is part of the case. >> the fact of the matter is, if you can recall, in all of this, what i said to barney frank, and the point that i went to him, was at the point when the talks became a reality. talk was not a reality when the meeting with treasury took place. it would have to be some weeks after when it talks became a discussion, because that was one of the reasons i was talking to him, because now, when united was seeking assistance in a different way.

we are looking for information to confirm that, and we think that there is some information that perhaps could confirm it. perhaps barney frank's staff could help him with that. >> could you reiterate the size of your husband investment with the banks over that time. >> i am not sure about all of the time frames, but i remember this. my husband's original investment was about $350,000 or so. i am told that once we started to look at this, that his investment in the bank had been reduced to about $179,000, because it was not worth as much at that point, because, i guess,

of the financial situation of the bank. it was not as much as it had been when he originally invested. that is kind of what i know. >> does he own and those shares? >> yes, he does. nobody wants to buy them. >> i have a question about the implications for democrats in the elections. you're moving forward. you want the public hearing. congressman rangel is saying the same thing. are you concerned about the effect for your party in november? >> there is a lot of speculation about whatever happens on either side of the aisle prior to an election. people are speculating. he was going to win? how many seats are going to be lost? as far as i'm concerned, most of that is speculation. each member must be concerned that their representative -- that they are representing their

constituents, that a jury -- that they are doing the best job they can possibly do, and that they are producing not only the public policy that the american public expects them to produce, but that they are honoring the laws and living by the rule of law. that is all you can expect. i am not going to try to get into what the benefit or lack of benefit for either party is. i want to deal with the case. that is what i want to deal with. >> by the same token, you have been critical of the lackadaisical pace of the committee dealing with this. this leads past the election, would not be better for your party to have this is settled long before the election, yes or no come up or down, so the people know where this stands? >> it would be better to have resolved as quickly as possible. if there is to be a hearing, it

should be done. the facts should come out and the decisions should be made. i think it is important for due process to take place. it is guaranteed by something called the constitution. >> would deal is the most compelling piece of evidence to support -- what do you feel is the most important pieces of evidence to support your case? >> what you will find is this. no one in any regulatory agency, the fdic, the treasury, and no one has said that maxine waters or a chief of staff called them, read to them, asked them to do anything. as a matter of fact, you see the opposite. you see where the heads of these agencies and significant person in these agencies say, no, we are not employed by anybody.

we have our criteria. we used that criteria, and 1 united bank qualified because they were adequately capitalized candidate or a developing financial institution. -- and they were a developing financial institution. if you would like to accuse me, what did i do? if you would like to accuse my chief of staff, what did he do? that is very compelling. i believe that, having looked at this case, this business is coming down to, well, we cannot find anything that you did. we cannot really find anything that your chief of staff did. you must not have instructed them. that is my case. that is not good enough. >> the meeting with the treasury officials, why were there not any other member banks and their -- any other member banks

there? >> this question keeps being asked. i'm trying to understand the question because, when a trade association comes through, or when they send their representative to washington, they do not usually bring all of their people with them. they bring somebody who represents them. when i look at the testimony from the fdic, that is basically what the lady said. she said, usually she talks with representatives of trades associations represent hundreds of companies. this idea of why were there not other minority banks, i do not get it. >> back to your husband's investment in the bank, could we just talk about your concern

about this money that was in of the bank and how important was that investment? >> i have never had any concerns about my husband's investment in the bank, and i would never take extraordinary steps to save that amount of money. i would not do that. i have no concerns. >> why come here today and talk to the media and go through public scrutiny? >> i believe that if you're going to write about the story, you need to know what you're writing about. some of you have been all over the place in what you know and what you do not know. so, i thought it was important for you to get as much information as you could possibly get, so that at least

you could have some basic immigration based on documents, based on an understanding. still, there are some people who do not know the difference between representing and association. you still want to write a story that i arranged a meeting. you want to write that i arranged a meeting for a trade association. when the secretary paulson responded as a witness, he did not tell anybody that i called and asked for a meeting for one united. he framed it in terms of, she has members of banks to are concerned and they are in town, or something like that, and they need a meeting. as a matter of fact, i think he said, she never said anything about one united bank. so, i want you to know the difference. that is number one.

number two, i want you to know that this business about maxine waters and her staff tapping one united to get t.a.r.p. money. washat meeting, part not in existence. it -- t.a.r.p. was not in existence. it did not come into existence until later on. i met with murray frank after t.a.r.p. became a reality and a discussion took place about 1 united bank being assisted by tarp those are important facts. you have to know the frankfurt of all of this -- no the framework of all of this bi. when it appears that minority

banks are going to be bought up or merged, should they be eligible to receive and some technical assistance? i want you to know that we want to preserve minority banks. i want you to know that these small banks who are charged with the responsibility of getting money out into communities that do not get the money normally, i want you to understand the question of access. why is it that bank of america, wells fargo, citi, chase manhattan, can get on the telephone and get the treasurer on the fund and walk-in? why do they have access? why do small and minority banks, and community banks, not have access and complain, and look for assistance from barney frank? i want you to ask these

questions so that when you write your stories you can at least have some basis on which to write your stories. i think that is about it. >> the answer as to why it when united was present at this meeting -- you do not know why that occurred? >> mr. bob cooper was the chairman of the national bankers association. he was there, and then they had -- though else was there? the outside counsel was there and the chairman elect was there. thank you. i think that is all we can do today. we have tried to be as transparent as we can possibly be and afford you the kind of opportunity that you would not normally get with this kind of case. we appreciate your attendance. i will not be holding any interviews outside of this room.

this is it. >> it seems like the appearance here -- i know you're saying this is outrageous a season's work, but the fact is -- this is how trade associations work, but the fact is, do you not see how this kind of creates -- >> no. you cannot design appearance. >> i am not talking about in terms of the ethics committee appearance. i am talking about the conversation on that day, on that night, revolving around is specifically, this one bank. >> that is what i said. if you look at the witness's testimony, 60%-75% of the conversation was about minority banks. one united entering into the

conversation happened after the conversation about minority banks. that is the kind of information you will get if you read all of the documents associated with this. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> next, homeland security secretary janet napolitano on border security. after that, a gulf clean-up briefing by retired admiral allen.althad then, a look at midterm election campaigns around the country.

tomorrow, a representative from the heritage foundation discusses reaction to cuts in the defense budget. the president and ceo of the career college administration response to criticism of a for- profit colleges and the impact of regulation. and the founder and president of the atomic heritage foundation marks the 65th anniversary of the end of world war two and the dropping of the first atomic bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki. the segment features rarely seen archival footage shot by armed forces of the aftermath. that will be live on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> daniel webster used to use it. >> daniel webster's that here? >> harry truman said he hated

this movie. at the time, harry truman was seen as the senator from the machine in kansas city. he thought the movie was looking at him and his relationship with the machine back,. >> historian on washington movies and his book, sunday night on c-span. >> now, homeland security secretary janet napolitano discusses u.s. border security. she made the remarks at the regular white house briefing, after president obama signed into law a measure that will put more aid and equipment along the mexican border. this is about 40 minutes.

>> i was very pleased to be with the president earlier when he signed a bill committing $600 million more in resources along the border. i would like to especially thank harry reid and nancy pelosi. the legislation that permit resources that will continue to bolster security along the south west border, supporting our efforts to crack down on transnational criminal organizations and reduced the trafficking of people for currency and weapons. the bill is important in two respects. first, it adds new resources to the border. second, it makes permanent many of the assets and that this administration has surged along the border during the past 18 months. let me pause there for a moment. i have worked on border issues as a public servant for 17 years, starting in 1993 as the

united states attorney in arizona, then the attorney general of arizona, then the governor of arizona, and continuing through today as the secretary of homeland security. what is significant about this bill, in addition to its content, is that it has something, with b bipartisan support, the gives us the ability to continue efforts that were well under way, to ensure that the border is not and should not be a political issue. it is a matter of national security in which we all have a stake. on that score, even before the president signed this bill, the administration had already voted more resources to the southwest border than at any point in american history. these efforts are making a difference. they are the reason why everything that is supposed to

be going up is going up and everything it is supposed to be going down is going down. seizures are up and rose across the board last year. apprehensions are down. for the first time ever, we are screening 100% of southbound rail. criminal moves are at an all- time high. added more manpower and resources to the border than ever before. this is a long-term effort to be to the cartels and to continue to secure the border. the administration is dedicated to that approach. that is why the president ordered 1200 national guard troops to the border. is why he asked congress to assist with supplemental funding. now, the bill. in terms of manpower, the bill provides for one dells and additional border patrol agents. it can take -- 1000 additional border patrol agents.

it facilitates legal traffic and intercedes contraband. enables ice to help combat narcotics smuggling. provides two more unmanned aircraft systems and will deploy tactical communications technology that will improve enforcement, particularly along some of the more remote areas of the border. it also includes $196 million for the justice department to add prosecutors, immigration judges, and support for detention and incarceration of criminal aliens in coordination with our homeland security enforcement efforts. in terms of infrastructure, it includes $6 million operating

bases to improve our border enforcement activity. this bill is clearly another step forward on border security, on top of the significant progress that the administration has already made. it is one of the many tools in the toolbox we have constructed along the border. so, we are very pleased with the swift passage. we are very pleased the president was able to sign this bill into law today. now, i am happy to take your questions. >> the president has said that the problems along the border are too vast to be stalled -- solved with fences and border patrols. is the administration and now in any way conceding that

comprehensive immigration reform is not tenable? >> i would say quite the opposite. the administration's position is that this bill as too significant border security efforts that have been underway for the past 18 months. the administration is very intent now in saying look, this bill passed a bipartisan basis. now, let's get republicans to the table, finally, so that we can address the whole issue of immigration reform. these are not a sequential items. these are things that should be done it together. >> knowing the politics as well as the policy, is comprehensive reform still something that could happen within the next couple of years? >> absolutely, and it needs to happen. i say this as someone who has a lot of experience with the immigration issue along the border. we need a safe and secure borders. this is a 2,000 mile expanse.

it allows all as a legitimate and legal trade and commerce and goods. people people -- people need to be able to go back and forth safely and securely. as a nation, we also need immigration reform. >> the president were done this in 2005, 2006, 2007 as a leader of the united states senate. leaders made decisions to create a bill because democrats and republicans worked together. nothing will happen on this issue in a comprehensive way that only involves one party or one person. secretary napolitano oppose the state has leaders that were willing to make tough -- state has leaders

the or willing to make tough decisions. we will get comprehensive reform when the democrats and republicans are willing to be leaders. only then. it is not enough to go through the senate -- it will not be able to go to the senate and the house and get to the president's desk because one party has willed it to do so. >> how does this differ from that? >> the efforts on overall immigration reform are ongoing. the point i am making is that you need to multitask. the need to secure the border, have a safe border area, and you need immigration reform. that is what this program has set out to do. that is what he is asked to the department of homeland security to work on. that is why we have invited

republicans and republican leadership to the table and said, look, let's get the issue of immigration reform. at the same time, we want to make sure that the border itself, that 2,000 mile expands, is safe and secure. >> following on that, i am wondering if you could talk a little more is specifically about the president goes a timetable for bringing about a comprehensive -- president pose a timetable for bringing about a comprehensive reform comment -- president's timetable for bringing about comprehensive reform, for getting republicans to the table. >> the purpose of this briefing today is to about getting this bill passed and its significance. the president made a formal request on sunday and in in june. we have already begun moving forces in addition to what we

have already put the border, to the border. this will allow us to make some of those movements permanent. the additional 1000 border patrol agents on top of the 20,000 we already have it is significant. 200 ice agent being dedicated to the cartels that use that route, that is very significant. adding aircraft to the ones we already have, that allows us the capacity for 24/7 their coverage along the border. this is the most extensive border security package that we have ever seen. >> the question was, what is the timetable passed this bill for taking the next step, and how much is contingent on the election? >> the president has said from the beginning that immigration

reform was a priority for him. e. reiterated that recently in a speech that you are quoting from. he has invited congress to the table, but again, as was said earlier, this is in the hands of the congress. they will need to address this in a bipartisan way. cannot only be done by democrats. republicans have to be willing to be at the table. >> nobody has suggested, that i have heard, that only one step needs to be taken to have comprehensive immigration reform. this is an aspect of it. it is something we always mention, but there are obviously other aspects that are needed and that people are interested in doing. the president has reached out to and talk to democrats and republicans on this issue. we just need a little support to make it happen.

>> if you do not get comprehensive reform, is this and not just then a drop in the bucket in attacking the problem? >> and no, and i say this again as someone who has worked extensively in a border state. the border region is an important, critical area for this country. so much trade and commerce occurs along there. people live in communities in that region. we want to make sure that region is safe and secure and that requires a law enforcement approach that includes manpower, that includes infrastructure, that includes technology. that is why this bill, added to what we have already done, and gives us the resources necessary for that kind of system to be in place. that makes a lot of difference to people who live in that area, into the country as a whole. >> you mentioned the crossings

are down. to what degree do you think that is the result of the economy, because there simply are not dogs here for people who want to cross the border? to what degree is it because of the systemic measures that have been taken? >> we cannot give you specific numbers, but i can tell you from my own experience that crossings are down. i would say 50%-60% from even two years ago. >> almost all of that must be because of the economy. >> is there to say that the economy has something to do with it. -- it is fair to say that the economy has something to do with it. it is also fair to say that the additional resources at the also have something to do with it. we have undertaken an unprecedented partnership with mexican law enforcement. that also is having an effect.

>> to follow on that, can you quantify what extra money and resources will mean in terms of the percentages of what you're trying to bring down? >> i am not sure i understand the question. >> you're trying to limit narcotics trafficking and human trafficking. $600 million. national guard troops. can you quantify the effect that will have? >> it is difficult to quantify and-, how much have we prevented from occurring. weekend tell you how much crossings have gone down and how much seizures -- we can tell you how much crossings have gone down and how much the seizures have gone up. >> it seems like you are laying the groundwork for political theater in november.

so what is the effect you want this to have? >> i think you will see crossing's go down and seizures go uppe. i think you will see crime rates along the border remain stable or keep going down, so the communities along the border are safer because of this money. there are all kinds of ways you can look at it. >> a follow-up to the timing. the policy pieces are being put in place, and now it is simply a political problem to get reform through congress. >> it is fair to say that it is time for immigration reform. the administration is ready to invite the congress to get at it, but again, as was said, it cannot be just one party. republican leadership now needs

to come to the table. >> as you know, republicans here in washington and in the region and say that while this is helpful and will this money is helpful, it is nowhere near enough. do you agree that more is needed, or do you think we really have the resources we need at this point to do that job? >> i think this bill matches very well with what the president asked for in in june. it augments what we had already sent down to the border beginning in march of 2009. i think the people perhaps did not recognize the fact that since march of 2009, we have been moving resources to the border. this allows us to make some of those resources permit, not temporary. i believe that we have designed what needs to happen at this border. we have a good idea what it takes to keep this border safe and secure, and this money will allow us to do that. again, it shows that when the

congress acts in a bipartisan fashion, even on a complicated issue like border security, things can move a rather swiftly. >> i did not understand for sure how you are responding to my specific question. do you think this is enough or is more needed? >> i think this is what we asked for and, of course what we asked for is what we thought would be enough. >> it takes 1500 more agents to be hired and trained. >> the average time to be boos on the ground is eight months. >> want to get all of these in place, -- once you get all of these in place, you feel you have a long-term foundation. is the gap widening between

border security and the more political issue of what to do with illegal immigrants who are here now? isn't that a problem that requires further discussion, with all of the lawsuits out there? is that becoming further and further from a possibility not only this year but next? >> that goes to the issue of underlying immigration reform that is already in the country. we have set clear priorities for ice about who they should prosecute from a law enforcement perspective, just like any prosecution office would. focus on criminal aliens. record numbers are being removed from our country. focus on gang members. we focus on felony fugitives. when you look at the numbers, the numbers show that ice has made significant strides in that

regard and record numbers are being removed. >> part of this bill has to do with doing business in india. [unintelligible] will this bill impact the u.s./india relationship? >> i think the method of payment, which is an increase the visa charge for certain business related business the

says, makes a lot of sense. it says we will pay for immigration out of the visa system. that way it does not come out of the general fund, which is necessary for so many other things. the senate was able to find a way to fund this bill that does not add to the deficit and allows us to get to the enforcement moneys we need on a permanent basis. >> will impact u.s. a/india relations? >> i think this administration has a very close relationship with india and we hope to sustain it as such.

>> there is a concern about the temporary worker program. the head of the national urban league says there need to be more accountability just in case a company decides they need to go outside the united states to bring in workers. what do you say about that, bringing in more accountability, making sure that companies have exhausted all avenues for who wants to work in that company? >> we are all concerned and focused on making sure that in the business side of the it minuimmigration process and that rules are enforced and that jobs are not unfairly denied it to american workers. >> what kind of accountability efforts are you putting in place to make sure that businesses are exhausting every measure that

they can to make sure that no one in the united states wants the job before they go out into mexico to hire? >> we could give you a separate briefing. they have been conducting a lot of oversight visas that are given to make sure that the rules are being followed. >> you are talking about the need for republicans to come to the table. lindsey gramm has been working on this issue. is the administration reaching out to him? >> that have reached out to a number of republicans, including senator gramm. i think we all recognize that this is an issue that is not going to go away. immigration needs to be addressed, even as we secure the border. so yes, the administration has reached out to republican leadership and to others,

including senator gramm. >> has he indicated that he would be willing to work with you on this? >> eco signed an op ed with senator schumer -- he cosigned an off-bed with senator schumer -- op-ed with senator schumer. the president endorsed it, and it laid out the framework for what the immigration reform should be geared >> that was a while ago. >> again, i see no sign that there is any change in his position. >> last week after someone was killed in a drunk driving accident, you asked for a review of the circumstances that allowed the driver to be back in by icepack i 2008ce

2008. what questions are you hoping that review will answered -- released buy ice back in 2008. what questions are you hoping that review will answer? >> we want to know why someone on his record was released onto the road. >> will those results be made public? >> let me not answer that question prematurely. i do not know whether there will be a compromise of an ongoing investigation. to the extent that we can make things public, we absolutely want to. >> a number of republicans, notably on the house side, have

indicated they would be warmer toward comprehensive immigration reform if there was more being done on offense. was more money -- being done on at the fence. was more money put into the fence, and what is the status of that? >> there is not money for in thisa fence supplemental. we have built a fence at to an extent that exceed appropriations. in our view, the offense is there. but that is only part of this. -- the fence is there. but that is on the part of this. as i said when i was governor, show me a 15 foot fence and i will show you a 16 foot ladder. we need the infrastructure, but

we also need the technology and the manpower to back it up. >> so you are saying that it is only 6 miles short of completion. >> that is right. i may be corrected, but i believe that 6 miles is in litigation. >> you said there is money in the bill for incarceration and prosecution. is that record deportation straining your existing resources? >> it is fair to say that it was. one of the things about this bill that is as significant is that it recognizes that this is a system. it is a system that crosses the federal department. you're going to increase efforts on border security, efforts on moving and according criminal aliens and the like -- deporting criminal aliens and the like, you need more of the detention

side, on the u.s. attorney's side, and the justice aside. there is money in here for the justice department. >> could i ask you to weigh in on the 14th amendment controversy? do you think it is remotely passable? what do you make, from an immigration perspective and a policy perspective, about the discussion of the 14th amendment? are you surprised that senator gramm raised the issue? >> of to say that i am -- i have to say that i am surprised, to say the least, the discussion is being held about amending the united states constitution before we even get to the table on amending the statutes that actually carry out immigration policy. i think that is where the action

needs to be any talk of amending the constitution is just wrong. >> i wonder if you have discussed that with the president and if you have a sense of his feelings? >> i spoke on this ticket days ago. -- two days ago. the president and secretary napolitano agree on this. the 14th amendment has provided equal protection and due process for more than 150 years. these are two things that we do not think need to be tampered with. amending our constitution takes a long time. with a little leadership, we could have comprehensive immigration reform. it is always interesting that --

i said this the other day -- and that those to have -- those who have talked with fidelity about not tampering with our constitution have not chosen at the 14th amendment as an approach to immigration reform here it is rich with irony. >> do e is see this legislation in part as an answer to criticism? >> i think her factual premise was wrong data the facts are the facts and the facts are that there are more border patrol

agent at that border than ever before. there's more infrastructure of the border than ever before. there is more technology, more air cover, and the results are the results. illegal trafficking is way down and seizures of drugs and guns is way up. the factual premise that she posited, which is that somehow the federal government had ignored arizona, was just inaccurate and unfairly so. we will continue to augment the resources that we have been putting into arizona, particularly the east side of the state, the tucson sector. when i was a u.s. attorney, i supervised the prosecution of at least 6000 immigration felonies. this is an area that i know quite well. there has never been a greater federal presence at the border.

the factual premise for the criticism was wrong. i did meet with at the governor in boston. we discussed all of the things that we were doing at the arizona border. it was a very professional and cordial conversation. >> republicans along the way have said that we have to secure the border first. you yourself have listed a number of steps that the administration has taken during the past 18 months. my question to you is, first of all, how will the administration respond, because there are already republicans saying that this is an important first step but more has to be done. though well decide that the border is a secure if that is what is -- how will decide that the border is secure if that is what is needed for comprehensive reform?

>> about to march of 2009 when we began moving assets and resources down to the southwest border. i disagree with the characteristic. secondly, as i said before, this is a great bill for us. it adds border patrol agent, is agent, air cover, up-to-date technology, which is really important, because some areas you cannot cover with cell phones because there are no cell towers down there. you really need the communications capacity. the but is there -- that part is there. what i would simply say is that sometimes i hear could secure the border," and the goal post just keeps moving.

we'll do everything we need to do to have a safe and secure a southwest border. we now have a secure community system along every one of the 25 counties along the border. we will continue to ensure that our efforts are informed by good intelligence and analysis of the we are not just throwing money at the border. that should not be used anymore to preclude discussions about immigration reform. as i have said many times, these should not be sequential, they should go together. >> ice has said they all lead a 2000 deportations' a year because they do not have more resources -- the only due to a thousand deportations' a year because -- they only do 2000

deportation's a year because they do not have the resources. do you think this will lead to more deportations. >> i believe so. can i give you a number? and no, it would be premature to do so, but obviously, our goal is to make the best, most efficient use of the money that we received from the congress and focus it on where we think the best ever got to be, and that is making sure we are removing criminals, a felony fugitives, gang members in our country illegally, particularly once a day have served their sentences. for those who do -- once a they have served their sentences. >> has this bill then hijacked

to include more law-enforcement? >> but that is wrong. this is the bill the president asked for. asked for it because he knows that we can make good use of this money for permanent and consistent security. that is what we want to have. that in no way should be read to suggest, imply, or in any way back off of the fact that we also need immigration reform. >> [inaudible] >> again, operation and streamline has proven effective in the places where it is in use. we use it in some places.

it is very expensive. there other methods we use that have proven equally effective. we're trying to make the best use of taxpayer dollars to make sure they are targeted to do where they can do the best. streamlined pitch region is one way, mexico is another way -- -- streamline the repatriation is one way. mexico is another way. we have a tool box. we have a system. now, with this money, again, passed with the support of senator mccain, we can do more. >> he is a bet leadership is needed from republicans and democrats in congress -- you said that leadership is needed from republicans and democrats in congress in order to have

immigration reform. congress is as a leadership is needed from the white house. -- says the leadership is needed from the white house bid >> on the congress can pass a bill. the president can advocate. it can agree to a framework. and explore and suggest ideas. can it give a major address that spells out what is needed in a bill, but only congress can pass a bill. >> this bill raises the fee on a visa. is this discrimination and will it hurt relationship with india? >> i do not think it well. the united states and india have a robust and vital relationship, and nothing in this bill should interfere with that the request just to follow u.

>> just to follow up [inaudible] >> that has not been raised to me at all. thank you. >> retired coast guard admiral allen told reporters that work should continue on a relief well to permanently plug the leaking well in the gulf of mexico. his remarks are about 20 minutes. >> i have the head of unified area command in your lives with me. it has been a busy day. -- head of unified command in the new orleans with me. it has been a busy day. i will talk to you about the meeting we held with parrish

president. i will let him talk about that. the issue has been raised over the last week or so about the 26% in the oil budget and where we are going with that. we will talk about the well head, the pressure test and the relief wells. when we are done, we will be glad to take questions. first, a follow-up on the meeting. >> thank you it to everyone for taking time out of your schedules. we have been focusing in on them this meets -- on the needs that are unique to each parish. there is no one plan that fits all. we have oil in the marshes the needs to be addressed. just to reiterate, we have a transition plan that really takes us to the long term from response to restoration. what we are doing as a result of

today's meeting -- we will sit down with parish president and branch of directors and build up a plan over five levels that will take this to a point in time where we can declare that clean is clean. we are not there yet. but we are at the table at a local level where it matters. we are working each of the parish officials. it promises to be of very productive meeting. >> from a personal standpoint, i appreciated their willingness to get together and talk and be very frank. sometimes all you need to do is but problems on the table and deal with them. -- put problems on the table and deal with them. as i have noted previously, the current plan is that we get to the conditions where we can look

at taking a regional approach to this rather than a national approach to this. when the conditions are such that we can transfer to a larger recovery organization, many of the duties i have now will be shifting to paul as regional incident commander. later today, i will sign a directive to the national incident commander that will call for a coordinated integrated system of ocean monitoring moving forward. it will take the extensive amount of work that has been done by and noah today in cardin sampling around the well and in other places in the gulf of mexico. we will also bring in the epa to do water and air testing. there is a significant amount of detection operation going on under the water in louisiana.

we are checking periodically to see if any oil is attaching as it comes through. what we're going to do over the next week or so is put together a plan for the next 60 days that will integrate all the monitoring being done and reach out to state, local academic institutions regarding their resources capabilities. they will be integrated into a comprehensive system that will help us detect any submerged oil that remains to be dealt with. we are very close to having the well secured. as we look at the oil marshes and the oil beaches, to the extent there is oil out there we need to be concerned about, we are going to do our best to locate that. this has also laid the groundwork for a national resource ground water damage assessing. we will test for hydrocarbons in the gulf, long-term impact on national resources.

there will be more information later that will start the process moving in the federal government. finally, we have finished a 24 hour period of doing an ambient pressure test on the well head. that has not changed appreciably over that time. one thing we can rule out is a direct communication with the reservoir. had the pressure reason, we would have known there were hydrocarbon's being forced up. marino there was something that was between the annulus and reservoir that is not allowing hydrocarbons. the question is what to do about that. the government has been meeting with bp engineers all morning. i have been in personal discussions before i came out to do this press briefing.

i would like to give you a definitive answer, but it remains a work in progress. we are trying to assess our options. we need to proceed with the relief well. the question is how to do that that mitigates the risk of introducing cement mud at this time and the implications of increased pressure to the seals at the top of the well. between the deepwater horizon and the cap, we installed something called a schooling tool. we unbolted the flange from the riser pipe. we put that piece in and connected the new capping stack to it. the threshold of pressure that can stand is 7500 psi. that is the weak link in the mechanical chain that connects the legacy blowout preventer to the capping stack. we need to understand the implications of pumping mud and cement to kill it from the bottom and the implications for

damage to that particular weak link between the blowout preventer and the capping stack. we are talking about options to mitigate the risk because everybody is committed to killing as well. we want to do it right. those discussions will continue throughout the day. when we reach a decision, we will make an announcement. i will issue an announcement. it truly remains a work in progress. with that, your questions. >> do you know why the hydrocarbons are not being forced up? >> at the top of the analyst is something called a hangar, were the case and hangs a the top of the well. that hangar is seated on a seal. if there is enough pressure, the hangar is forced up and the pressure is evacuated around that. the oil is now below that seal. there is a seal on top. there is a plug on the bottom

fell was forced into that from the static killed rather than stagnant oil. on the bottom we have cement. on the top we have that seal. we are trying to figure out as we start pumping mud and cement if it will increase the pressure. would you increase the pressure were the hair would lift up, open the sealed, and have stagnant hydrocarbons come into the blowout preventer? would you increase the blowout preventer pressure in excess of 7500 psi? we are trying to figure out what that means and how we might mitigate that. >> before you did not realize? >> we always knew there was a risk. when we do the well integrity test and the indirect test, we knew there was an upward bound of pressure and we did not exceed. it is the same limits. >> the search to find a

solution -- will it work from the top? >> we do not know anything at this point. it could be anything from accepting the risk and understanding we may not raise the hangar, and understanding how it would be possible to put something to bleed off the pressure. we could even put another blowout preventer on. we have sealed the well at this point. that would take a longer time. we are walking through the risks associated with the weather out there. it is the same set of circumstances at every step. >> we have successfully shut in as well. we have had stability since july 15. we have something now we have not had before. i would not call it luxury, but we have the breathing space to consider alternatives under a less than high-pressure situation to allow us to do the right thing in relation to

killing as well. we need to find evidence for the investigation going on as well. >> is it in the affected debt at this point, the well? >> that is a good question. there are no hydrocarbons entering the gulf of mexico at this point. there is some leakage around the flange, some minor leakage we know of around the flanges. we have oil in the annulus. i have bp's estimate of what is in there. the estimate 1,000 barrels of oil. there is no communication between the reservoir and the surface at this point. we are talking about a risk of 1,000 barrels of oil. what we do not want to do is upset what we have done, which is a really good cementing job. one of the problems we have -- we probably did too good a job of the top kill. as far as finding out whether we

could have the communication with fluids going down, whether it could take the volume and pressures -- what we probably have now is cement that has gone into the reservoir and come back up. we are managing the conditions we are finding as we take each step in the process and making sure we do no harm. questions from the phone? >> if you would like to ask a question, press star. the first question comes from harry weber of "the associated press." >> i want to clarify points you made. you said that everybody agrees we need to go forward with a relief well, but how to do that is in question. what do you mean by go forward? are you saying to complete it and pump mud and cement through it, complete it and not pumping mud and cement to it?

i hope you could clarify that point. at what point are you, the national incident commander, point to say the well is dead? what is that trigger for you? >> i have talked to senior vp leadership several times, including bob dudley. nobody in bp believe they demonstrated that can drill and hit a 7 inch pipe. they understand the technology that is involved, the efforts put forth. everybody thinks we should do this. the question is how to understand the risks involved. there is no disagreement. the question is how to apply with the conditions and assess the risk and develop the course of the action to make the best decision. i and the national incident commander. i will issue the order when we decide how we are going to proceed. it will be based on my determination of what it will take to kill as well.

we will determine when the well is dead. once the well is dead, there is no longer a threat of discharge. then there will no longer be a role for the national incident commander. it will shift to a regulatory issue for the bureau of ocean energy and management within the department of the interior. next question. >> this is from the associated press. i know there has not been an order issued yet. pending an order, with the 96 hour time frame -- but that still apply, going forward? >> that is correct. that refers to a statement i made earlier. once we want to proceed with the drilling would take 96 hours to do the ranging run to make sure we knew where the drill bit was in relationship and to intercept it. that would be 96 hours. >> your next question from the

phone. >> admiral, were you able to make any sense, or does bp have an idea, based on the results of the cement the put down the well, how thick or reject, edged cement is in mthe annulus? do you think it is the produce solid? >> all we know is we do not have a deviation in pressure, which indicates we have a static analysts -- annulus. how thick the cement barrier is -- i do not think we know at this time. that is the reason the discussion has to take account that the well might be killed and we might not know that. it could be thin and we could have a problem at the hangar and with the seal and potentially

with the cement. that is the essence of the discussions going on. >> your next question comes from dow jones. >> i would like to know, given these results and these decisions, that everybody agrees this should go with the bottom kill. has the time from changed? maybe the bottom kill would be done before sunday and tuesday. is that the case? do we have a new time frame? >> once we have given the order to proceed with the relief well and the bottom kill, it will be about 96 hours, as a mentioned earlier. if we decide on a risk mitigation measures that might be done before then, that could affect that timeline. no decision has been taken yet.

we are thinking about inserting a pressure relief device. that would change the timeline. the decision made to proceed will be in 96 hours. >> your next question from the phone. >> i want to get back to the issue of the investigation. there has been talk about replacing the blowout preventer. i am curious when the original one my guests' luggage from the bottom. if you could speak a little bit as to the selvage. >> under the assumption that we have killed the well and there is no threat of this chart at that point, statutory and regulatory oversight of the well shifts to the bureau of ocean energy management and the department of interior. there will proceed with the

abandonment process. i would refer questions to them. at the same time, there are certain elements connected to this wellhead that are subject of subpoenas of the joint investigation going on patrol in the department of the interior and homeland security. in addition, there are equities related to the department of justice regarding chain of custody against criminal proceedings that might come about. what will happen is the abandonment process will be managed within the department of the interior, within the guidelines provided by the subpoenas issued with the joint investigation team. where that sequence will take them i will defer to them. it will most likely include removing the blowout preventer and storing them up for some time so it can be brought to the surface under the right supervisory conditions and a chain of evidence. plans are to remove that to the

cause pard based outside new orleans. two more questions, please. >> hi, and merle. i want to make sure i am clear on this. are you know -- are you committed? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you for taking the question. just to follow up -- because you do not know the condition of the cement inside, is it that the well cannot be left as it is now? is there another process now required? >> arkansas refer to the previous question. the relief well will be finished. that is the end result. how it gets finished will be determined. a way forward is being discussed now.

we will kill the well. thank you. >> this concludes this conference call. you may now disconnect. >> next, a look at some of the midterm election campaigns around the country. then a debate between the democratic primary candidates running for the u.s. senate in florida. after that, the california representative talks about pending ethics allegations. >> mr. president, just before christmas in 1968 by was appointed to succeed alaskas first senator, for senior senator. next month will mark the 40th year i have had the honor and privilege to serve here in this great chamber. >> with almost 900 appearances over 24 years, the life and

legacy of former alaska senator ted stevens, online. news conferences, committee hearings, and the senate floor -- free on your computer any time. it is washington your way. >> now we take a look at some of the key midterm election campaigns. this is 35 minutes. >> joining us to take your calls and look ahead to the fall elections, aaron blake of "the washington post." thanks for being with us. we are going to open our phone lines. the numbers are on the screens for republicans.

make sure you meet your set. there were key primaries in colorado and elsewhere. the colorado race -- we showed a rally with democrats yesterday. the headline by "the wall street journal" says the democrats see hopeful signs. why is that? >> this is one of the many situations this year where there is real trouble. we saw robert bennett lose in utah earlier this year. he became interior secretary. does not have much of a political track record. he was running against a proven politician, at least at the state legislative level. this became a difficult race for the white house because they had been supporting -- this was

supposed to be a close race. >> i am curious about your read on the influence of the two- party on this week's primaries, and particularly -- in particular less than three months from the fall election. >> we have seen the tea party breakthrough in nevada, for instance, and in kentucky, where sharon ankle and rand paul became republican nominees. we have seen it falter because the tea party candidates are not able to raise a lot of money in some cases. it is a major impact, no doubt. i think sometimes it can be a little bit exaggerated. >> we have a couple of calls late -- a couple of calls waiting. there was a posting earlier this week about one of the races in the week -- the linda mcmahon race in connecticut. the headline was what she could learn from al franken.

what did you write about? >> this was an interesting storyline this election years. lynn that is the former ceo of world wrestling entertainment, the big professional wrestling business in the company right now. she has put a lot of personal money in this, $22 million. that got the attention of the national republican party. she eventually became the nominee. she won the primary on tuesday. questions about her background and what has happened in the rustling agency -- i think we can expect similar to what we saw so far probably a lot of coverage and attention paid to her senate campaign. >> we would get back to that issue of personal funding at this campaign. another has been a lot of that

this year. standing by, the republican call. caller: i would just like to say that the tea party philosophy is much like republicans that are conservative. more power to them if they can get people excited to vote. this country is pretty lax on voting the way it is. any conservative candidate, whether democrat or republican, is much help and much needed. host: any thoughts to the comment about the tea party? guest: i think that what we are seeing here is the republican party is somewhat divided, but we are also seeing the tea party kind of reinvigorating the republicans a little bit. the republican party at large

really is not very well liked at this point. the tea party is polling better than the republican party. we are seeing of voters who are feeling disenfranchised by both political parties. host: what town in illinois are you calling from? caller: i am calling from joliet. what is the race card played so much in politics? host: the race card -- are you seeing it a lot in the election so far? guest: you know, i think it is played to some degree, but i think candidates are mostly pretty reticent to get into racial issues. it is a pretty divisive way to campaign and is not something candidates want to get involved in. i do not think we have seen it a whole lot this year. we are talking about the charlie rangel and maxine waters

situation, but candidates having accepted money from that members of congress -- you have not seen a lot of race in other races this year. host: address the rental charges and maxine waters charges. she came out in a news conference and said she has done nothing wrong and detailed her side of the story. does it help democrats to have this issue waiting out there before the election? guest: it certainly does not help. the question is whether it hurts. i think if you ask most people in this country now they know who charlie rangel is or maxine waters, with the coverage in recent days most of people would still say they do not. i do not know that people look at the fate of a congressman from harlem and a black congresswoman from california and would ascribe those charges to the democratic party.

the republicans have had their own scandals in recent years. there is an easy way for democrats to fight back on any attacks on that stuff. host: minneapolis on our independent line. caller: i would like to ask a question about everybody trying to put everything on the democrats. the republican is facing charges in the senate. i think the republicans are not going to win the house because in the inner city everybody thinks that everybody doesn't know anything in the inner city. but we are getting ready to vote. everybody is going to get everybody out to vote. i would like to know where you guys get your polls from. you do not get your polls from the inner city. the democrats are good this year. republicans say no to

everything. it is just like the confederate flag. host: minneapolis had their primary this last week. guest: this is a key question. a lot of members of congress who were voted in the last two years are asking themselves whether african americans will continue to turn out. they obviously turned out well in the south for barack obama in 2008. the midterm election year, turnout is lower. african americans are a population that tends to drop off more than other populations. this is going to be something we are going to talk about a lot as we head into the election, and definitely afterward. this is a key demographic for democrats. host: stay on the bottom for a minute and look at the senate race between the majority leader and sharon angle. guest: that is an interesting

state. harry reid is very unpopular in the state. democrats think they might have had an opening when republicans nominated an ultra-conservative former state assemblywoman. the question is can democrats change the subject from harry reid to sharon angle. so far, they have been doing a good job. whether or not that continues to be true, i think this is a race that is going to be close over the next few months. we just saw a poll from the las vegas review journal. it continues to be a very competitive race. host: let us hear from jeff in west virginia. caller: i would like to make two comments and get your opinion on them. first, i am hearing a rumor that the president is going to try to clear the bad debt of fannie mae and freddie mac. that is number one. i do not know if he can do it

without tanking what is left of our country. the second is i look -- as a republican, i am clearly ashamed of my party. i feel it has been taken over by some kind of banker virus. that is with both parties. d.c. any hope of our country ever taking back one or both of these parties to be of the people, by the people, and for the people? this is when to lead into the one word i hate to say, but civil unrest or civil war. guest: i think we have a long way to go before that. tea party voters feel they are left out of the political establishment. they are forming their own

movement. it is not very well organized. it is bottom up as opposed to top down. his complaints are characteristic of what we are seeing around the country. that is the reason people like randall paul -- like rand paul are winning. host: aaron blake is joining us to take your calls on the 2010 election, looking at the primaries coming up next week. the couple primary's in wyoming and washington. what should we be looking for in those states? guest: i do not think we will see too much, next week. in washington, we have senator marie facing a challenge from dino rossi, who people might remember from his gubernatorial campaigns in 2004 and 2008. he is well founded. the republicans have a lot of

hope for being able to take that seat. in washington, the top two out of all candidates make the general election. dino is expected to be in that. the drama will have to wait until the general election. host: we have a caller standing by on a republican line. caller: i lived in washington all my life. when we were having the health care debates and all of that, the senators are very disconnected from the people. on the health-care debate and all that stuff, before they even voted -- there were not interested in listening to people. unfortunately, a lot of the republicans need to go to the 00. i think the tea party movement needs to get stronger. host: in that senate race, who

are you for? caller: i am for the tea party candidate, who we do not know much about. host: that is william in spokane. guest: i would be interested to hear if william would support dino rossi if he was a general election nominee. that is the key question. he is running against two republicans who are taking the boat in the primary. if he can make sure he gets their support in november he could have a league right now according to most polls. i think whether republicans can unite in that race is a key factor. frankly, dino rossi has been [unintelligible] host: the baseball terminology

between jim demint and sarah palin -- who has the better average for candidates to have picked a guest:? i think they are on par. palin has endorsed the right candidates in the major races, with the exception of the georgia governor's race this week, where she backed the losing candidate. jim has been backing ken buck. he has winners and losers, just like sarah palin. host: let us go to chicago. caller: why are republicans always being labeled racist? host: you are calling on our democrats line. is it your view as a democrat the republicans are labeled as racist? caller: why does the media portray that? democrats and some people in the media tried to say republicans are racist. host: any thoughts?

guest: this is interesting. the caller before asked whether we were talking about race this year. it has cropped up in the nevada senate race. harry reid made a comment over the weekend in which he said he did not know why hispanics could be republican. i think when we are talking about these groups republicans have been trying to reach out to black voters and hispanics with pretty limited effectiveness. they really think the expanding of the majority is going to have to come through these voters. hispanics are obviously a big one. black voters have been very strong for democrats in the past. host: tennessee on our independent line. caller: i think all the elections are fixed. i think the media is trying to jam it down our throats that the

republicans are going to be taking the house and the senate. i do not think regular voters want to do that. i think this media attention to the tea party is a problem. how come we never hear about the green party? guest: i think that the question of whether or not republicans can retake the house and senate is very unsettled. if you ask most pundits and election analysts in washington, they will say republicans are not going to take back the senate at this point. people are evenly split on the house. it is going to be a competitive election. republicans are going to win a few seats unless something really changes. the question is whether they can make unusual gains that would make them rethink the majority. host: a republican caller. caller: hello. i am elderly and i am very concerned about one major thing.

that is moral decay. i think moral decay -- our president is a believer of abortion above and beyond anything i have seen in my life. no. 2, i had never heard of trillions of dollars until we have had the new leader of our country putting forth trillions of dollars of debt as a solution to our difficulties. i lay these situations that i just mentioned on the floor -- on the lord, the greatest power in the universe. i pray the lord can do a miracle with our president. i look at paul in the new testament, who was a christian terrorist. host: thanks for your comments. we have not heard much about social issues, whether it be abortion or whatever.

guest: when the economy is such an overriding factor, it really calls for either side to start talking about those issues. at the same time, it is starting to creep up on us. we wrote about this a couple of weeks ago, when the california judge overturned the ban on same-sex marriage passed by the voters. i think in isolated cases republicans will use these issues in some socially conservative districts that are held by democrats that say that our social its conservatives. on the whole, there is not a lot of appetite for this. the economy is the number-one issue on the front of the mind for most people. host: texas on our democrats line. caller: let me ask you this.

are you a republican? that is the first question. the last caller shows what the republican party thinks. where and who do you pull? host: there is a question about polls. i think to talk about that earlier. guest: polls come from private sources. polling firms are based far outside d.c. who are pulling these races. it is not necessarily coming from firms in washington. a lot of states have a few pollsters. we can kind of compare what the washington pollsters have said. there are similar themes on those polls. voters do not like other party much, are right now they seem to be favoring republicans in some

of these significant races we are watching. host: we have just been with tim blake of the washington coast -- aaron glick of the washington post talking about it tuesday that will have a lot of primaries. we have arizona, florida, alaska, and vermont on tuesday the 24th. i want to show you the floor debate in that state. most of us do not have a chance to see many of these debates in the preseason, but i wanted to see your thoughts on the tenor of what this says about that race in florida. this is from tuesday night. we are going to show this in its entirety later. here is some of that debate. >> dennis stackhouse is one example. he was a developer who is now facing criminal charges. his mother got a car and a

$90,000 salary. his chief of staff got $13,000 in cash. look what happened. >> sir, your life is a question mark. every day, we learn about your business dealings, how you treat your employees, and versions of why you went to cuba. you have more versions of why you went to cuba and baskin- robbins ice cream. i think it is very important for those in florida to know you are pointing a finger but have three fingers pointing back at you. i have more integrity in my pinkie then you have in your whole body. host: to me, that sounded like a general election debate. guest: this race has been something else. when you throw in a millionaire businessman like jeff green, who has a very eccentric past -- mike tyson was the best man at his wedding. he at one point lived in the same house with heidi fleiss. an interesting campaign.

the second thing we are watching the governor, charlie crist, who switched from republican to independent earlier this year. he has done all kinds of our reach to democrats. he is expecting a lot of democratic votes in the general election. right now, the democrats are looking for some traction in the florida senate race. it is not looking good. host: this is a russ recent poll, the latest data. charlie crist is at 38% -- 33%. 38% former pro rubio. the democratic candidate is unlikely, if he were to be the pulling at 21%. jason from tennessee on our democrats line. caller: i have a question for

mr. blake. i have three different races i would like to get his opinion on. the first is blanche lincoln in arkansas. i have not seen any poll numbers. they say she is the most vulnerable, supposedly. the second is jeff conway in kentucky. do we have a chance to take that seat? how is that going? how vulnerable is louisiana? guest: lots of good races in the south. you bring up really good ones. blanche lincoln unexpectedly survived the primary with the lieutenant governor a couple months ago. we're talking about bennett's surviving. lincoln was similar in that she exceeded expectations in a runoff. she has a really tough race in the general election against john boseman. she is down by more than 20

points but has a strong financial edge. in kentucky, jack conway is a top democrat to win in a red state. rand paul has vulnerabilities. conley is the state attorney general and has run a pretty successful campaign in the primary. we are talking about louisiana more and more. the congressman just went up with an ad mentioning a prostitution scandal and keeping an employee who had been arrested for domestic abuse. that race is getting dirty now. that is what we expect from louisiana politics. host: do you have a recent poll data from louisiana? guest: vitter is looking decent. he has a 50% approval rating.

democrats think his support is pretty shallow. they do not think they are going to go for him. will keep an eye on them on. host: we talked to an editor of the blog in louisiana yesterday. he said the number one political issue there is this oil drilling moratorium. guest: charlie gained a lot notice when this was going on. he was on tv. we have not seen him close in the polls. this is obviously a very red state. david vitter -- say what you want about his personal life, but he has a conservative record. he has positioned himself as one of barack obama's top critics in the senate. it is tough but worth watching. host: i want to touch back on self funding. we talked about linda mcmahon

and her campaign. what is for a parliament on what she will spend to win the senate race? >> the first we heard was $30 million total. she will have to exceed that if she wants to keep up the pace. right now, the thought she will spend about $50 million. she is in the top for all time as far as self funders go. this is a significant amount of personal money in a race. she is going to be all over the airwaves. host: meg whitman is funding her campaign. guest: she is the biggest. she is at $91 million already. she is the republican nominee against the former governor jerry brown. it seems feasible she could stretch well beyond $100 million. the general election is not getting any easier. could we be talking about a $200

million campaign? i do not think that is out of the question in a state as big as california. host: new jersey on our democrats line. what people should vote republican and not democrat. why we would vote republican and not democrats. we [unintelligible] i am a senior citizen and i am on a fixed income. my taxes went up. i used to pay my fire insurance. host: thank you for your call. guest: she asked why should people vote for republicans.

i think that is a question republicans are confronting. their approval rating, as far as people like democrats -- republicans are worse right now. the fact that we are seeing republicans set to make gains is a little puzzling. there is also the question of whether republicans have offered an effective alternative rather than just setting know. democrats say all they do is sit in the back and say no to everything. republicans insist they have ideas. i am not sure they need to have ideas. i think they can do pretty well by not being the party in power at this point. host: your newspaper column today talks about a fund-raiser in new jersey senator is a joy to have with lady dhaka. -- lady gaga. host: frank is in new york,

independent line. caller: my question mainly has to do with the two-party and how it wants to hold candidates accountable. it is no secret that the status quo in washington is pretty despicable with all these backdoor deals and special interests, and all these crises with the banks going on, the ceos running away with american dollars straight out of our pocket. it seems like a pretty hopeful grass-roots movement. why are they picking a party? in my opinion as a citizen, i

always thought i really did not have a place in politics for my opinion. host: we appreciate you weighing in. guest: the reason i think the two-party appeals to people is it is pretty amorphous. there is not really 80 party leadership. -- a tea party leadership. people say this is a grassroots thing, not a political party with leaders telling us what to do. i think that appeals to a lot of people. i think we will keep watching as this turns into whatever it turns into. host: in illinois, what is your town? caller: my question is i was a poll born democrat at one time, then switched to republican. now i am independent.

the reason is both parties do the same thing. if one gets elected, they do exactly what the opposite is. if the opposite gets elected, they do exactly what the other side. the only way to stop this power is to replace everybody. the other thing i have concern about is why the newspapers do not support both parties. why do they support one party all the time? i am getting sick and tired. i dropped all my newspapers. i used to carry "the sun times," "the tribune," and "the daily herald." guest: he talks about how we should just throw all the elected officials out. that is a pretty widely held sentiment now. we are not seeing an independent renaissance or a third-party renaissance right now. the tea party impact has been

relegated to republican candidates. independent candidates do not have the fund-raising structure. if you are doing pretty well, but both have been a member of major parties in the past. i think there is a lot to people saying -- it is difficult when you do not have money. host: i read yesterday about the role of the youth vote in the midterm election. the obama campaign did a pretty good job of turning that broke out in 2008. what is it likely -- how likely are the youth to have an effect in a 2010 election? guest: people look at the youth vote in the same way they look at the african american vote. it is split more between parties, but it was a big help for barack obama last cycle because young voters went to the democrats in droves. at the same time, this is a

group of voters that can shift quite a bit from one party to another. they also can drop off quite a bit if they do not feel like showing up. often, young people need some kind of incentive to go out and vote. we are going to keep an eye on how excited these people are about voting and whether or not they go to the polls. host: one more call, on our independent line in michigan. caller: i wonder if he would ask your guest what impact you think the unemployed voters will have on the election. i have voted republican in the past but will not do so this time. there are a lot of unemployed people out there. i am wondering, particularly in regard to the republicans blocking the unemployment insurance extension, what effect that might have. guest: this is a very interesting question. this is unfortunately growing demographic of our society right now.

at around 10% of the country, they are going to have a significant impact on the election. at the same time, it is not an easy call whether they go for republicans or democrats. there is not a direct connection. a lot maybe do not feel like the democrats have had the intended effect. you could see them voting for democrats because they believe the administration has tried to rectify the situation. it could go either way. host: our guest has been aaron glick, who covers politics for "the washington post." direct folks were they can go online to find your blog postings and get your e-mail updates. guest: go to postpolitics.com, or blog.washingtonpost/thefix. host: thanks for spending time

with us this afternoon. >> the leading candidates in the florida senate democratic primary race for is updated in their second televised debate in orlando tuesday. the event was hosted by the florida press association and leadership forum. the candidates were questioned by local journalists about the economy and their ethical behavior. the winner of the democratic primary on august 24 will face the likely republican nominee, marco rubio, an independent candidate governor charlie crist. this is 55 minutes. >> this is a special election year series brought to you by leadership florida, educating, inspiring, and engaging florida leaders. the florida press association, a trade association of newspapers providing communities with the news and information relevant to their lives.

major underwriting by the florida association of insurance agents, you're trusted choice for all your insurance needs. the trusted voice of our communities. aarp florida, working to make it better. the foundation dedicated to enhancing the well-being of florida seniors and preserving american democracy. the center for public policy, creating the next generation of leaders for florida, the united states, and the world. the democratic candidates for the u.s. senate in florida. >> good evening. i am the anchor at wkmb. this is the only statewide debate. it will be seen in every major

market in florida. it is sure to be good. we have with us two front runners for the democratic nomination. here are our panelists. michael putney, senior political reporter in miami. the editorial editor of the tallahassee democrat. columnist darrel owens. thank you for joining us. you will both be answering this first question. you will both be time. because of the coin toss, i understand the oystermee -- i understand mr. meeks won. we have heard a lot of anger in the campaign, but the voters have not heard a lot of details. if you were to draft legislation tomorrow that would stimulate job growth in the state of florida, what would that legislation look like? >> first of all, i want to think

leadership florida and the florida press association and the organizations that helped put this event together. the legislation would look something like this. it would talk about investing in infrastructure and making sure we bring high-speed rail that would bring jobs to florida. that would also bring opportunity to local communities, connecting orlando and tampa with high-speed rail. calling that commitment will connect employers with employees. at the same time, we must expand tax cuts for the middle class as we review those, and make sure we follow through on cleaning up the oil that is on our coast in northwest florida. i think it is also important to have legislation that is going to carry out action. working with local communities and making it a reality. signing a bill is not the end. following through on that legislation is paramount to the

bounceback of florida from this bad economic times. >> and follow up question. you talked about connecting employers to employees. how would you actually do that? specifically, what would your plan b? >> incentivize businesses already in the state of florida to hire more people. in the health-care legislation, the tax cut small businesses have received to provide better health care for their employees -- we could use those tax cuts to open another position in their business. the transportation part comes in because many employers need to be able to have high skilled employees. transportation is a challenge no matter where you live in florida. it is important we have not only roads but also high speed rail. that is good for our environment and also good for tourism and to move workers or they need to be to help all economies, big and small, in florida.

>> you said you might approve of extending the bush tax cuts. how do you feel? >> i am all for repealing the bush tax cuts, especially on the top 1%. but looking at the effect it will have on small businesses -- i am all for repealing those tax cuts and making sure we target tax cuts for middle-class jobs and small businesses. >> thank you for clarifying. mr. green, your question. if you had legislation you were born to crack tomorrow, please feel free to address the camera. you will be looking directly at the door. >> thank you again for having me to host this debate. we have in the state of florida a jobs crisis. there are millions out of work. the frustration is that we only created -- we did not create jobs. what we have is a failure of the elected officials in washington

to get anything done. mr meek ones to get rid of the bush tax cut. i think we need to keep the tax cuts in place for the middle class. specifically, how are we going to get jobs to florida? the stimulus was not strong enough. and we need an incubator to rebuild our infrastructure. we are in the global economy in which -- it is an economic world war. the only way we are going to be able to compete in that is if we have the best educated kids and an infrastructure on which we compete. as far as getting people back to work, i think it has to be targeted toward rebuilding and revitalize an infrastructure. i am going to show at the end there is no better way to get a multiplier effect than jobs. jobs in infrastructure. i would fight for a national infrastructure act.

that bill would provide for infrastructure revitalization all across florida. >> what about people who are not builders? >> first of all, and infrastructure will affect not just people in construction. we are not a state that has unemployed autoworkers. we have unemployed construction workers. we'll get them back to work. the multiplier effect to the economy -- people will get jobs. we need tax cuts for small businesses. we need a payroll tax holiday. many tax credits. if a homeowner want to insulate his home, a lot of that is targeted from tax savings from the government. a bold move is a i am the only job creator in this race. my whole life, and have been creating jobs. i understand how this works. i am the right guy to get the job done. >> mr. puttnam, your first

question. >> in your latest tv ad, you call mr. meeks corrupt, desperate, and the worst of all politics. you have said mr. green is a meltdown mogul. you told me the other day he is a bad man. why has this race deteriorated into name-calling and character assassination? >> i was brought up as a kid to say if you have nothing good to say about someone do not say anything. i called him the day i got into this race. he did not return it. i sent him a letter saying i wanted to keep it positive. he is a career politician. look where we are today. the rising unemployment rate. the housing crisis that is not getting better. >> does that make him corrupt? >> look, i called him to say i >> look, i called him to say i wanted to