up. he lobbied vicious personal attacks against me. i had to respond. why is it correct? dennis stackhouse is a developer facing criminal charges. i am not attacking his mother, but she did get a car and $90,000 salary. he asked for of $4 million earmarked after getting and earmarked for this developer. call for an ethics investigation into the house of representatives on kendrick meek. i think we should have an ethics investigation. i'm not calling him corrupt. anything in my television brussels is just from a commercial -- in a television commercial is just from the news. >> you don't take responsibility

for using these words? you've got your name before the commercials it says, "i'm jeff greene and i approve this ad." >> i do approve it because everything in the commercials is simply asking the questions that the press are asking. that's what this is doing. i'm not trying to make anything out about kendrick meek. i will fight this correction. i have had it with this pay for play, go along and get along kind of attitude that kendrick meek is part of. it is not just stackhouse. kendrick meek was an employer of that company after he was notorious. his mother was a lobbyist. he received over $200,000 in salary and fees while boating on bills. -- a voting on bills. i think these are things that people of florida want to know about. >> you've covered a lot of territory and, mr. meek, i know you want to respond. if you would go back to the original question. why have you as well as mr. greene allow the town to get so

personal? -- allowed the tone to get so personal? >> michael, i'll go back to the original question but i must address -- i mean, this is a perfect example why mr. greene is a bad man. what he has just said was untrue and regulus -- ridiculous. i voted against privatization of prisons. it is unfortunate that the tone has been set. i do not need to explain who went negative and how heavy they went as it is on television and in mailboxes across florida. and a public servant. i'm shocked mr. greene. would even mention that. voters should not vote for him because he blames someone else every time an issue is brought up. he talks about the fact that he signs the back and front of a paycheck. he also signed a 300 blank deeds that enabled fraud in los

angeles that was reported in five major newspapers last sunday. mr. greene is trying to discredit me as a public servant -- someone who has served honorably, someone who has received a number of endorsements from papers throughout florida. i think it is important that personal attacks on my family are uncalled for. here is the facts at the front end of the question. mr. greene decided to invest in an uncovered credit defaults swaps which, to two years prior to using that's been forewarned buffett said that his firm would not invest in. >> i'm sorry. mr. meek, mr. meek, hold up a second. >> i'm sorry. >> michael, i'm going to ask would you like to continue with the followup? because it is another additional minute. >> well i think the followup, i think mr. greene deserves an opportunity to respond to say the references to the story in "the st. petersburg times" and "miami

about your role in this deal where you appear to the stated on the edge of ethical behavior. >> absolutely not, michael. michael, that mcconville matter, this is a guy i never met. i sold a building through a licensed real estate broker with the biggest real estate firm in the country. i have never spoken with this guy. i have never seen him. i am a victim, too. i am suing him. it is very different when you sell a building and he turns out to be a crook after you sell it. everything in the deal that i signed was done with my attorneys and alone agents. i did not do anything. what kendrick meek -- he has a responsibility in the case of stackhouse. getting $4 billion of our taxpayer -- $4 million of our taxpayer money is not appropriate. it is very different. >> okay. we're off the rails here.

mr. meek, you can now respond and then we'll have to move on to our next question. >> thank you so very much. michael, i'm looking for the productive part of this debate but i'm glad that you asked the question out front. the bottom line -- you know that this is an undeveloped piece of land. no one has to be incentivized to try to help an area. the dollars went to miami dade county, never to mr. stackhouse. it is also important to note that mr. greene as a problem with the facts. the newspaper said that voters should not vote for him and that the fbi should dive into his involvement in these unsigned document that enabled fraud. this is not -- i did not do it. mr. greene did. it is important to get back to the issues that are facing floridians. it is something i want to talk about. i hope we can address it in this debate. i will not allow mr. greene to attack, attack, attack, in the

mail and on television, and not respond. >> i have a feeling we'll get back to this topic later in the debate but let's move on to the topics that you all seem so eager to debate. let's remember, in this first segment, there are no rebuttals. we will allow each candid it to answer your question. if you have a follow-up, there will be time on that answer. >> this is going to call for restraint then. to both of you, in the area of yet health care, there's a lot of of dissatisfaction across the nation and in the united states senate, members will not vote for anything that means crossing the party lines. you have that contentious situation. in florida, we're going to court. it is a state's right issue to get out of thought -- and of following federal law on health care. my question to both of you, stackhouse -- mr. meek first.

how can you remain honest in this mess of arguments? where do we go from here in health care? >> right now we're in a situation where politics has trumped public policy and i think it's important that we get back to public policy. i know when i become i united states senator i will be able to pull together democrats and republicans on issues that will save money and have a good outcome measures. the goal is better health care, saving money, and $1.20 trillion will be saved over the next 10 years in this welfare bill. hopefully that will bring democrats and republicans together, and those that live in states that have big problems like florida. 4500 floridians lose their health care every week. we must stop that. we must make sure we have prevented care and deliver health care to those who are most of the honorable. repeat greene, i won't the entire prelude but where do we go from here on health care? do you think the state of florida is right in challenging

the federal law in health care? what would you do once in the senate? >> i am delighted the president who said when he was running for office he was going to get health care got health care approved. i'm glad the 32 million americans now have health care coverage. i am glad the doughnut hole is closed. i talked to my mom and her friends and they tell me -- i remember them saying, we have to make a decision between medicine and food on our table. that is not right in a country like ours. get passed.had that it is not perfect. one thing we have to do in health care is fight to get cost reduced. a cost twice as much here for health care as in canada, three times as much as in new zealand. it is the same kind of health care and also western societies. we need to hold people accountable and stand up for what is right. i will fight to get the health

care costs down so that every american as apple scare, which is critically important. medicare is a perfect example of something which has a lot of fraud and abuse. there was a bill out there to start bidding for medical hardware. kendrick meek got money from medical hardware suppliers before he ran for the senate and also during this campaign -- $20,000 each time. he fought against having competitive bidding -- bidding for medical hardware, including prosthetics. the savings would have been 35% in florida. i will fight for the people of florida, not for the special interests. no rebuttal at this point. bring it up later. any other questions? no follow-ups to this segment? okay. mr. owens, you're next. >> gentlemen, welcome. >> thank you. >> the question is, the social security trustee's annual report has indicated uncle sam won't have to pass the hat this year, but to keep the program

solvent there are going to have to be changes made. what specific strategies do you have in mind to make social security sound in the long of? the question goes to mr. greene first. >> the good news is that there is a deficit commission chaired by former chief of staff erskine bowles, and a bipartisan panel coming out in december with some recommendations. i hope there will be some good ones that we can get our arms around to deal with social security. i am not in favor of raising the age for social security as marco mobile wants to do. floridians paid the money in and they deserve to get it out when they retire. the way we're want to beef up social security is the way we're going to beef up everything -- we have to grow our economy again. the unemployment rate is between 11% and 12% here and 9%

nationally -- that is why we have problems. we are not growing our economy. we need to make bold moves to get people working again so that we're in position to deal with so security. when i am in the senate, i will stand up for the people of florida and i will not allow money to be borrowed from social security trust fund to pay for deficit spending. it has gone on too long in congress. >> great question, darryl. i can tell you that i have a track record on this issue. a track record of fighting against privatization of social security in the beginning. i fought hard against the was administration to make sure it does not happen. -- the bush administration to make sure it does not happen. marco rubio and charlie crist were both on that side. how did we get social security behind the 2037 date when it will stop paying out full benefits to floridians?

it is important to note that we a disability, life -- we have a disability, life experiences there, and retirement. floridians -- 47% of them will go into poverty without social security. a social security commission must be called the mother is like every president in the past, the last one being president reagan -- we must with -- worked out these issues to keep social security solvent. a bipartisan approach would be helpful. we need a presidential commission with stakeholders such as aarp and other groups at the table. i agree with mr. greene as it relates to not reading the it -- not raising the age for eligibility. it is important to protect mr. -- to earth -- to protect benefits and to have a track record in fighting for the sovereignty of social security and not privatizing it. people like charlie crist and marco rubio would like to see

that happen. >> darryl, do you have a followup? >> yes. you're against privatizing social security and also against raising the retirement age. would you be for means testing benefits? >> well, that has to be a discussion with the commission. i look forward to getting the stake holders together. anyone that says they have, you know, the silver bullet for social security needs to be reviewed. sitting around and with -- and meeting with floridians, having town hall meetings, will be very important. i have gone to food banks throughout florida to find out what is really going on. what is really going on is that we have 30% to 40% increases in the demand for food. it is not just folks that are homeless. these are teachers, public workers, private-sector workers. they are making the same money that they were making eight years ago. they cannot make ends meet. they must have a voice in that. that would be my job as the united states senator --

representing all of florida and making sure their voices at the table. -- their voice is at the table. >> would you like mr. greene to answer the same followup? >> absolutely. the question is would you for social security? support means testing benefits >> yeah look. everything has to be on the table when we get the deficit commission result in december. i can say that of course there is a number of -- everyone knows we're not bringing in as much revenue as we are not paying out. we need more revenue. when i get to the senate, i will fight to revitalize our economy so we can compete in the global economy and get jobs again. by 2037, we will not be worried about these problems. we used to be a country with surpluses and not budget deficits. we are fully in that now. it is $8 trillion to $13 trillion. 13 years ago, none of it was owed to four degrees. now, almost 50% of it is owed to

foreign countries. i bring to the table bold new ideas to create jobs, make ourselves globally competitive, and get our economy going again. >> all right. this is the moment you've all been waiting for. this is a chance where you get to ask a question of each other. again, the answers will be timed and you will get a rebuttal in this segment. i believe we are starting mr. greene with. a question for mr. meek. >> yes. kendrick, look. i don't want to bring, i know you don't want to hear about this stackhouse matter but people all over florida ask about it all the time. this issue has come up where a family member of yours got $90,000 and an escalade and you went to get a $4 million earmarked for stackhouse who is now facing charges. charlie rangel had similar pay for play allegations against him. you served with him in the house ways and means committee.

would you do what he did? he asked the ethics commission, in the house of representatives, to look at the matter and clear his name. are you willing, before this primary, so this matter can be put to rest, if you are willing to submit to an ethics investigation in the house of representatives on this matter? you can put it to rest. second part of the question is, do you intend, as a senator, to have your family members get cards, money, other kinds of benefits, and then ask for earmarks for the people providing these benefits? >> i can answer both of them. first of all to the second part, absolutely not. my mother is a person of integrity and honor. she worked as a local consultant on the project. i think it is important that you understand that no one gave her anything. she is a person that is not financially challenged, so it isn't like she got some kind of golden gift or something. she works. poinciana park is one of the

most blighted areas in the state of florida. since 1980 -- i watched it burn down as a child. i do not need to be incentivized to get things developed in the area. second point -- it was $75,000 that went to miami dade county, $1 million to the community college, and of $4 million appropriations request to go to the miami dade empowerment zone. it had nothing to do with mr. stackhouse. the bottom line is this -- i am about solutions. i'm about putting people back to work. i'm about dealing with the issues we must deal with. my family has nothing to do with that. everything that you have brought up really does not hold water when it comes down to the facts. it has been over three years and no one has questioned me because they do not have a reason to question me. the ethics committee -- if they felt that anything was wrong -- i would have been before the ethics committee long ago. you would like for that to happen because you ran negative

ads. you ask them to do it. i think it is important that you understand that it is about solutions and it has nothing to do with what you are trying to paint it as. >> mr. greene, rebuttal? >> again, the answer, the question, kendrick, was would you ask for an ethics investigation. the st. petersburg times said you had to be clueless or worse not to know the benefits your mother was going. they asked for an ethics investigation. charlie rangel himself, to clear his name, asked for an ethics investigation. why would you not do that? just get your name cleared and put this issue to bed. people want to know they're going to have someone's fighting for -- fighting for special earmarks, fighting for interes them.ighting for

i believe you are part of the corruption and bribery in washington because of this stackhouse matter and other matters. i will not take any money from special interests. >> i'm sorry. i apologize. they forgot to run the clock for me so i thought you were out of time. mr. meek, go ahead and answer that rebuttal. >> thank you very much. mr. greene, i voted for every ethics legislation we've had since the tom delay days and making sure we bring transparency. on this issue, i have never said nocomment. i have always spoken to the issue. that is why i am elected official -- an elected official. sir, your life is a question>> good will. -- is a question mark. you have more versions of why you when did you but then baskin-robbins has ice-cream -- you went to cuba than baskin-

robbins as ice cream. i have more integrity in my pinkie then you have in your old body. it is important that floridians understand that i am here to do business on behalf of them. i have stood up on behalf of the working people of the state of florida. that is the will -- reason i have been endorsed by firefighters, police officers, teachers -- people that stand for principle. >> time. mr. meek, your question for mr. greene. if you're losing track of who is answering into was asking, you are not alone. >> i will ask you a short question because i think he will have to give a long answer. if you were the united states senator, you said you would have stood up against that and stop it from happening.

you had the opportunity. you knew this was happening. why did you not go to your two united states senators in california and tell them? why did you not go on national television, as you did to gloat about how much money you made off of the failure of homes in california and florida? that is a question that floridians want to know -- if there senator is going to bet against them or on them. >> i saw the housing bubble coming and i went against the biggest banks on wall street and i won. i started with absolutely nothing. i worked my way through johns hopkins university and business school. i was a busboy. i worked hard every day of my life. i was not going to sit back and allow bad guys like you in congress, who allowed every one on wall street to run wild -- i went up against these big banks and i won. everyone knows why we had a

housing crisis. lenders, who were supposed to be regulated by you in congress, were allowed to make loans that you should have known that they would not be able to pay back. you were holding subprime se minars in your district and were encouraging your constituents to take out these subprime loans that you should have known they would not be able to pay back. i went against the biggest banks of wall street. i wish i had been in the senate so i could have prevented this from happening altogether. it is a big rip off. i went to when a newspaper and saw that housing prices dropped 15% in the last year. we're not out of it. it has destroyed our economy. congressmen like you failed to regulate the banks. >> you have a rebuttal. >> you still haven't answered your questions.

you are a man of wealth, influence, and power. you are smart -- in your own account of yourself. you talk about how you are ahead of it, you saw it. you helped pioneer what was called "a member of the royal court." you decided to profit first, then go on national television to gloat about the money you made. if you were in the position of protecting people, you would have gone to the highest levels and said, listen, this is about to happen. we need to stop it. we need to contact the regulators. you understand that, but you made -- you were an institutional investor on wall street. you say you are an outsider, but you are not. >> i never called my so brilliant, just someone who understood what was going on. if someone called a brilliant because i saw the housing collapse, i was not a genius.

it was on the front page of the magazine -- housing bust coming. housing market crumbling. everyone knew what was happening in 2006. the only difference is, you took money from fannie mae and freddie mac. you were part of the party to any money from these guys and you failed to regulate them. how could i tell people in congress who were part of the problem? you were getting the money from fannie mae, freddie mac, j.p. morgan, there'll mensch -- merrill lynch. i did not have to tell the senate about this crisis. it was on the front page of the newspaper. >> i held housing fairs in my district -- and not subprime housing affairs. get the facts straight. >> you just took the end of the time. good job. we're going to take a quick break to thank our sponsors. we'll be right back.

stay with us. >> have a question from of the war. she mailed me this question. "how did the candidates plan to improve funding for education? how will you help teachers get a decent pay raise for all the work they do?" the stimulus money that saved teachers' jobs will eventually run out, so this is a long-term problem that people in congress will have to help fix. mr. meek? >> congress is moving to approve a senate measure that i have already voted for to help save teachers' jobs here in florida.

many to meet -- many communities are going through tough times. we should not livent the abilities of teachers to reach students. not limit the abilities of teachers to reach students. i know what is mean -- what it means to be in a classroom with good teachers. i am committed to public education. as we look at what is being considered in washington, and a proponent of this. i support it. innovation in education is what every teacher would like to see. that is the reason why public educators have endorsed my campaign. we must keep our in -- our commitment to our children, our men and women in uniform, and our veterans. >> rebuttal? >> we have an education crisis in this country. i recently read a study of

250,015-year-old all over the study. we're in a high-20's. we're in an economic world war. if somebody wants to come up with an application for an iphone or blackberry, and they can do it in orlando, mumbai, soul, tel -- seoul, tel aviv. ar kids are not among the best- educated, we're not going to win. when i am in the senate, we will make sure there is ample funding for education. it is a national priority. i will make sure that members of the senate and house understand that we have no choice but to fund education. it will be top priority for me. >> mr. putney? >> mr. greene, your family moved to florida from massachusetts. you stayed in massachusetts to finish high school, coming here to work here in the summers.

you told us about working as a busboy. until two years ago, you lived, worked, and voted in the state of california, and even ran for congress in the state of california as a republican. why should florida voters choose you to represent them in washington? >> i am glad you asked that question. i have deep roots here in florida. my parents moved here in the late-1960's -- 1970. my mom had been a religious, stay at home mom, and she took on a job as a waitress. my dad took on a bending route. we struggled. i got my driver's license here in florida. my mother lives in the, and it -- in the condo community. he has been in the house the last eight years. his track record in bills is 0 in 70. not one of the bills he has

authored has passed. i am a businessman and i know how to get results. i will fight for the people of florida. they have a fair choice -- more of the same, career politicians. they brought us to where we are today. and reasonable unemployment, a housing crisis that isn't ending. there is someone like me -- a jobs creator, johns hopkins, harvard business school- educated. knows how to create jobs, has worked in the private sector. will get jobs and results without special interest money. will put the people of florida first. >> the real issue is that this disqualifies jeff greene and being able to speak as a democrat. he ran as the ronald reagan republican in california. he was asked if he voted for jimmy carter or ronald reagan and he said he did not remember.

i did not go to harvard business school. i did not go to any of the other universities that mr. greene attended. i went to florida a&m university, became a state trooper, and have done all of the things i'm supposed to do. as a policymaker, i stood up for seniors that were being preyed upon. in a housing bill, i stood against fraud -- companies that went over -- went after seniors and individuals who were trying to get homes. my legislation went into the historic housing bill and i stood behind president obama when he signed it. i think i had something to do with that. >> time. >> mr. greene says you are 0470 in the house of representatives. is there a single bill that is the meek bill or program or policy that you can take credit for? >> in the congress, when you

file legislation, it becomes part of the committee bill. i have a number of bills that have gone into the committee bills. only a few members of congress have said that they can pass -- can say that they have passed eight or nine bills. the bills get combined -- tax bills, appropriation bills, housing bills, financial reform bills -- >> one bill that you were part of that got passed and that you can say here is part of what i have brought the people of florida. >> we have a bill that is protecting our coastline right now. >> offshore oil drilling? >> yes, as it relates to calling for the moratorium, which the administration said it would follow through on as it relates to policy, so there was no need for the passage. pythons have been a major issue. the department of interior said, no need to pass the legislation. we will put it in policy because you have raised the issue.

the issue of making sure to deal with the stimulus. transportation was a huge issue. making sure that we stayed -- saved holmes a in a state. the president is working to bridge gaps between families and institutions. >> all right. >> go aheda. -- ahead. sorry. >> when the pencil gets raised, that means time is up. >> mr. greene should get a response. you say he is 0 for 70. he is not -- >> he has not authored anything. i get results. i hold people accountable. i will not be part of this corruption or special interest. i will fight for florida. i will donate my entire salary

to charity. i will not take over $100 from anyone. jobs is the biggest problem in this country and the state. kendrick meek has voted for three raises in congress, totaling almost $12,000 per year. he already got $162,000 per year plus a car paid for. >> thank you, mr. greene. >> mr. greene, you clean up really well, but your reputation is really as a party boy. you have stories about yachts, trips to cuba, friends with celebrities. you want to be in the world's greatest deliberative body -- the united states senate. do you have the judgment and the gravitas to be florida's united states senator? >> absolutely. i married my wife.

i got married later in life -- just three years ago. we have a 10-month-old baby who is with us today -- not in this room bothering us with crying. i have very strong moral standards. i was brought up at the highest of standards. this is just a sideshow that guys like kendrick meek are trying to raise about who your friends were. i am proud of my successful business career, my work in the community and philanthropy. my wife and i have a foundation that supports dozens of charities around florida. we are very proud of what we do for our community. i look forward to standing up for the people of florida. they need results. there are millions of people unemployed. foreclosure rate is not getting solved. this is the issue. it is not to my friends were. i did not look over my shoulder thinking about who i should be friends with because i would run for office someday.

i can tell you this, i am very proud of all of the people in my life. i have friends from all walks of life. i look forward to serving the people of florida and getting results for them. >> let me ask another question that has to do with temperament. you have been a ceo -- and executive. you say you get results and hold people accountable. as you go into a collaborative body like the senate, are you going to be able to function, trying to get people to go along with your ideas and plans? are you to want to try to get the republicans to be held accountable to your principles? how are you going to work in a collegial body? >> i have done that mine entire life. i started with nothing and have achieved great success. i'm humbled by my success. you cannot get the success without working with people. there are a few odd stories in the press -- this sideshow.

what can i say -- i will tell you that i will do a lot better in the senate and kendrick meek's his record of 0 and 70. i will do whatever it takes to get people on my side. look at the environmental policy dictated by big oil and special interest to the coastline of florida was almost destroyed because of that. i will stand up and fight for the people of florida. that is how i get ahead. i will get results for the people of florida. >> would you like to hear our bottle from mr. meeks -- a rebuttal from mr. meeks? >> i would send you to that website where you can see what mr. greene has done. apparently he does not understand what it means to work

with democrats and republicans to get things done. i stood against george bush when he wanted to continue to have free rein on the budget. i fought against the privatization of social security, which is major in this state. 40% of floridians will go into poverty without it. i will not even comment on mr. greene's background and what he has done and the judgment calls he has made -- how he treats his employees, how he said he gets things done, how people have to sue him to get their medical bills paid. all of this is online and available in your local paper. i will tell you that i will be a united states senator and a nominee that will represent democrat in the general election and the people of the state of florida when i get elected. thank you very much. >> mr. greene, at the rest of piling on, one of your mailer's declares that kendrick meek was named one of the two most corrupt democrats in congress by citizens for responsibility

and ethics in washington. that was presumably as about -- as a basis for not voting for mr. meek. however crude, that organization has also named you to the 2010 list of crooked candidates. if you were using this campa meeko disqualify move mrmr. for office, should we not also disqualify you from candidacy? >> that list names mr. meek, charlie crist, and mark modibo -- marco rubio. then i pop up. i think it was politically motivated. the distinction is that kendrick meek, marco rubio, and charlie crist -- they have this thing with corruption scandals. charlie crist has the thing with jim greer.

marco rubio, charging personal bills on the credit card. kendrick meek with this stackhouse matter. i did not list the vendors on my report. i think i did list of vendors. we have come back and pushed back. we have written letters. everything they have said is not the case. i'm not involved in any corruption or anything crooked -- certainly nothing they mentioned. >> i want a rebuttal. >> there you go again, jeff, blaming someone else for what you have done. the real issue is that you went around talking about this thing. you're placed on the list because they have the opportunity to look at you. you're not even part of the requirement as someone who has been elected in the past. you are such a bad guy -- they looked at the lawsuits you had filed, the problems you had. let's go down memory lane.

cuba. first, you were asleep, you did not know what was going on. then you were there. then you were not there. the last time we were on television you said you were not even on the boat. then we look at these 300 blank deeds. they called for a federal investigation on you. i would encourage them to go on to that website. don't listen to me. listen to them since he likes to " newspaper articles -- quote newspaper articles. you have to have integrity. >> i have a question. more democrats are actually giving donations to the independent candidates for senate -- governor crist. my question for you. when you all go out there

campaigning, do you believe that the president is supporting either of you now, or will the actually support you, or do you believe there will be overtures made to other candidates in this race? go ahead, mr. greene. >> i think that the president -- senator menendez has said that whoever the nominee is he will support in the democratic party whether it is kendrick meek or jeff greene. i think that the charlie crist thing -- he has been a republican is whole life. everyone in florida knows he is only running as an independent because he was losing in the primary. he tried to trick people into thinking he is a democrat, but everyone knows otherwise. they will support whoever the democratic nominee is. i am the true democrat in this race. kendrick meek -- i have said it

and i will say again -- whoever the nominee is in his senatorial election, i will support, because i am committed to having a democratic-controlled senate. kendrick meek has said absolutely and unequivocally that he will not endorse me. if i am the nominee, he would then be supporting marble rubio or charlie crist -- marco rubio or charlie crist. the true democrat will support whoever the nominee is to make sure that the democratic- controlled senate. >> it is easy for jeff to support me because i am an elected official. i am still trying to -- ministering to myself to even hypothetically mr. greene think. will make it out of the primaries -- mr. green will

make it out of the primaries. president obama is supporting my campaign. he has held a fund-raiser with his chief of staff, rahm emanuel, and the political director of the white house. president bill clinton will be here on the 16th of this month to campaign in palm beach, date, and board counties -- dade, and broward counties. i have worked with these men on issues facing the middle-class. they support my candidacy. it is not just because i got to them first. they support me in the primary. they will support me in the general election. the issue of charlie crist. when it comes to the general election, i will be the best nominee for this party. i am the only pro-choice candidate in this race. i will be the only candidate that has a track record of standing up for the middle class. i will be the only candidate that was against offshore oil drilling off the coast of

florida with a 100% environmental drilling record -- 100% environmental record before and after the disaster. i have been endorsed because i bring experience to the table. you can look forward to that kind of leadership. >> mr. greene, aren't you pro- choice? what is your stand on offshore drilling? >> i am pro-choice. i'm against offshore drilling. i will fight to end offshore drilling off the coast of louisiana until we know things are safe. >> thank you for that clarification. 30 seconds for each of you. mr. meek, then mr. greene. 20 seconds. >> i want to thank all of you for holding this debate. i hope that this debate is getting you some facts that you did not have before the debate. i look forward to continuing to serve in the state of florida. i want to be your nominee. i want to stand up for the working people of the state of

florida -- retirees, our children. my track record speaks to it. i ask you to please vote for me during the early voting period and on the 24th. >> it is a clear toys for the people of florida. more of the same -- career politician kendrick meek, who does gotten us to where we are today, almost 12% unemployment, terrible foreclosure rate, environmental disaster. >> make sure you head out and cast your ballot. thank you all for watching this debate. i am lauren row. -- rowe. have a good evening. " decision 2010 -- before you vote" is brought to you by leadership florida, the florida press association, and with major underwriting by the

florida association of insurer's agents -- insurance agents, the florida league of mayors, aarp florida, the claude pepper center and foundation, the bob graham center for public policy, and nova southeastern university. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> next, representative maxine waters talks about pending allegations. then, janet napolitano on homeland security. after that, a briefing on the gulf with admiral thad allen. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" -- mackenzie eaglen

announces a reaction to the cuts to the budget. miller response to criticism of for-profit colleges. and cynthia kelly marks the 65th anniversary of the end of world war ii and the dropping of the first atomic bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki. we will feature rarely seen archival footage. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on "booktv," a discussion on the state of education in united states and the effects of stereotypes on learning and testing. on afterwards, -- "afterwords," a discussion of how we perceive war.

after that, reza kahlili on how to deal with iran. for a list of programs, visit booktv.org. >> the democratic congresswoman maxine waters said there was nothing improper about our role in obtaining government funds for 1 united bank in california. the house ethics committee has been investigating the matter which occurred in 2008. following her opening statements, we hear a detailed presentation from representative waters' chief of staff, then questions from reporters. this is about one hour, 15 minutes. >> it morning, everyone. -- good morning, everyone.

i have requested that the standards committee scheduled a hearing as soon as possible. unfortunately, the committee as not specify a date for a hearing on this matter. given the congressional schedule, it is possible that no hearing will be held for months. even after the november election. such a delay is not acceptable. considering that the investigation has dragged out for almost one year. it does not provide due process. prevents my constituents and the american public from getting answers. it delays me from being able to

respond to the charges spelled s.a.v.tn the i am pleased that they released the documents after a wave to my right to have those remain private until the hearing. -- after i waved my right to have those remain private until the hearing. i would like to clear up ambiguities and disinformation. i recognize the transparency that i am providing may not eliminate any hearing to reiterate -- any hearing. i am anxious to share these facts with you and the public because i have not violated any house rules. i fully disclosed all of my financial information as requested by house rules. in fact, i went above and beyond what was required by repeatedly disclosing my and my husband's

financial interests during financial services committee hearings. neither my staff nor i engaged in any improper behavior. we did not influence anyone and we did not gain any benefit. we're 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 are not heard, by 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. i have made one of my top priorities opening doors and providing access for small, minority, and women-owned businesses. in fact, my advocacy and

assistance in providing access for the national bankers association is why we are here today. the national bankers association consists of 103 minority banks. i have worked with this association and their concerns for many years. i have spoken at their conventions on many occasions. i have participated in hearings about their issues and i have worked with that federal agency -- with our federal agencies on their behalf including the treasury department, the fdic, fannie mae, and freddie mac. my telephone calls to the then secretary of the treasury, hank paulson, during the worst economic crisis this nation has faced in 80 years, were to provide access to the national bankers association, which was concerned about the fact that treasury had placed fannie mae

and freddie mac into conservatorship. it was represented to me that many minority banks had over leveraged their capital in fannie mae and freddie mac and their association wished to know whether or not their members' capital was lost or if the government was responsible for protecting the capital that they had in preferred stocks. they had attempted to have a meeting with the treasury department, but had received no response. and so they saw me out -- sought 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 the i did not suggest -- when i contacted the secretary of the treasury, i did not suggest a solution. i did not ask for any favors from the national bankers association. i did not ask for a meeting for any individual bank, including one united bank. i did not suggest that -- who would be the participants of the meeting. i did not attend that meeting. there was no such thing as the troubled asset relief program, known as t.a.r.p., at the time. 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 t.a.r.p. had been announced. one united bank was now raising questions about assistance from tea party -- from t.a.r.p. i was there strictly to provide access for discussions about the impact of the financial crisis on small and minority banks and because there was no t.a.r.p. program. did not wish to get involved about any individual assistance or about this new program. my husband had once served on the board onone united -- board of one united bank and still held investments there. i felt that should seek assistance from chairman frank where the -- someone with the record to the commitment of the

health of minority banks. is it important to note that no government agency or the representative has ever said that i requested any special assistance or compensation for anyone or any institution, or that i influenced the tar bang -- t.a.r.p. process in any way. there is also a question of whether i net -- whether or not i instructed my staff to get involved in the one united bank . were only involved in understanding the impact of the crisis on small and minority banks and assisting in setting up the meetings with the treasury department. i told my chief of staff that i had informed chairman frank about their interest. we were only concerned about

small and minority banks broadly. chairman frank would evaluate the issue and make a decision about how to proceed. given the e-mails that the committee has offered as their evidence, we communicated with each other clearly. it is not just about us. it is about those who lack access. i was honored to serve on the conference committee of the wall street performance and consumer protection act. i am happy to say that much of the legislation i offered -- access for women and minority rights, for shareholders, a more accountable consumer protection bureau, and assistance for struggling and unemployed homeowners -- were included in the final legislation that was signed by president obama. i am particularly proud of the inclusion that will be set up as

the federal government's financial institutions -- at the federal government's financial institutions including the fdic. this work will continue. they will have offices of minority and women inclusion. hear me clearly. because of the need for access and the work that i have done over many years, i have now opened up new opportunities by creating the offices of minority and women inclusion at the fdic, the treasury department, the federal reserve. it will deal with the historic lack of access that minority and women individuals and institutions have had in hiring, decision making from a contract income in procurement opportunities. over the past year, i and nine

other congressional black caucus members have been meeting with the national bankers association, the national newspaper publishers association, the national association of black-owned broadcasters, the national association of minority automobile dealers, the national association of securities professionals, and the national bar association, among others, discussing the plight of minority businesses, their lack of access to capital, and a lack of support from their government in banking, advertising, and consulting contracts. access is key to understanding the scope of this case. this case is not just about them. this case is about fairness. in fact, the investigative subcommittee ignored or disregarded key pieces of exculpatory evidence crucial to

my case. that is extremely troubling. a truly robust investigatory process would have taken all of the available evidence into consideration. if this had been done, we would not be here today. fairness is

>> airport of an ethics case and completely washed their hands of all. my constituents and supporters have seen accusatory trails and they know me better than that. they encouraged me to fight. i admit, there are some that do not believe in my philosophy or my methods, but no one should question my devotion to public service. therefore, i am asking us all to pause for a moment, set aside our cynicism and consider two things. the facts of the case and my life's work in trying to provide access to those who have been denied. your judgment. my constituent demands that i stand up for the values that they elected me to represent. nomproper accident -- 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 -- and whether or not there was assistance, failure to instruct, and whether or not there was -- there was a creation of an appearance. that was sent by robert cooper, chairman elect of the national bankers association, requesting 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 -- representing 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. 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 -- 2009, 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 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 -- and 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. so, they are sayingi 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 personallyslide. the sav allege that one united -- it alleges 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?

-- what did they 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 -- get 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. -- the bush administration. 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 -- it was 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 -- into the institutions and they 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 -- that is not a decision i can make my own. -- make onwe basically said and asked for, -- make on 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. 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. >> 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 -- case law from the -- the standards committee. they said something very important in the graves case. this is will these three did they said about treating a

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. you'll notice that the 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. -- the congresswoman. 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 no, at the point that i am -- no, 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 -- at the point that we started to talk about tarp and they are asking for money, that may have been one of my motivations. it's tarp 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. -- from that. 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. -- invest in -- investment may create a 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. iece.ac

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 -- do you 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, earlythe 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 -- we asked and then 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 -- that had significant exposure to fannie mae and freddie mac. slide. september 19, you have any mail from me. -- and e-mail -- an e-mail from

meit 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, 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. -- it with 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. -- that have been outlined happs when united bank discuss the problems in detail last week and told me that they are going to be monitoring the situation closely.

they said that they did not discuss the problems with that office. i want to point out that congressman waters name was not mentioned. here you have the draft letter. this is where they agreed to sign onto this with a request of the national bankers association proposal. here, you have another correspondents between staff on the full committee and is between staff and the full committee having conversations about fdic. this indicated that fdic does not have the authority to implement nba propose will. there is conversation going on about how to solve this problem.

that conversation was going on between staffers on the full committee. the slide. further confirmation, they were still asking about reasonable plans on how to raise capital, which is in the best circumstance that is difficult for minority banks. more correspondents on september 22. i know that you folks -- this is from a frank staffer. i know you folks are going under this for the third time. we are talking about the potential failure of minority institutions. they spoke and the secretary

said he was committed to being helpful. this conversation is going on between committee staff and treasury department, but also the date, september 22. they are still talking about the nba proposals and about ways to solve the challenges faced by minority banks. slide. he asked to get a commitment from them today. slide. again, on the 22nd of september, there is an update. it says that i have called to the treasury congressional staff a number of times and reached out directly to the staff the we have not been able to get a firm commitment from them about whether they will pursue national bankers association's proposal to redeem the preferred stock. slide.

here is something that i wanted to communicate. here we are on september 23. this is the president of the national banks association communicating with bob cooper about language they would like to see in the nba proposal in the context thetarp. -- in the context of tarp. war correspondents. -- more correspondence. slide. this is a reflection of language. slide. here on the 24th, you can see the nba proposal which is reflective of the previous language that we just showed. it shows that there was a cooperative effort going on to figures out how to solve the challenges of minority depository institutions. a slide. slide. at this time, the independence

community bankers association got involved with this issue and said that up to 24% of their -- [unintelligible] this is hard to read. even when we talk about talk about section 103.6, it could be affected. let's talk about what the assistance is. we have two e-mail's sent to eight francs after that said that o u is in trouble. there was a blast that cannot from the national bankers association that showed a limited number of people affected. then we have 1 e-mail sent to the chairman of lek of the nba which was a call and the office. one sent e-mail to kevin cohee

which was a copy of a widely available tarp first draft. then you have to unsolicited e- mail received from mr. cohee no response and then to unsolicited evils from mr. cooper. here is the e-mail that i am talking about. the committee agrees that this is something that i drafted and sent to mr. cohee. what it shows is that this, as everybody knows, the sky was falling and there was a three page bill that requested about $750 billion to buy troubled assets. this was that bill. it was not something drafted by our office or one united. was not even drafted on behalf of the united bankers association.

slide. let me get to the question of appearance. also in the graves case, they found that no relevant house will or other standard of conduct prohibits the creation of an appearance of conflict of interest. the committee also did not identify a house rule or understand -- or other standard of conduct. either you're doing it, or you or not. that is under circumstances where people are negotiating for future employment. if you read at the most important motion to dismiss, the committee holiness' represents the reading of this case to justify its appearance standard.

the only put in half of the citation. they say that the committee believes that the circumstances giving rise to span -- to the representatives except in some of gaffes -- acceptance of gifts clearly and convincingly establishes that his efforts on behalf of coastal were received under circumstances which could be construed by reasonable persons as influencing his representational duties. quickly, the charges, the seven bribery statutes, sex with pages and things of that nature. second is the spirit of xxiii,

clause 3. these charges depend on the receipt of a benefit and the identifiable and actionable assistance. all of these charges depend on the receipt of a benefit and identifiable and actionable assistance. no benefit nor improper action, no failure to disclose, no one influenced = no case. >> thank you, very much. i know that this is a lot of information. you have not had access -- [unintelligible] you have not had access to the inner workings of the ethics committee in the past. you probably were not aware of all the intricacies of these

kinds of investigations. so, if someone who is accused of simply goes into the back room and agrees to some violation, even if they are not guilty of it, it would avoid all the public press. it would be easy on the committee itself. it would mean that they would not have to go through a hearing where they have to subpoena people and get more information on the record. it would be easier and convenient for everybody and that is normally how it works. but we feel very strongly that we cannot do that. we are proud of our worked. -- of our work. our work has been consistent and we have committed no violations 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, the ethics committee that is. should it be made more fair? all of those questions 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 in the wall street reform bill is something that i want you to focus on. some people said that the creation of the offices of minority and women's inclusion got slipped into the bill. they could not get slipped into the bill. the wall street journal did a scathing attack on the fact that

i had created these offices so that we could have their 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 help to open up the discussion about this process. all of those business persons in the round table that we created this year, working with other members of the congressional black caucus, on the financial services committee, is about that. when you heard the talk about the minority, they got caught -- they got cut out of the process. we have lost 50% of all of these minority automobile dealers. when we talk about broadcasters,

they do not get any advertising from government, despite the fact that government agencies to a lot of advertising. when you hear me talk about the national bankers association, the government puts money into banks. why do they not put money into minority banks? when you hear me talk about the national security professionals on wall street who happen to the people of color, why can't they get contracts? what is it about this process that excludes folks that 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 designed it this way, i would have looked for you to have covered the work that i do on the financial services committee constantly. i would love for you to be interested in these issues. i would love for you newspapers and television stations to be interested in this kind of work, but normally it is not sexy enough. it is not interesting enough. so, i do not get hurt and others who depend -- who do this kind of work do not get hurt. now, because of the investigation, the discussion is on. i will be happy to answer questions. >> according to the timeline issue, did the ethics committee come to you a few weeks ago and say that they have this case,

allegedly, against the. we want you to take a certain penalty and the offer a penalty -- and did they offer a penalty? at that point, did you say no? is that how we are to understand this? >> you must realize that in doing what i am doing, i and teetering on a border, here. you are getting into a part of the discussion by the ethics committee that i cannot go into any further. what i am doing now is outside of the box, beyond what is normally done, but i think that when you get into that part of it, i have to not go any further with that discussion. >> you had said, earlier, that there was a process behind closed doors.

that there was a sort of take- it-or-leave-it process. >> 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 that they must go to a hearing if they do not believe me. yes sir? >> did you or your office do anything to reach out or communicate with state street with their relationship to one united? what we do not know whose state street is. no one in my office have ever talking to state street. i even said, at one point, why did you not ask state street those questions? we knew nothing about that.

>> mr. rangel said that he went to the house floor against the recommendation of lawyers and friends. do you speak against the recommendation of lawyers and friends and leadership? >> i have nothing to do with that case. as i identified in my statement, this is about what i am here, to give you my facts as i know them and as i understand them and to make my case. >> but has the leadership and courage to not to do this? have you spoken with them? >> my question is the initial case against you. the former leader of the committee, you had confrontations with him in 1990 over the drug trafficking allegations. is it proper for him to be

heading the committee? >> >oce is made up of members of boast sought -- oce is made up of members of both sides of the aisle. they will decide who will sit on that committee. if i had thought about it earlier, i may have challenged that. i just did not think about that. we disagree philosophically. >> did the ethics committee give you any clue as to [unintelligible] >> no, i think that they just missed doing their work in such a way that they would know or understand that. they made some assumptions that just are not true. they missed doing good investigatory worked. >> after cohee and cooper, go

in, why did you not get out of the issue then? the feel that cohee used you? >> let me tell you what i understand. i was not in the meeting. i understand that the meeting opened up in the way that i expected a meeting to open up and the way that it was described, it was going to. why they were going to that meeting to talk about minority bankers that have invested their money in fannie and freddie, they were safe places for them to invest the money and that somehow those investments were protected or secured by government. i understand that some point in the meeting, mr. cohee started talking about one united and he

raised information that he had $50 million invested in fannie. was he going to lose that money? that is what i understood to place. the treasury department's said that we have no authority to make good any lost investments. that is just not written into the law. that meeting was over and done. they got no assistance and it was over. after that meeting, sometimes two or three or four weeks later, tarp came into being. that is when we learned that mr. cohee was interested in tarp. that is separate and apart from the question that they had been in the treasury about. it was at that point that we said that if this is about one

united and tarp, barney frank is your representative. he is the chairman of this committee. i am out of it. i just feel that things have unfolded the way that they have because this is how government is. things work on a fast pace and we worked in a point in time when the economic crisis was going on and conversations go on and people take action. things just go on. i do not think i was set up or use, i just think that this is how things unfolded. >> were there any red flags when cooper set up this meeting? maybe there would be a conflict

of interest at that point? >> know, trade associations have representatives. small trade associations usually have representatives that speak for them, particularly if they do not have a paid, ongoing lobbyist of some sort. not only do these small associations use the offices and personnel of various members, but this is kind of how association's work. he was representing the national bankers association and i took it for that. that is who i arranged the meeting for. >> it focuses on the actions of your chief of staff, mr. more. although it seems to indicate that you are responsible. is he under investigation?

>> no. >> why do you think not if it involves so much around his actions? >> if you look at the e-mail's that they were displaying, you would have to ask yourself what did he do. did he ask any agency of government for assistance for one united? did he make a telephone call on their behalf? did he ask a congresswoman to help them? did he write a letter? what did he do? nobody can say that he actually took any action that could help one united. >> this may not be the main issue here, but do you feel the current ethics process should be changed? how would you change it? >> i am not opposed to the ethics process or any ethics process. i think that there must be due process. for example, somewhere in this

process, you cannot file a claim after a certain date. i think that that is designed so that some would not be accused or set up at the point of re- election. if that is the case, then why do you have an oce that can release and invest ago -- an investigative report at any point in time as they have done in my case? they say that once they have held it for a year, they can release it at any time. once they release it, and it goes to the ethics committee, what is the ethics committee's responsibility in terms of a time frame? can they wrap up their allegations brought before you go on for it? i know you'll be out for six weeks and no members will be around. you probably will not be heard

prior to the elections. those kinds of things are in the process and they must be identified more clearly and the process must be one that can be negotiated fairly by anyone. >> is there anything that you would have done differently, or something that you didn't do that you would do regarding this case? >> know. as you can recall, talking about this, we had a letter from the national bankers association. you have requests from a person at the national bankers association. everybody who has been a witness in this case said that the request was from the national bankers association. i stepped forward to say that

they needed to meet with these people. i did not suggest what he should do. i did not say meet with them and do this. i did not say meet with them and solve their problem this way. i just asked if he would simply meet with them. i'll probably do the same thing. yes, in the back. >> a website found that of the banks that received a bailout, one united had the lowest ratio of 1.8. we also found that on october 27, the fdic decided one united for unsafe banking practices and poor oversight of executives and a weak loan regulations. is this the type of bank that american taxpayers should be bailing out? >> if the fdic had information about a bank that makes them

ineligible being a bank or if they have information that they should be investigated about, then the fdic can close them down and they should do it. in addition to that, if the fdic had information about them that they should have given to me, then they should have done that. i do not know these things. members do not know how banks are operating. that is why we have regulatory agencies. to determine whether or not they are proper, whether or not they are operating under law, and if they are not, shut them down. or if they think there is some informations that they should caution me about because they are investigating or they are doing something that i should know about, then i expect him to tell me. nothing stops them from doing that.

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 banking centers are operating properly. >> on that report, one thing that you should recognize is it is based on data and does not take into account the $20 million investment. at the time that they applied for the money, they had a reasonable capital ratio. >> ok, let me go [unintelligible] >> can you give us dates are not? >> know. i can give you the information

as we have done. i do not want to pretend that i know exactly what i said. if you look at the testimony in this case, what is interesting is that when the witnesses try and go back and remember everything that they have said, it comes out and all kinds of different ways. one witness thought that they had done something that they had not really done. i cannot give you the exact words that i said, but i can tell you that we did have the conversation. i would not know the dates. it was after the meeting with barney frank. >> i have a question about the meeting with morning frank. do you have any thoughts that the body from meeting happened in late september?

he only remembers that it happened sometime in september. that is sort of incidental to 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 when the talks became a reality. talk was not a reality when that meeting with the treasury took place. there have -- it had to be some weeks after when tarp became a discussion because that is one of the reasons i was talking to him because now one united was seeking assistance in a different way. we're trying to confirm that. we think that there is some other information that perhaps could confirm. yes? >> congressman waters, could you

reiterate what your husband invested in one united and how it was impacted and where it stood through the process? >> i am not sure about all of it. 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 of, i guess, the financial situation of the bank was not as much as it had been when he originally invested. that is kind of what i know. >>nobody wants to buy the share.

>> a question about the implications for democrats in the elections. in your case, you are moving forward and you want public hearings. congressman rangel is saying the same thing for a are you worried about the affect for your party? >> there is a lot of speculation about whatever happens on either side of the aisle prior to an election, people are speculating who is going to win, how many seats are going to be lost. as far as i am concerned, most of it is speculation. i think that each member must be concerned that they are representing their constituents, that they are doing the best job they can possibly do, and that they are not only producing the public policy that the american public expects them to produce, but they are honoring all of the

laws as they live by the rule of law. that is all i can tell you. i am not about to get into what is a benefit for lack of benefits for senior -- for either party. >> by the same token, you have been critical about the last of the school pace of the committee. if this goes past the election, wouldn't it be better for your party to have this settled? >> i think that any member that finds him or herself in this situation would want to get it resolved as soon as possible. the tax should come how and the decision should be made. i think it is important for due process to take place to guarantee it is done by the

constitution. >> what do you feel is the most compelling piece of evidence for your case? " i do not think that there is any form my case. what you will find is this. no one in any regulatory agency, the fdic, the treasury, no one has said that maxine waters or the chief of staff wrote them or ask them to do anything. they did just the opposite. you see where the heads of state said that they will not -- they were not influenced by anybody. they have their criteria. the judge people by their criteria. using the criteria, one united bank qualifies because they were adequately capitalized and they were a cdfi community. i think that is compelling.

if you want to accuse me, what did i do? if you want to accuse my chief of staff, what did he do? that is very compelling. i believe that having looked at this case, this business of coming down to, "well, we can not find anything that you did, you must not have instructed them. >> can we go back to the september 19 meeting? >> let me get someone who has not asked the question. >> the meeting with the treasury officials, why were there not any other member banks from india? what i do not know. this question keeps being asked about whether or not other member banks. i try to understand the question because when a trade association comes to washington, or when

they send a representative to washington, they do not usually bring all of their people with them. when i looked at the testimony from the fdic, the lady said that she usually talks with representatives of trade associations who represent hundreds of companies. so, this idea of why there were not other minority banks is another kind of question that i do not quite get. >> back to your husband's investment in the bank. can you talk about your concerns about this money that was in the bank? how important was at $350,000 investment? >> i never had any concerns about my husband's investments in banks. i would never take extraordinary

steps to save that amount of money. i would not do that. i have no concerns. someone who has not spoken. >> why come here today and talk to the media? >> i believe that if you are one to write about the story, then you need to know what you are 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 at least you could have some basic information based on documents and based on an understanding. there are some people who do not know the difference between representing an association representing one of the banks.

congresswoman waters did not arrange a meeting for one united. it was a meeting for a trade association. when persons responded as a -- he placed it in terms of saying that she has these members of banks who are concerned. never did he say that, as a matter of fact, he never said anything about 1 united bank. so, i want you to know the difference. number two, i want you to know that this business about maxine waters and her staff, tarp was

not in existence. we did not know anything about tarp. i want you to know that the conversation with barney frank took place weeks after tarp became a reality and the discussion became about one united and other banks being assisted by tarp. those are important fax for you -- important facts for you to pursue. if you have to know the framework of all of this. i want you to ask me why there is something in government that says that government has a responsibility to be of assistance to minority banks. there are so few of them dahlgren appears that they're going to be bought out or merge, they should be eligible to receive some assistance in some way because 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 normall, 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 thisind 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.

>> next, the homeland security secretary. then an update on the gulf spill. now, the homeland security secretary discusses u.s. border security. she made the remarks at the regular white house briefing after the president signed into law a measure which would put more agents and equipment along the mexico border. >> 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 tospecially 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 admistration 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, tn the attorney general of arizona, then the governor of arizona, and

continuing through today a 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 sece 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 t administration has already made. it is one of the many tools in the toolb 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 e 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 th 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 secury. 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 togethe 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 d 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 tha you need to multitask. the need to secure the border, have a safe border area, and you need immigration reform. that is what thisrogram 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 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 eensive border security package that we have eve 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 sece 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 o 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 someing 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 ing down?

>> i am not sure i understand the question. >> you're trying to limit narcotics trafficking and human trafficking. $600illion. 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 youre laying the groundwork for political theater in november. so what is the effect you want this to have? >> i think youill see crossing's go down and seures 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 pla, 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. thadministration 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 o there? is that becoming further and further from a possibility not only this year but next? >> tt goes to the issue of underlying immigration reform that is already in the country. have set clear priorities for ice about who theyhould 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 numbershow 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 thatcompany? >> 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 out 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 areou 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 notnswer that question prematurely. i do not know whether there will be a comprome 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 exte that exceed appropriations. in our view, theffense 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. >> s you are saying that it is

only 6 miles short of completion. >> that is right. i may be corrected, but i beeve 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 youave 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 h provided equal protection and due process for more than 150 years. ese are two things that we do not think need to btampered 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 immigrati 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 theesults 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 willontinue 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 fedel 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 t 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 dagree with the characteristic.

secondly, as i said before, this is a great bill for us. it adds border patrol age, is agent, air cover, utoate tenology, which is really important, because some areas you cannot cover with cell phones because there are no cell towers down there. you really nd 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 20 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, t 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 makingure 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 bil the predent 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 suest, 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 somelaces. 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 hava 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 ells 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 retionship 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

>> thadallen briefed reporters on the efforts to close the relief well. his remarks are about 20 minutes. 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. on this. are you