half on both sides of the border. that meant it was very affected. separately, the border control testified that this was a very effective use of resources. it allowed them -- it was a force multiplier. the second filly ran was a bill that would continue and fund the border, the double border, fence. that is how they like it design. it is easiest to enforce. it could run of to the mountains. wherever there is capability by road, to run it all the way across the southwest border. that action was enacted into law. bet is really appalling. for while we have the national guard working on this.

while they ran down there, they assisted in hundred of apprehensions. the reason this issue is a consequence of not having an effective control, the cartels to have effective control, especially in parts of texas. the situation in phoenix has reached a point where that is the kidnapping capital of the united states. yet several hundred people a year kidnapped in phoenix. part of the problem on enforcement is that the people in arizona have a different position than the city council. you've got a lawsuit by the police officers in the city of phoenix against their government

where they say their hands are being tied and they cannot enforce the law. as a consequence, the first thing the bill did in the sanctuary city situation. the second thing it did was an act a provision where in arizona if you drive a car he had to be a resident alien. as a consequence of that, they felt it would be good that if a law enforcement officers stop to what you were driving your car and to do not have a license, then there is reasonable

suspicion that it might be time to call immigration authorities to check out to say who this individual was. before 9/11, on their way to the airport, they were speeding comet to the hijackers were stopped and they did not have valid identification. there was a list -- a watch list. they were on it. if the phone call had been made to the 1800 number five and number, they would have been apprehended. minnows law would have been discovered. the reality is that because of the action by the city council there is no emphasis on doing that. as a consequence, it is national

security. the first thing you should do is delivered by these. arizona takes these actions. now they are being pursued by the department of justice on a very interesting theory. the theory being that it is illegal for arizona to enforce federal law when the executive branch decide not to enforce what congress has passed them. >> they give them american jobs. >> these are all dependent upon laws in congress.

changing these laws are a real lift them -- at the woman had a signing ceremony that job was going to get done. it is an education. >> i live in anaheim. my grandfather is 81 years old. he is enjoyed 16 years of retirement. john boehner recently said that he was interested in exploring the possibility of raising the retirement age to 70 burda i wonder where you stand as far as raising the retirement age and how high you it onto lasik? >> are you for lowering the

retirement age? but i would rather see an increase in the fica. >> you have a lot of public employees retiring at 50 and 55. how you feel about that? >> it is their privilege that they can take a reduced amount. >> i'm is looking at these systems rebuilt. i want to see seniors get their retirement. to do that, we will probably is a commission that will study this issue and tried to figure out a solution that is adjustable. i will wait to see what the

commission develops. i happen to believe that it would give the economy growing, there were the submission security. if you are in the workforce and you are working and our productive, i think we could sustain social security. if we adopt policies that lead to economic growth, and then you are going to run into a dynamic here. it to be very hard to sell.

>> is there a specific aid healing to the? >> i thought the process there would be one where we would get a commission and see what their recommendations across the board were. right there was a social security commission. there is a commission looking f the thing. we can get a consensus but everybody considers behof -- confers on. >> i am from fullerton. mine is a combination of web pages said parenthood i. in 59 years old. i lost my job four years ago that i worked out for 10 years. the move out of state.

all my life and everything that you are supposed to do. i educated myself. i got a professional job. the estate my money. i cannot touch without penalty until i do retire. i am 59 years old. no one is giving me a job parenthood i am out there all the time looking for them it is not that i was sitting on my butt. i want to know how old you think people should be before they retire. i cannot wait 11 years to get the money i paid into. i am tired of competing people from other countries. i've had some temp jobs affected. i'm a graphic artist. the people who were in charge of the art department or from brazil.

why do not i had that job that i am an american citizen. i educated myself. i did the right things. no one's to hire me this is an 59-year-old. i'm competing with people even trying to get a minimum wage job. they are people that had to win three of those judges to make ends meet. i can flailing in the wind. i have no support. >> when the great problems right now will mean a 14.5 million people unemployed, there is a real concern about the fact that we are not moving forward with legislation. i'm a co-sponsor of the bill. what the bill says is that you

will have a match up of the social security numbers of the employee becomes and to get the job. reno that there are 12 million people working on phony documents right now. people come here. they commit document fraud. they buy a phony social security number. it is in the system. if we matched that of, if the employer would call in and we could lift the prohibition on this, they could be mandated to check to see if these are valid workers. the problem you face is that according to the organization, and i extrapolate these numbers

there are a billion people who like to come to the united states we have a legal process for people to come here. on top of that, we have a lot of people who are circumventing the process. if you have 12 million phony social security numbers out there that people are using to work, it is planted affect unemployment especially during times of recession. this bill should be passed immediately. we are working to get it passed. it is my hope that we can do that. >> i hope you can. it is hard when you are my age to compete with it coming out of college pain their student loans. if bill gates needs people to work with all computers, i work across platforms. of the more than glad to take that job. [laughter]

[applause] >> how good afternoon. thank you. i am from west fullerton. a couple weeks ago when your meeting was on, of austin to ask you a question i was cut off in the middle of it. you enter something out and not even asking. can you hear me? >> we can hear you. continue. black>> this goes to what you ae already talking about. i am sure you have heard of the push to ask congress -- and this started to you personally. congress should be as not to

pass any laws that apply to us that not apply to you guys. similarly, by sen perceived and divisive versa. there is a big push going around to get rid of incumbents. is not because you are not doing a good job. we are getting nowhere. we are going backward. finally, apathy in this country is being tromped buying the situation that we are living in. let's stick with the economics.

federal workers are getting -- day and 22% more than private- sector workers. that is a salary. the average federal civil and play our minds -- vs. 9800. wide view in your colleague said in example, a freezer wages until such time as they come down to the average of the civilian population. everyone would maybe now you guys. [applause]

right now it is unfortunate that people that might be doing a good job of the lump everybody else that is not doing their job properly. you guys give yourself pay raises. i do not get is a security ray's best year -- so security raise this year. i will gladly trade with yours any day proposed. the only other thing that annoys me is the fact that you guys get a pension after four or eight years. it is 90% or 100%. it is a helluva lot but i got working 33 years. you need to wake up. [applause] >> other than your numbers, i agree it with your argument .

the house voted not to have a pay raise last year and this year in the senate as apollo burda i know you feel you have something there that says it does. >> that is not true for other workers. last year and this year, there is no increase in salary to the house. the pensions are still large. the days of house members getting '90s term, if they get around on enough, if they still can. we changed that loss of the average pension of of has been reduced by half. the average pension now for someone who retires is still too high. it is $34,000.

for the old-timers, what you are talking about is true some years ago we reform to that. -- we reformed that. there is no such thing as requiring retiring over that percentage. on average, it is 34,000. the averages about 20 years. >> what about a one-term congressman? >> they do not get a pension. >> is that of to you? >> that is part of the reforms. >> here is next? >> i am really concerned about

the biggest corporations in the united states. they control so much. my bigger concern is citizens united where five republicans said that a corporation is like a person. they condemn unlimited amount of money even into a local school board election if it will get into a contract. and a lot of ways, i feel a congress serves the upper echelon of the upper elite. they have the money. they can do of the talking. we recently tried to pass disclosure. nothing passes the senate they are so out of touch. it did not pass. it wasn't fast because of the

union still where the union was not considered a big corporation. i think it should be across the board. a corporation, and they make the money. they can spend a billion dollars. >> i will share my position with this. i am only for voluntary contributions from individuals. that means that if you are going to legislate and say the corporations of one to make the corporation, then have to allow the individual members to decide whether or not to make contributions. the take corporations of the table. if we are going to do that, what has to happen is the union members get to decide where their plan to make a contribution and its berglund to

make a contribution. that would require implementation. that would require a situation where you move from the union leadership deciding that they are going to take and make a contribution on behalf of the members. they can advise the members. it had to be voluntary. . but the kid would be the way to go. >> so far, we are not even getting close to that. they talk about pension plans and things like that.

if they get away from a combined benefit program to where you can be a chief of police for your and your income jumps of $100,000 in your retirement, but none of that money is funded. we are spending current 20 billions in tax dollars in reserves that were never put there in the first place. >> it is not sustainable. there has to be some adjustment on this. on the state level and on the federal level. >> lastly, wall street has admitted to $600 trillion in derivatives. they are probably only worth $300 trillion three i do not care how much we do here on main street, we cannot get any money here on main street because we are not an emerging market. it is all overseas. we have a big elephant in the room that is called the military.

it is not a $600 billion organization, it is a $1 trillion organization if you take the money that is hidden in the department of energy and home when security and the patriot act. we are living under a fascist state right now. >> with respect to the question on the derivatives, one of the things we're trying to do is to create transparency by creating these exchanges where the government will be looking at both sides of the transaction and all of that will surface. it was lack of trends that -- transparency in derivatives that helped create this crisis. hopefully, that step where everything is out in front will be helpful. yes sir, your question 3 >> my subject is something that we all hear about and that is high

school kids quitting high school before they graduate. there is a solution to that i have written to you about twice. the solution is to pass a law that says that you cannot get a driver's license without a high- school diploma. as much as kids like to drive, they would go to school. [laughter] [applause] >> that is an issue for the state government here in california. it your state senator and state assemblyman will have to -- >> you can push it, can she? >> actually, i respect the

balance between the state in the federal government. i will give you the phone number to the state assemblyman. >> it sure would work. >> good afternoon. you recently voted against the bill to help the states that are broke due to the financial breakdown to keep thousands of teachers and firefighters on the job and educating our students instead of on the unemployment line. >> what makes you think that if we go out and borrow all of this new money which is threatening to downgrade our status for treasuries from aaa status, right now the fed says that this level borrowing is unsustainable. we are going to have a crisis in terms of what happens. it will compound the problem. at what point do some members of the house have to stand up and say that we cannot borrow any more? [applause] if you cannot pay for it all, if you can't pay for it by cutting other parts of the

budget, what logic is there for us to go out and borrow more and then give those moneys to state governments? i do not see how it is sustainable. >> there are two answers to this. >> my background is in finance and economics. i am just telling you what logic tells me. >> logically, if they are on the unemployment line, they are not paying taxes and they are taking unemployment which is going to cost the government even more money. i guess it would be the state government in this case. the other thing is that if we just let these tax cuts to the rich paid into the past -- >> boo! >> go ahead. >> there are too damn ways to balance the budget. you can get more income or you can spend less.

if the people that are not on the trauma -- on the job or losing, they are taking unemployment. that is costing the government even more money. >> we are losing. that is what it is important that state governments develop sustainable plans where they are not setting up pension schemes, those that work against the interest of being able to govern the state, if you set up pension schemes where people retire at close to 100% of their salary at age 50 and age 55, and then you cannot fund the ongoing operations of the state, it is time for the stake to step up -- for the state to step up and say that we better look at the new plants coming forward

and adjust to this. instead, what we're doing what we have done. we send more money to the states and they take some of these steps. i do not see how we can continue and methodology where we expand the public sector at every level and it becomes -- you can expect the private sector to be able to create an of economic activity because the taxes come out of the private sector. i shared with your earlier my concern. -- you earlier my concern. i guarantee you that if you do,

you will see less economic activity. fewer people will decide to keep working and they will retire and close it down. this is why you have to look of the total picture of what you are doing. if you look at just one half of the picture, which is the public sector, and i share with you what happened at the federal level, without considering the impact on the private sector, it won't get to where you want to be long term. >> thank you for your question. [applause] >> i acknowledge that we have financial difficulties and economic stresses in our society and that is sobering and real. my concern is that those dynamics are causing people to overlook or diminish another area that is critically important and that is defense.

when i hear people like barney frank propose a 25% reduction in the defense budget and i hear people in the navy say that we need to reduce the size of the fleet from what it is now to 230. i think that taking our economic stresses out on the military is not any good. . .

>> there are probably efficiencies we can find just like in any bureaucracy. thank you very much for your point. i appreciate it. [applause] >> i missed the orange form, so i came today. the question i have to ask, is there anything on the books at all for a bill that would suggest that owning -- only one item be put on the agenda rather than five or six items that might not go along with the original bill? i think it is a big problem because congressmen -- perhaps the major bill being passed is

good for the people, but the smaller ones are not good. therefore, you have to defeat it. that is my first question. i have not heard anything about obamacare. of the items that doesn't have anything to do with health care is for us senior citizens, the 3.8% tax if we sell our homes. many of us have purchased our home a long time ago, and therefore, we are going to become under the $250,000 if we are single. which i am, my husband passed away a few years ago. i would not only have to pay capital gains, but i would have to pay 3.8% tax. with social security going up -- excuse me, i don't get social

security. my husband had it, but i couldn't get it. with medicare going out, the gasoline tax going up, the dali tax that i hope does not pass, all these taxes are going out. i shouldn't say if, when november comes and we have a different demographic in the congress, will you be able to set up a situation where that 3.8% tax will not come to fruition? >> i will try to do that. your original suggestion, your original point on this omnibus legislation, this was something that was not envisioned in the constitution. thought given to the fact that members of the house might figure out a way to roll items, especially in

conference committee, into a bill that was never heard of the house floor. or that something might be written behind closed doors where it is posted after midnight. the press and the public, members of the house and senate will get to read about it in advance. this needs to be changed. we should have transparency laws -- [applause] of how long items are before congress. the procedures should be followed, the senate procedures were originally written by thomas jefferson. in which every issue is headed in the committee, before it ever comes to the house, there should be items stuck in conference afterwards. omnibus legislation should be phased out.

i concur with you. that is time. thank you all for attending, and let me think c-span for being with us today. i appreciate it very much. [applause] thank you for being with us. how are you doing? how is bob doing? >> he came with me, but he would not stand. >> he has heard plenty of these before. [inaudible conversations] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> next, secretary of state hillary clinton announces the resumption of middle east peace talks. that a gulf coast update with retired admiral thad allen. then vice president biden speakes said the democratic national committee. tomorrow on "washington journal," will street journal louise radnofsky it's about stimulus funds -- talks about stimulus funds. michael farrell its about the challenges facing iraq war veterans. and in economic professor talked about how he would lower the federal deficit and balance the federal budget. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span.

>> there are 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on "book tv." this saturday, the debate the size and role of the government in the twenty first century. a journalist says that advanced research projects -- darpa is the greatest idea factory in america. then we look at zero area and why it kills 1 million people every year. >> secretary of state hillary clinton says that direct talks between israelis and palestinians will begin september 2 in washington. leaders from both sides will attend a white house dinner before with president obama. there has been set a one-year time limit on the talks. we hear from secretary clinton followed by george mitchell. this is 35 minutes.

>> good morning and welcome to the department of state. we have secretary of state hillary clinton here along with their special on boy george mitchell. they are here to tell you about the most recent development in our pursuit of middle east peace. we will start with secretary clinton. we are joined today by your colleagues in the white house press corps up in martha's vineyard and we will be sharing the q&a duties with you. >> i don't like that idea. [laughter] >> i will appoint a negotiator to deal with that. since the beginning of this administration, we have worked with the israelis and palestinians and our international partners to a divans caracols of comprehensive peace in the middle east, including a two- state solution, which ensures

security and dignity for israelis and palestinians. the president and i are encouraged by the leadership of prime minister netanyahu and president abbas. i have invited them to meet on september 2 in washington, d.c. to relaunch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues which we believe can be completed within one year. president obama has invited president mubarak of egypt and king abdullah of jordan to attend in view of their critical role in this effort. their continued leadership and commitment to peace will be our key to success. the president will hold bilateral meetings with the four leaders, followed by a dinner with them on september 1.

tony blair has also been invited to the dinner and in view of his work to help palestinians build the institutions of their future state, and effort that must continue during the negotiations. i have invited prime minister netanyahu and present abbas to join me for a trilateral meeting to renegotiate. as we move for, it is important that action by all sides hope to events our efforts, not hinder it. there have been difficulties in the past. there will be difficulties ahead.

without a doubt, we will get more obstacles. the enemies of peace will keep trying to defeat us and to derail the talks. but i asked the parties to persevere. they must keep moving floor, even through difficult times and to continue to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region. as we have said before, these negotiations should take place without preconditions and be characterized by good faith and commitment to their success, which will bring a better future to all of the people in the region. george. thank you, all. >> [unintelligible] >> thank you. i will be pleased to respond to any of your questions.

>> can you tell us what was the turning point? what was it that got -- that overcame the final snag to get them to come back to direct talks? >> we believe that the recognition by the parties themselves, by their leaders, prime minister netanyahu and president abbas, that the best outcome is an agreement which results in two states living side-by-side in peace and security. the only way that can be achieved is through direct negotiations between the parties in which the united states will be an active and sustained participant and with the full support of our many

friends around the world, including, of course, specifically, the quartet. >> you have been tried to do this for months. why is it that, today, you have gone to this point, whereas, three days ago, you or not? >> i think it is a cumulative report of the efforts made during that time and the recognition by the party is that this is the right time. we will be active participants and there is broad support, as you know, by members of the quartet and others around the world. in the end, the decisions will be made by the parties themselves. >> could you talk about the sequencing of the talks in? will they discuss territory, refugees, or jerusalem first?

>> all permanent status' issues will be on the table. it will be for the parties themselves to decide the manner by which they should be addressed. >> you mentioned that, without a doubt, there will be more obstacles. what will those obstacles be? what are the main sticking points? >> we are all well aware that there remains mistrust between the parties. a residue of hostility developed over many decades of conflict. many previous efforts that have been made to resolve the conflict have not succeeded.

all of that takes a very heavy toll on both societies and their leaders. in addition, we all know that, as with all societies, there are differences of opinion on both sides on how best to proceed. as a result, this conflict has remained unresolved over many decades and to many efforts. we do not expect all those differences to disappear when talks begin. indeed, we expect that they will be presented, debated, discussed, and the differences will not be resolved immediately. but we do believe that peace in the middle east, comprehensive peace, including, but not limited to, an end to the

conflict between israelis and palestinians is very much in the interest of israelis and palestinians, of all people in the region. it is in the national security interest to the united states. therefore, we're going to continue to pursue that objective with patience, perseverance, and a determination. we know it will be difficult. as the secretary said, we know there will be obstacles. but we will proceed, as i said, with patience, perseverance, and determination. >> they have been down that road before. what is your opinion now that would engender hope and optimism? what did you offer president abbas to entice them into the

talks? >> i do not want to repeat everything i said it in response to the prior question. i believe that it is very much in the interest of people in both societies that there be an end to this conflict, enabling them both to live in peace and security. i believe that their leaders believe and understand that. notwithstanding the many difficulties that they face, we recognize those difficulties. this is the best course for them. on the question of past efforts and failures in succeeding, i will talk about my experience in northern ireland. i've shared three separate sets of discussions in northern ireland, spanning over five years. the main negotiations lasted for 22 months. during that time, the effort

was repeatedly branded a failure. i was asked hundreds of times when i was leaving because the effort had failed. of course, if the objective is to achieve a peace agreement, until you do achieve one, you have failed to do so. in a sense, in northern ireland, we had about 700 days of failure and one day of success. we approached this past with the same determination to succeed, notwithstanding the difficulties and not withstanding past efforts. that can not deter us from trying again. because it is noble and a just

and right for all concerned. >> thank you. >> i wanted to get it in in terms of this timeline. the 12 months, do you see that as a deadline or is it looser than that? what makes this peace process any different from all other peace processes? >> we will only know the answer to your second question when it is completed. i believe, as i said in response to the previous question, that the cause is so important, so right, so just, that our continued effort is the right thing to do. with going to pursue it determination. i believe that the two leaders themselves are sincere and serious and believe that it can

be done and we will do everything humanly possible to help them see that it is done. with respect to your first question, prime minister netanyahu said in a public appearance in this country on his most recent visit to washington that he believed it could be done within a year. president abbas has expressed similar sentiments to me. i hold strongly to that believe now having been involved for some time in the region. we believe it can be done within a year and that is our objective. >> so it is not a deadline then? >> it took about nine months to where they would sit down and talk to each other. what makes you think that you can get them to agree to peace in one year? at what point during this process is the u.s. willing to put their own ideas on the table to help move forward? after the initial set of talks, where you expect the talks to take place?

>> i will take your questions in reverse order. one of the subjects to be discussed in the meeting on september 1 and september 2 and in preparatory meetings that have been occurring on a regular basis and will continue between now and then will be the timing and location of subsequent meetings. we certainly expect some of those meetings to occur in the region. with respect to the timing and the nature, how long it took to get here and how long it will

take to get in, i do not think one is necessarily a determinant of the other. i liken it to the first time i own a house and had it painted. it took the painters seemingly forever to prime the building and the walls. i kept asking myself, when i they going to start painting? i was paying by the hour and you want some progress. [laughter] after this seemingly endless priming, the painted it very quickly. i do not want to suggest that one year is quickly, but i do not think that the events leading up to the negotiations are themselves decisive it in terms of the negotiations themselves. we believe that the statements by the prime minister regarding within one year are credible inappropriate. we believe that president abbas shares a similar view, as do we and that is what we're going to pursue. >> what about the ideas on the table in this process? >> we will be active and sustained partners although we realize that this is a bilateral negotiation. we have indicated to both parties that, as necessary and

appropriate, we will offer bridging proposals. but, i repeat, this is a direct bilateral negotiations between the parties with our assistance and with the assistance of our friends and allies. although nobody has asked it, i do want to take a moment to acknowledge and recognize the enormous support and assistance we have received from many of our friends and allies. egypt under president, jordan, many of the arab states, the united nations, the european union, and russia have all been active and helpful, along with other european states. it is important to understand

that, while the united states is playing an important and active sustained role, we do have full power dissipation, full input, full consultation, and withhold full support from a wide variety of allies whose efforts have been extremely important getting us to this stage and will be extremely important in reaching a completion. >> we will take to questions or three questions from the white house press club. >> our first question comes from philip hardly. please ask one question. >> good morning. of all the invited parties expected to weigh in next month, i wanted to know what your thoughts are of the mosque

on the ground zero site? aboutre not here to talk that subject. >> what was the first question? >> have they accepted the invitation. >> we have been in contact with both. we expect to hear from them shortly. it will be their decision whether to accept. >> our next question is from jonathan border. >> do both parties have to ask for the u.s. to step in with the bridging proposals or is it enough for one party to ask for that bridging proposal? >> we are getting a little bit a head of the gametime to

speculate on what may or may not happen well into the process. as i stated earlier, this is a direct bilateral negotiation. we will make bridging proposals at such time as we deem necessary and appropriate. but i do not want anyone to have the impression that we are somehow going to supplant or displace the rules of the parties themselves nor do we have any view other than that this must, in the end, be in agreement by the parties themselves. >> one technical question and then a real question -- on september 2, are you actually launching direct talks or of the leaders getting together

with the secretary to discuss direct talks? >> the first question is yes. we are launching direct negotiations beginning on september 2. on the second question, none. >> is relaunching the negotiants without preconditions -- does it mean we are relaunching without [unintelligible] >> only the parties can determine the terms of reference and the basis of the

negotiations. they will do so when they meet and discuss these matters. as you know, both we and the quartet had previously said that the negotiations should be without preconditions. >> can you tell us whether they are going to start from scratch or will they build on what they have done before? is israel expected to continue the freeze? will the palestinians continue their boycott of goods and? >> the parties themselves will determine the basis on which they will proceed in the discussions in response to your first question. in response to your second question, the opposition on settlements is well known and remains unchanged. we have always made clear that

the parties should promote an environment that is conducive to negotiations. as the secretary said, it is important that actions by all sides hope to advance those efforts, not hinder them. >> just to follow up on that and the previous question, your position is well-known on settlements, but, the israelis, they have chosen to ignore it and have settlement construction as they have seen fit to do. do you have any understanding from them that they will not do that this time? even in the best of all circumstances, how do you get around the fact that home loss -- that hamas is playing a huge role in gaza? >> let's be clear that the

declaration of the moratorium itself last november was a significant action which has had a significant effect on new housing construction starts in the west bank. as i said, our position on settlements is well-known and remains unchanged and we expect both parties to promote settlements is well-known, remains unchanged, and we expect both parties to promote an environment conducive to negotiations. with respect to hamas, let's be clear. hamas won a legislative election. they acknowledge the continued executive authority of president abbas and his team, and it is entirely appropriate that we negotiate with the executive head of that government. when democrats regained control

of the congress in 2006, that didn't end president bush's tenure as president, and others who wanted to negotiate with the united states negotiated with the legally elected and then-chief of our executive branch of government. and that is the situation here. >> so you expect hamas to accept any decision made by president abbas at these negotiations? >> it is not for me to make decisions for others. >> we'll take one more here, then we'll go back up to the phones. >> senator mitchell, is it your understanding that this would be a shelf agreement, something to take effect at a later date when political conditions in the palestinian territories allow, or is it your understanding that this is something that would take effect in a very short period after it was agreed? >> that's obviously subject to the results of the negotiations. we are not creating limitations or restraints upon what the

parties may agree to. our hope is that there will be an agreement that will end the conflict for all time and will result in the establishment of a viable, democratic, and independent state of palestine living side by side in peace and security with israel. >> operator, we'll take one or two more from the phones. >> thank you. our next question on the phone is margaret talev with mcclatchy newspapers. >> hi, thanks for taking our questions. the palestinian press has reported that the u.s. put the harshest pressure to date on the palestinians to get them into the talks. what i want to know is why did the u.s. feel that this was the time, in the palestinians' view, to bully the palestinians into talking, considering the politics of the israeli administration right now?

>> the united states position has been well-known from the time that this administration entered office. we have and we do favor direct negotiation between the parties to resolve the conflict and to produce an agreement that results in two states living side by side in peace and security. we have encouraged the two parties to enter into such negotiations and they have now agreed. and we are -- we believe it's the right thing to do, we think that both of the leaders believe it's the right thing to do, and we believe it's in the best interests of the people

they represent. >> we'll take one more, operator, from the phone. >> thank you. susan garraty with news talk radio. >> hello, senator mitchell. you harkened back to the northern ireland peace process, and as you certainly recall, the president then played a very intimate role in that. considering that many americans themselves are even confused about president obama's religious affiliation, do you feel like the people of the middle east on both sides of this issue will see president obama as an honest broker and someone that they can actually

reach out to in that same intimate fashion? >> yes, i do believe that they do and will continue to regard president obama in that fashion. i will say that from the outset, both he and the secretary of state have played an important, indeed critical, role in this effort. both are deeply involved on a regular basis and deeply, personally committed to the cause of a comprehensive peace in the middle east. i think that is not only widely recognized throughout the region and the world, but very much appreciated, and in particular, throughout the region. >> we'll take a couple of wrap- ups. go ahead. >> yes. senator mitchell. >> yes.

>> the total settlement freeze never happened, so i was wondering, how can these talks be considered authentic in the region when that demand was never met? >> we believe that there is a basis for proceeding and achieving a successful result, and we're going to pursue that. we do not take the position that if you don't get everything you want the first time you ask for it, you pack up your bags and go home. if that had been the standard applied in south africa, there would never have been peace there; in northern ireland, there would never have been peace there; in bosnia, there would never have been peace there. it takes patience, persistence, a willingness to go back again and again, to not take the first no as a final no, to not take the 50th no as the final no or the 100th no. we are patient, we are persevering, and we are determined, and we believe there is a basis for concluding a peace agreement in the region, and that's what we're going to pursue. >> samir. >> senator, do you understand that -- you expect abbas to accept entering these talks without preconditions?

>> both the united states and the quartet have said that we believe there should be direct talks without preconditions. and we also have said many times that we think that these talks should be conducted in a positive atmosphere in which the parties refrain from taking any steps that are not conducive to making progress in the discussions, that negotiate seriously and in good faith. and in all of these respects, we think that there is a basis for making progress. >> so the talks won't be based on the quartet statement of march 19? >> the parties are the only ones who can determine what the basis of their discussions are, and that is the case. >> yes, thank you. senator, so many palestinians, as you know, and arabs believe peace with the actual israeli government is practically impossible because of its

nature, past statement regarding refugees, jerusalem, et cetera. aren't you concerned that by setting this one-year deadline, you'll probably be raising expectations just like a la camp david and all what happened after that? >> the reality is, of course, that there are some in both societies who do not believe that the other side is serious, who do not trust the other side, who do not wish to proceed with the other side. and if we accept the premise that because some in one or both societies hold these views that we cannot proceed, then of course, what we are doing is consigning all of those people to never-ending conflict, never-ending difficulties. we simply don't believe that's a proper basis for any country,

and certainly not ours, the united states, on which to base its policy. we believe that the best course of action is the direct negotiations that result in a peace agreement ending this conflict and resulting in two states living side by side in peace and security. we believe the only way to achieve that is through direct negotiations. we believe that if those negotiations are conducted seriously and in good faith, they can produce such an agreement within 12 months. and that is our objective. we acknowledge, we recognize, as you have just stated, that there are many who don't believe that, many who don't want that, many who will act to prevent that. but their lack of belief, their contrary views, their contrary

actions cannot serve to prevent us from trying to deal with this conflict, nor can it prevent the leaders of those countries who both recognize that the interests of their people, the future of their societies rests upon resolving this conflict and achieving the kind of peace and stability and security from which they will all benefit. >> last question, mark landler. >> senator, this administration believed from the early days that its middle east strategy and its iran strategy were linked in the sense that if you could make progress in one, you might help make progress in another and vice versa. you now are moving into a period of less engagement and more

confrontation with iran. i'm wondering whether you think that is an added hurdle to a peace agreement or is it something that could actually help in the sense that the israelis may feel that the u.s. is going to be tough on iran and it allays their fears somewhat in that regard. >> that extends somewhat beyond the area of my involvement in this process, and so i would defer for a more full and thoughtful answer to those who are directly engaged on the broader issues. i will simply say that if you look at the middle east and review its history over just the past half century, never mind several millennia, you will

conclude that there is no really, quote, "right time" to do this, that there always have been and always will be issues external to the immediate parties that have an effect upon what is occurring. and in my judgment, what is occurring in the -- throughout the region, not just in iran but in other areas, all add compelling, cumulative evidence to the need to act with respect to this conflict. that is to say, whether or not the circumstance you describe produces the result you describe, it still remains a compelling argument that it is very much in the national security interest of the united

states, in terms of dealing with other conflicts, to assist, to do all we can with the help and support of our allies, to bring about a resolution of this conflict. it helps in so many ways, and most importantly, it's the best thing for the palestinian people and for the people of israel. and it is in our national security interest and in that of others. thank you all very much. it's been a pleasure to be with you. [no audio] >> up next, a gulf coast update with bad allen. then, california republican

congressman ed wallace holds a town hall meeting. >> there are 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on book tv. saturday, john samples and eugene steurle. then, michael befiore is that it is america's greatest idea factory. then a look at the history of malaria and questions as to why it kills nearly 1 million people every year. for a complete listing, visit but tv -- booktv.org. now, thad allen announces that the bottom killed procedure to permanently plug be well may have been the week after the labor day holiday. he made the announcement during a briefing at the national press club in washington d.c.. this is an hour.

>> good morning. i am a reporter for usa today. miami disaster reporters of this is my beat. i am the immediate past president of the national press club. before we begin, let me remind you to silence your cell phones yet again and also on the we are halfway through an ambient pressure test to have done a lot of pressure test on the blowout preventer and cappings fact that was going the 15th of july. we are trying to understand the

static position, and when the well is filled with sea water that is the same density as the water on the outside. if there is any change in presser, if it is leaking from the plug well, is there any leakage from the annulus at the top of the well that would indicate that we have a problem with well integrity? following the indian pressure tests, i have asked for bp to give me a procedure that will allow us to put it a drill pipe into the blowout preventer with a camera onyx and conduct a fishing experiment. the fishing experiment is to ascertain the existence location of the drill pipe that might remain in the blowout preventer. when we cut the riser pipe back before we removed the pipe and with the capping stack on, we

were concerned that there might be a pipe in their or possibly o we will know exactly how to see it. the second step will be to ascertain the location. i expect we will get a procedure for bp the work on this today has been extensive. it has involved the science team.

they have been involved in the development of the procedures that will be conducted and we have also been in touch with the department of justice. we will make sure if there were issues. following that, we will look at a salvage plan. this will become material to the joint investigation team. that is being coordinated with the department of justice. as we stand this morning, the ambient pressure in the well is 2,189 pounds per square inch and that has not varied since the test started. that is telling us that we have integrity in the well. we are taking steps on the q-

4000 to flush lions and provide support and they will be prepared to lift the provincial when we move forward with that. on developments in driller to come they have put it plugged in. it is a device that it put on the well. that is in anticipation of final preparations. that will be the replacement for the blowout preventer. the development to grow 3 to win the primary oil is currently at 17,000 feet below sea level measured depth. they are approximately 4.5 feet or son away from the wealth.

of the current well. pressure will rise up, move to result in a discharge of hydrocarbons into theonce we intercept the anulus and constitute the bottom kill. the media about the timeline, as you can see, this is all of one step before we decide the next day. i believe this -- if the sequence of steps is followed and a successful, we should be some time in the week after labor day to execute the bottom kill. i cannot give you a more definitive timeline until we are through with the ambient pressure test and we know with the condition of the pipe is. in the meantime, we will continue daily to check what i call the vital signs of the well. we have been since we put the capping stack on which includes a constant temperature check, as a tinted temperature would indicate products moving around. vibrations from the wall itself which would indicate potential movement. sound measurements on the wall itself. we do visual checks daily to make sure there are no visual anomalies, bubbles, discoloration of liquid, and we

are doing seismic and acoustic runs with vessels across the area to continue to take slices of the formation. if you can imagine in our eyes slices for the rock formation around the well to give us a means to compare the formation the baseline formations to see if there are anomalies. this would be a hydrocarbons' moving somewhere in the formation telling us something is wrong with the integrity of the well are we have some sort of change that we would have to check out. so far, those little signs have been maintained constant. there is no little changed and we are prepared to move forward with the ambient test and fishing test. i appreciate the patience of thethere has been some frustration at the inability to get hard dates. i will tell you we are down to the very end of this process and we are moving very

cautiously. an overabundance of caution was we do not want to make a mistake in the last days of this operation because frankly, we want a stake in the heart of away forever. and his team. opinions and have reached out to competitors of bp within the industry. we have had what i would call, to diversity being brought towe

have been able to control the source of hydrocarbons since july 15. the gulf has been set for that long without more oil being spilled into it. that said, we are in the process of transitioning to work in the sure, looking at the long term recovery process for marshes and we are negotiating with the parish president of louisiana. also with the states of mississippi, alabama and florida about how clean is clean and how we will check out these beaches and how we know the good enough requires no more treatment and we will create that checklist. we will do that in conjunction with the local authorities. bp will not be involved in that. we will collectively decide how clean is clean. knowing that if the beaches are revealed by a storm or some surface comes up that we will send a team back and start the process over and regenerate the

check list. that is our commitment to make sure this response is carried out to the and and with a seamless transition into the recovery phase. as we move to that, secretary davis has been taxed with having a team to create a report. we are looking to have that report done somewhere around mid to late september. as far as my own personal position on this, the criteria for me it requires that some more -- that set -- that report is submitted. we will move from a national region command to a local regional command. a couple of thoughts as we stand here on the 20th of august four months into this event. is the largest oil spill in u.s. history. it has been problematic from the start in terms of the scope and the challenges we have faith because it was never --

there was never a large, monolithic spill. there have been hundreds of thousands of small spills. some of it went east, west, north, and self. that required us to create a resource management scheme that spread from south-central louisiana to florida over hundreds of miles. it required us to some of the glee increase our skimming and boom capabilities and we have done that. an unprecedented amount of boom and skimmers has been brought. when we were early in this response, we could line up 200 skimmer's the were available. we have 835 and the water. there has been a significant coronation.

we moved response equipment from different parts of the country for the first time in the nation's history where that weaver was invoked to allow us to bring more assets to the team. i do not think we should discount the fact that this is the largest public participation in a national incident in this country. an unprecedented number of vessels of opportunity have been involved. an unprecedented number of volunteers have been involved. looking forward, we need to understand that will never to a large corresponds that does not include large-scale public participation. one of the largest challenges we had was excepting the vessels of opportunity that were given employment by bp when they could no longer fish and putting them to proper use where they can be effected. you can imagine a floating militia, that is what we got. it came with compassion, resources and commitment. the challenge was, and i almost the quick to bit militia before

the revolution, they should up with passion and commitment in resources but some of them had a musket, some of them had a knife. we had some large boats with communication equipment and small boats with outboard motors and getting those into a task force operation where we could function effectively was a challenge. we got that done in one of the key aspects of being able to approve or reject improve our effectiveness was taking airspace over in the gulf. we did that. we did that after discussions with the chief of staff of the air force. the assisted us greatly in we set up a command center right next to no red. -- norad. i think the other thing that was were the in this response

was the national assets of satellite imagery. i cannot overstate the importance of the national dos- based intelligence agency in supporting us with overhead assets, surveillance, and being able to put that into an on classified environment where it could be put on the web for the public to see. while this response took a while to build up steam and there were concerns early on about the quality of the response, i can tell you that there are things that have been done that have never been done before. we are sitting president. it will perform how we do response planning in the future. it would be adding a crime to a crime if we did not learn from this. we will take these lessons learned and welcome back into future response planning and how

we approach a spill or any issue of national significance. with that, i would be glad to take any questions. >> thank you. you talked about the decision to replace the current block preventer partially to preserve it for investigations. you and others have referred to it as the metaphorical black box. so much material has gone up through the blowout preventer during the blood itself and was pond down into the book preventer during the killed and the other operations, i am wondering how much is left for investigators to look at. is it damaged beyond the point where it is the label as evidence? >> i think the answer is we will not know until we raise it. i cannot 12 assume the produce of the investigation beyond my background. the condition of that will

prevent your back and look that will be valuable in any sense. it was not the main reason we are removing it first. we are removing it first because people preventer and the capping stack and the connection between them together constitutes a system that we do not think would withstand the pressure if we put -- if we pressurized and lift the seal at the top. this is a risk mitigation procedure. it would have to be removed any way under the directions of the subpoena those issued by the joint investigation team and the department of justice. we are complying by all of those. >> please state your name and affiliation before you asked her question. >> thank you. some of the scientists involved

have been speaking to oil masses suspended within the water column and there are varying assessments of these. i would wonder if you could please address this and elaborated -- elaborate on it further. >> let me start with what i feel is my role. first of all, there are a lot of members of the scientific community that are looking at the impact of oil in the gulf and we need everybody's eye on this. >> let me tell you how we got to the oil budget from where i sit. from the start in this event, there has been a concern about the flow rate. it has been reported in the

press many times. early on, they're rough estimates. and 1,000 barrels a day. 5,000 barrels a day. at that point, i started a team under the national incident team that was ultimately headed by marcia midinette. we then separated and the estimates of flow rate from bp and we involved government scientists and consulted with academia around the world. i was on a call with a professor from barcelona talking about this. as you know, we went through a series of efforts that led us several weeks ago to conclude

that we believe that it probably started out a little over 60 and as the reservoir to pleaded, dropped down to the current estimate we're using a 50,000 barrels per day. we needed to know that for the purpose of knowing how much skimming equipment and what will would be on the water and we needed to understand how much oil we were dealing with. once you have a flow rate again flow rate, that leaves you to the total amount of oil of what actually occurred. we believe that is now 4.9 million barrels over the life of the event with plus or minus 10%. this was generated by the flow rate technical group as input and a group led by people from noah looking at this. as i told the press on several occasions, if we do not have been number, that is a problem. if we have any number, it is a credibility not -- credibility problem. let's talk about numbers. i am a simple sailer. i will keep this how i understand it. if we have 4.9 million gallons, estimated to be discharged, the skis me, perils.

let's take what we know. we took about 827,000 barrels out of that well and actually took it up to tinkers and sent it to shore. {took been as you move from what we produced to a virtual certainty, down through burning and skimming which we can measure, you did to estimates on the efficacy of dispersants and how affective of operation is and

you can make estimates when you move from the certain to be less certain. if you add all of that up and use all 4 x, -- use all 4 x, -- you solve for x. we need to learn as much as we can. if you come in with a different set of assumptions and remove what you produce, then you get a different set of answers. none of them are wrong, the only to be considered. as a simple sailor, i would say that we need to calm down and look at the data and figure out what is happening in the gulf. out of the oil budget, once you account for what we can measure and estimates what is left is

26% of the 4.9 million barrels. is that completely accurate? no. it is based on the estimates as a purpose to establish a baseline to get a better estimate moving forward. that does not sound very scientific. >> you mentioned that it was more difficult because you had hundreds of thousands. >> i turned over one under thousand patches of oil. >> is that a result of the dispersant? would it have been easier if you just had one stream of oil and the freighters scoop it all off? >> i think it is a fair question.

let's talk about that a little bit. i would separate dispersants from skimming and burning. that actually removes the oil. dispersant accelerates the degradation of the oil in the water column. the use of the dispersant was a defect code decision rather than a shore on the beaches and the marshes. it was tactically made by the people on scene trying to manage a massive response. if we couldn't look at a way to track of these ways and methods of doing this, that is a legitimate question for it just wasre the way and wiell capped, i said that we are into this and i think there are some doctrinal implications about how we are trading off scanning capability, burning capability and dispersants.

our field commanders have never been faced with making these choices. we now have a record of these interventions. i think it is a completely legitimate line of inquiry. if we have these three choices, and we can get the best out of this one. there are times when it will not allow you to scam or burn, but it has some energy in it. you can actually mix it into the oil with the water rather than just putting it on top when it is comb out there. there are certain circumstances

that have to be taken into account. i think you are raising a legitimate question. given 100,000 patches of oil that come ashore and have a localized effect, again, that is a very tough choice to make. what we have are hundreds of thousands of miles of coastline that have been affected, but have not been overwhelmed by millions and millions of gallons of oil. is that good or bad? i think that we will find out that we were able to minimize the damage to the coastline rather than going somewhere and wiping it out forever. i am speaking rhetorically and anecdotally. i have been doing this off and on for about 30 years. was that responsive? >> i am working for german television. we heard about reports of

fishermen that said that dispersants are still used in the gulf of mexico. is this right? and if yes, why? >> no. >> ok, thank you. >> i believe that our last dispersant used was after we capped the well on the 15th, but on the 19th of july or before, that was the last time we used dispersants. we will give you an exact number. >> can you make a comment on the announcement yesterday about the plume that was discovered and how it will be taken care of? what are you talking about the siding that was -- the sighting back in june? what they found was an

underwater midst of fine particles of oil in june. a scholarly report was written up on their findings. we knew at the time that they had located that. we dispatched boats and have them out there looking for hydrocarbons in the water column in and around the well head. with the testing that we have done, the further you get away from the well head, you see traces of oil. there are differences in densities and anomalies that can be found out there. locating these things is the task. i am not questioning their measurements or their data, but it is a real challenge to measure the gulf for hydrocarbons that are out there and trying to track them and understand what is going on.

last week, i signed a directive to take the directive that noaa had already done. this included the opportunity to bring in research institutions and come up with a large collective way to try to understand that. as far as the merits of the science, i am probably not qualified to speak on it. from an operational standpoint, that would be my view. >> amanda with the energy guardian. what is your most difficult task left in containment and clean-up and trying to wrap up the entire spill response? >> we need to make sure of the do not have a source of hydrocarbons. we need to make sure the cleanup is completed. we have areas that have significant oil that we need to be concerned with. i mentioned earlier that

chandelier island and the western end of the mississippi sound and some areas in the western areas of alabama, and those areas around there, these are some marsh areas and we may result to natural flushing which is usually the best way to capture the oil. you do not want to go in there and clean it up mechanically because you bay -- you may do more damage. the main focus is in those areas. this leads us to a phased approach that takes us out of response and into recovery and basically, one of the hardest questions that is being negotiated is in the marsh area and help clean is clean.

i think that is -- beyond that, we will move into damage assessment. that will be a significant undertaking. the trustees have started to meet on that. that is led by the department of interior. this is an assessment of what national -- natural resources were impacted. the key is responsible for that going forward, but that will be a multi-your activity. is that responsive? >> [inaudible] you see a lot of images coming out of bp. one of them being a dc-3 that was built in the 1940's. why have we not heard much about the use of on manned air vehicles?

obviously, they have been used for imagery at the wall, but why not for tracking oil? >> we have used all manner of aircraft and surveillance systems. we have had everything out there from civil air patrol -- and we actually had an icelandic pair of-eights -- of, dash eights. i hope i get this right. this is a measure of reflectivity off the top of the water to help get a balanced report to estimate how much oil is on top of the water. apparently, water reflects differently than oral does. there are some censors out there -- the oil does.

than oil does. there are issues with control of the airspace. it was a significant problem before we took control of it. we have eight near misses before we took control of the airspace. we were not excluding any thing that could be brought to the fight. >> admiral, thank you. i want to return to the 26% of the oil that is remaining. you are aware of a program study that came out early this week that said that you cannot count the dispersed oil has gone. for that matter, the oil that evaporated is in the atmosphere. as they said, we do not know what kind of impact that will have. can you respond to that? >> sure, the denominator changes

in the results are different, but it is all-important. >> even allowing for that, the dispersed oil is still in the water in tiny droplets. they said that you cannot count that as being removed. >> hopefully, it will be that -- biodegraded at a quicker rate. i think that we all understand that. if youam saying is that th take a set of assumptions, what is it that we are trying to understand about this? we all know that the dispersed oral will be there until it is degraded, but it will degrade faster than if it were not dispersed. >> i have a question. one is in respect of looking for

wertheim -- looking forward. there has been a lot of dissidents with how much oil has been spilled and what the impact will be and if there will be clones -- plumes. in terms of defining what clean is clean, do you go with industry device or to you go with academics that are not affiliated with the government to give an assessment and the second one, looking back at this spill, looking at prevention and containment, what would have been most helpful to know before this incident and how will this affect future plans? >> let me separate the response operations from long-term recovery. we are talking with the local governments about how to remove cleanup equipment.

we want to stage it regionally in case we have the coast we- oiled.-- re-loya if they are grooming the beaches in pensacola next spring and they get a front end loader and come across some book -- barry oil, what do we want to do about that -- and buried loyal, what do we want to do about that -- buried oil, what we want to do about that? this tells us that the oil spill response is finished.

when we moved to the near term response from a long-term assessment and recovery, that is under the national resource assessment model. once it gets dispersed, there is really not a clean-up issue. there is a long-term impact on the environment. but how do we measure that? how do we assess that and how does bp compensate the people of the gulf to do that? i would separate that into two situations. how clean is clean? when you say that we are going to pull back, and you save it for this purpose, this section of the beaches done and we need to come back. is that clear? >> having that on in response is

helpful, but in determining what qualifies as a measurable event that would require to say that louisiana wants one thing or not someone else wants another. >> there will be a transition plan that will be signed by the court never. there will also be coroneted. -- be coordinated. pensacola is largely beaches and the other one is largely morses -- marshes. that will be taken into account. if there is no oil that comes ashore in the next number of days, and all the oil that can be recovered can be, if we go into the marshes, it may do more harm.

this is all we are going to do for physical removal. we will stand back and surveil for the moment. you change your readiness posture, but we are saying there are no more interdictions that can be done. it is clean for now. ok? >> i am with [inaudible] of norway. i understand that you have been helped by the warm waters to break down the oil in the water, while cold water is a totally different bank. how worrisome would it be if it is actually true that this huge plume is actually not breaking down? >> i think that it all breaks down to how fast does it break down. the temperature of the water is

a great indicator. i understand that that has been raised. we need to find out if the oil is out there and where it is that. that goes back to the order that i signed last friday that is trying to unify all of the efforts that are going on right now. in reaching out to institutions to put together what i call a metaphorical mri of the gulf to test for hydrocarbons. we are trying to bring that together in a task force to put it on the target. it is going to be important in the near term. ships have gone out and look for plumes. they are very difficult to locate. we are going to do everything we can to locate it and understand what the implications of that

are. it is hard to do that. i did not answer your second question. you ask about containment. just thoughts about containment, when we realize that we had a flow rate around 53,000 barrels of day, actually, before that, we said it was 35,000 to 60,003 went to bp and said that this is what we wanted them to do. this was in the middle of june. we said that you need to build a system that can accommodate 53,000 barrels a day. you need to provide a recovery system that will produce that much. we were somewhere around 25,000 barrels a day. we said that not only do we want a capacity, we want redundancy in two ways. bp came back to us and the proposed a system that would

contain 60,000 barrels to 80,000 barrels a day with four different lines being used. and there would be four vessels that we brought in to receive that and the oil would be shuttled to shore. the cappings that was one to allow us to move to that router production. if one of those four were not operating, and if you remember, there was a lightning strike and we have fires and mechanical breakdowns. we wanted something that could approach 80,000 barrels a day. they designed that and it was probably two-thirds of the way done when we had a weather window for about 11 days when it would be calm and we decided to put the capping stack on. we did it and it worked.

then we did the static kill. , we wouldot worked have produced 60,000 barrels to 80,000 barrels a day. is that responsive? >> [inaudible] >> that is an excellent question. i have to preface that >> providing how oil is produced in the gulf, now. somewhere in the late 1980's and late 1990's, we put platforms that have the blowout preventer on the platform and the pipe went down and there was a space that it went through in the water before it went into the ground. once they deal that -- once they did that, everything went deep. there were two implications associated with that. they went deep and.

the oil pollution act probably can't should have been called the tanker oril pollution act. certificates of financial responsibility for companies that were carrying oil. the fact of the matter is that in the gulf of mexico, the drilling systems went to the bottom and they have directional drilling and almost all of that oil is recovered by pipelines that take it back to shore where it is transported someplace else. if you have a problem in a well, and you are trying to recover the oil, as is what happened in this case, that does not help you to contain it. what bp had to do to create the containment system that we ordered them to do to give us the redundancy and the capacity,

they had to go get pieces of production capability that was in different parts of the world. they brought in floating production platforms and shuttle tankers. that is how to produce oil in the north sea. if you go to scotland, you would find shuttle tankers coming in with oil and transferring it to shore, but to do that, the tankers have to have the capability to be dynamically positioned. instead of having a traditional engine room and a propeller and a writer, you have to have propulsion jets, nozzles, computer controls that allow you to take gps information and hold the it and it tells the ship what to do. it is an order of magnitude that they built into certain takers because it is so expensive. they did not have those in the gulf of mexico. the first thing that they did was to bring those production platforms in and bring it

ashore. the second is how do you bring it to the surface. the riser pipes are not connected to the well or the production unit at the top. they have a flexible coupling that comes out of the well and this riser pipe is anchored below the surface and at the top, there is another flexible hose that goes into the production unit. that is the with a produced oil off of van gogh law, off the west coast of africa. i am not trying to be glib. there are some significant implications for that moving forward. what bp created in about 85 days was a production system for welcome payment for this incident that could be the foundation to look at response systems in the future for containment as part of a reassessment for response plans and how to mitigate risk in the future for oil production. . .

they are liable for not being able to respond to a spill if that the equipment is not fair. we had to go through to issue a rule to lift the response requirements for loosen them. we still have a local problem.

moving forward, you can see a serious discussion about how to change this in the future and how this complies with state law and liability concerns. the equipment that was down was put to very could lose -- use. some were very useful. some of the skimmers were very helpful to us. >> can you assess for us how cooperative petroleum has been? as we approached the peak of the hurricane season, if a category

four or five comes in to the gulf, how secure is what is in place t? >> this does not exist in law and regulation. the doctrine we follow this guy did find that legislation and the national contingency plan which is a regulation issued by the epa. the basic premise in the legislation of 1990 would be the responsible party pays, they are designated in writing. they are liable for the cost of

cleanup, claims, damage assessment, resources, mitigation. they also made his decision in the law for public policy that we would create private-sector in this country that would do spill cleanup. we have a response plan for facility and the worst case discharge is this. i have these resources coming back to do that. we made a decision in this country that we would privatize this bill response and those resources would be used i

believe there is a social and political nullification of the law. this is very hard for the public to understand that a responsible party that is clearly responsible for the situation itself some of the cooperative in the response to this bill. as a matter of fact, since 1990, that is that we have conducted the oospores ponce in this country. if they're responsible party will pay, someone will have to write the checks. you will need to bring a catering team in 2 feet these people, someone has to physically order that and then pay the contractors.

you pull together, you create unity of effort and you attack this bill. i get a lot of questions. do you trust british petroleum? have they lied to you? the goal should be unity of effort. the state, the local government, the private sector, everyone involved. my goal is to create unity of the effort and to promote the most effective cleanup.

you can call this trust, cooperation, collaboration, the current response model assumes irresponsible party will work with local and state entities to have an effective spill response. it has been challenging to create that unity of effort given what appears to be the reduction of the notion by the general public. the fact of the matter is that that does not create the reality on scene. there is a limit to how much the federal government can spend on a spill response but to reach that cap, we are pretty much out of business. they also have, here is the issue, they have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. they have to book liabilities on their finance sheet.

the intermixing of their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and their legal -- legal requirements creates a complex set of relationships. i think moving forward as we look to the spill response and the future, that can create, and in the distance. we don't have to go through this at the start because you have to collaborate with these people to have an effective response. >> have they done this? >> i believe this happens at different levels. if i want something done, i called tony hayward. the believe that this starts to break down. i have mentioned this before,

vp is a very large oil exploration -- bp is a very large oil exploration company. if you look at the things that need to be done in this bill, at the wellhead, they did an extraordinary feat in bringing these technologies from the north sea and an bola. this was nonrecurring engineering investment in the future. when you start to pay claims which is the responsibility of the responsible party and you hire a third party contractor, it is different to have outsource empathy and compassion. their ability to connect one on one with the public when you

insert a third party in between, if you have corporate values, trying to go into that attenuated. the lens by which the public measures a response is not necessarily the -- at the wellhead, this is how people were affected by the claims process. it is difficult if you don't have that competency to ability to translate into that third- party contract. moving forward, we need to understand a couple of things. what is the role of the responsible party? i think beyond that, we have moved to the expectation in this country where we will have a whole government response that will include things like behavioral health, monitoring,

things that are not allowed under the trust fund for me to spend money on. what is the government's involvement, what is their duty to we have redefined the way you do in these responses. during hurricane katrina, we would find a place to establish trailers and get people out of emergency housing. unique case workers, social services, americans with disabilities act compliance. if it's very very difficult when we sit down and think about what is the whole of the government response. i think we need better clarity moving forward. one of the reasons we celebrated the information is that i thought if we could do.

while integrity test and hold, we would not have to go to the larger production system. we can leave the well unattended if there was a hurricane. if we had gone to the production system, we were producing 80,000 barrels a day, we would have the redundancy but we would have likely had to abandon the site during the hurricanes. there is a window of opportunity that the neurologist agreed we had about a 11 day window. we could actually accelerate putting the capt. staff on. if we were to put the well in, we could halt the flow. i directed bp to submit a plan. the regional plan was given to us on the 21st of june who says that we will have a cabin staff gone. sometimes things go right,

sometimes we're delayed by weather. we have stopped the flow of the hydrocarbons. >> that is it for questions. thank you very much for joining us today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> next week, we will show you the continuing investigation into the deep water or rise in incident as the bureau of ocean management and the coast guard hear testimony from trans ocean, bp, the halliburton.

next, vice president biden speaks at the summit meeting of the democratic national committee. this is followed by a town hall meeting with representative ed royce. then a meeting with danny davis. now the remarks by joe biden of the summer meeting of the dnc in st. louis. he predicts that the democrats will keep control in the midterm elections. he is introduced by the democratic national committee chairman.

>> the vice president stood with the president on health care. this guarantee that the americans were able to get insurance that they could afford. he stood with the democrats to an act financial reforms. we don't want americans to be left holding the bag for failed wall street campbells. he has been a powerful force behind everything this administration as accomplished at home and abroad. vice president biden has been

fighting for democrats this entire life. he has been a champion for the democratic party in his home state of delaware. even at this early stage, he must rank as one of the most important influential and effective vice presidents in our nation's history. and nearly democrat in the early part of the 20 century, the governor of new york earned the name, the happy warrior. that was applied later to fdr, cuba humphrey. this is a great phase in a democratic tradition. we are proud to welcome a wonderful vice-president, vice president biden. host [inaudible] [applause]

>> thank you. thank-you.

thank you for that gracious introduction. one of my mentors when i got to the senate', one of the people who is probably the major influences to get me into gear was hubert humphrey. i always called him boss. tim be compared to him is way above my capacity. to be compared to franklin roosevelt, that is not in the realm of possibility. i want to thank all of you.

thank you for all of your hard work. because of your hard work and the party infrastructure you have placed across the country, the i'm proud to say, "the reports of the death of the democratic party have been greatly exaggerated."

[applause] this is because of you. there will be a democratic majority in the house and in the senate. how that will be the case. the american people are much much smarter than they're given credit for. they knew the mess that we inherited.

they know in their gut so, they're like the people that i grew up with in every town throughout america, they know that the road will be rough. 1 million people stood there, you could see it in their eyes, there was this sense of hope and expectation but they also knew there were no easy answers. they knew it was going to be tough. folks, let's get real and look at the facts. not for the purpose of litigating the past but for the purpose of setting a marker as to whether we are helping the future. we are dealing with

collateralized obligations, subprime mortgages, basically the last administration had a ponzi scheme masquerading as a vision in terms of our future. we inherited a debt of 1.3 trillion dollars before we did a single thing and it projected deficit of 8 trillion dollars for the next 10 years. we inherited an economy that is shrinking at almost 7%. we had already lost 740,000 jobs the month.

everyone represents a face, a person, an individual. honey, i'm sorry, but you cannot go back to roosevelt junior high. you will not be able to sing in the choir, play in little league team with daddy or mommy. these other people behind those statistics, tens of millions of them have made that want. that literally remember them walking up the stairs and they

were sitting on the edge of the bed when i was 10 years old. she said, jo, that will have to move. the i m down with uncle frank. there are jobs there. i realize how hard that was. this was from my grandfather's pantry to stand there with my grandfather and his four sons. can you keep gene and the kids? i promised to work out, this will be more than a year. that is what those statistics represent.

my dad used to have an expression. he would say the job is worth a lot more than a paycheck. this is about pride, dignity. this recession stripped over 8.5 million people out of their livelihood and their dignity. we meant what we said, we said we would not measure the success of this administration by the growth of the gdp are whether this one of $12,000, $14,000. we were looking to help people in the middle class. we're not there yet. we inherited a foreign policy in total disarray.

that is about our ability to lead not only coming from our adversaries but our friend. we have gone from the clinton years to the respected nation in the world to one of the least respected. folks, wheat knew most of this before you put us in office. it was even worse than most people thought. we knew there would be no easy answers. when he talked about taking me and we talked about how that relationship work, i remember sitting on a couch in a room out on a hotel in minneapolis, st. paul.

all kidding aside, we talked about it. as my great grandfather said, we did not fall off of the turn of fighting yesterday. the president said that this is about change, we knew this could not be incremental. we knew this would not be popular initially. in everyone of our people knew this too, they stepped up and people began to fill in the scuffle hole that we fell into. folks, we knew that we had to act boldly. i would posit that we did with the help of a courageous democratic congress led by harry reid and nancy pelosi who is one of the most significant leaders

i have ever worked with. nancy pelosi, you got it. she is something else. we need the help of a lottery people like you standing behind us because we have been through some tough times. to make those tough choices, the leaders had to be prepared to take their experience, use their experience, and really actually believe. we needed people to believe that we got things done. we would have done a lot of different things but we absolutely believe with every fiber in our being the initiatives that we took our necessary. look at what the president has

done. he has stabilized the financial system and that was not popular. he prevented a total economic meltdown that would not have only affected the u.s. but the worldwide economy. think about it, many people have forgotten. on we were not talking about the bank's reorganizing, we were talking about them closing the doors. i remember the first meeting we had a chicago when we're putting together a new government. paul volcker headed a group of

50 economists the president and myself asked whether or not we would have to declare a bank holiday on said yuri 21st. the president acted remarkably well. the banks have 40 paid back 200 billion and they will pay back every single penny the taxpayers let them. we change the health-care system in america was broken. we gave texas to small businesses this was long term over hundred billion dollars in the first 12 years we've helped

people who lost their jobs survive. people were lying down the foundation of the 21st century. we cannot lead the world in the 21st century the same basic policy as we did in the twenties century. we need a new economy. the results of all of this, more than 3 billion americans are working today without this legislation. when the president to announce this initiative, he said, referred to me as sheriff joe. am proud to say that dog does not been yet. this is working.

we've put in new consumer protection agencies will be there to make sure that people have been there as in the past. we in this system or credit card companies could raise your rate 40% just because they could, they can raise or rate at any time for any reason and they did during the week ended a system where people could entice people to mortgages they cannot afford with no documentation and a teaser rate that would skyrocket forcing millions and millions into foreclosure. we ended a system where they could pay a woman less than a man for the exact same work. no more. no more.

[applause] one of the most unpopular things that we did, we rescued the automobile industry that was not about to reorganize, it was about to liquidate. the year before, we helped gm and chrysler emerged from bankruptcy. they shed 431,000 jobs in that year. since the reorganization, the industry has added 76,000 jobs to. [applause] there are a total of 1.6 million people employed in the automobile industry. instead of handing subsidies to big banks, we made those loans

direct, making them more affordable for 8 million additional families. [applause] if you had sat in my kitchen table growing up or yours, one of the things people are worst more of it -- most worried about right now, will add be able to send my child for a second year of school? the no anyone who does not have the aspiration to send their -- do you know anyone who does not have desperation to send their child to college? we are making that literally. we have tripled how much per

taxpayer and his family. we increased the pell grant award. how many people did not graduate from college in debt? how many of you have had kids in school who graduated in recent debt? the good news for me is that the market is high and knows about to share my home in order to pay for student loans. ladies and gentlemen, how will we go from 12th in the world from bread 40 from college to number one again. folks, this is not possible? we won from a business

environment that was generating practically no private investment and education to a business where we invested over $200 million in capital and new technologies and innovation. we did what good republicans used to do as far back as lincoln. we provided seed money to private industry. we know that we will not restore the government. we will restore the free enterprise system. we have to remind people this republican party, lincoln in the middle of a civil war photophore and pushed an act that the congress passed that had no interest in what was going on in the idaho, montana, or the state of washington but

for the continental road. they would get some -- $16,000 in bonds if they laid down a mile of track. the eisenhower administration came up with a program that eventually became the interim net -- the internet. it was the seed money of a federal investment that got the things started. i'm not trying to be a wise guy, i am being deadly earnest. none of this would havem-m happened without you and courageous congressional leaders who were willing to

stand up not for what they felt was popular but for what they knew was right. what we did is working. the american people are beginning to see it. in america lost 3 million jobs in the last six months of the bush illustration. in the first six months of this year, we have added 630,000 jobs this is not enough. this is more than the bush administration created. at the end of the bush administration, the gdp 7%. we are growing. we need more growth.

the people know it takes a long time to bring back 8 million jobs and revive an economy that has slipped so badly. we knew we could not guarantee economic growth in washington. we can support a vision that launched the norris can grab onto and providing the seed money. we can set national goals that inspire the nation to new heights. that is exactly what president obama and the democratic congress have done. we have replaced the failed vision of the past with a new vision of the future. we are encouraging ingenuity and talent and the most traded people in our country. a middle class that gets ahead instead of continually falling behind.

this is our vision. this something we not had some time, and national vision. you have to ask yourself, why is the polls showing things better. i suspect this audiences like preaching to the choir. you don't doubt what i'm saying. you have to ask yourself why. why is this not self-evident? my grandpa used to have an expression, he is to say, no one focuses on politics. the world series is over. it does not early focus until after labor day. that is literally true. people focus on their circumstance and how upset they are with good reason because i need have said that many have

been stripped of their dignity. they look at their and the focus on the other person who was there, the only one they see. come labor day, they will begin to have to compare. did not compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative. that is an old saying. ladies and gentlemen, people do not want to have to focus right now. they know that they can focus on their understandable anger and

frustration and fear. as they focus on the alternative, what they will find out is that the choices are pretty stark. we will begin to see a board that is a combination of the old failed policies of the bush administration, the old mill conservative notions about international relations combined with a new set of draconian ideas basically on steroids, the

old process. that is not a joke. people will go up and see what they are offering. they're offering more the past on steroids. this is not a joke. this sounds like it is funny but this is true. it is not that they don't have any new ideas, they actually have new ideas. they're taking the old ones and even further squeezing the life out of them. this is in germanladies and genk about it. take off the republican or

democratic had and ask yourself, what alternative has been offered? what alternative has been offered? ask yourself, i have been a senator and a vice president for a total 37 years now. i can say without fear of contradiction that there is no time in my career or recent history when every major initiative of one party has been able to garner more than three votes from the republican party. let's assume that we were wrong 90% of the time, 10% of the time, there would be some the support. there is virtually none. they have all made a deal, even the ones that no better, that

they will go along with the republican leadership in the house and senate in every procedural matter and not give a single vote. they gave a couple, i mean a couple. i don't mean 10%, 20%. it is clear. i remember the president's not really wanted to accept my suggestion that i had spoken to seven republican senators in the first two months, i want to be with you on this but i cannot be because i have made a commitment that i was day every procedural vote with my party. people, they are betting on, they are betting on our failure without realizing whenever government is in power today fails, the american people failed. fortunately, we have been able to overcome it. this is not in a clear channel.

this is not in a clear unadulterated message to the american people. why is it taking so long? why is it difficult? these are big and complex bills. we have a chance now, the people are starting to focus and they are laying out exactly what they mean to ever to americans. the alternative, they will see the party of joe barton and john boehner and mitch mcconnell. they are decent people. joe barton is a leading republican on the house energy committee. the me remind you, there is a requirement for bp having to foot the bill for the oil spill as a shakedown. this was not a slick of the -- the of the tongue, it was not.

he was honest enough to assert it. he's not a bad guy, i am not making a moral judgment on anything he said. that is what he believes. he represents a party that believes the essence of what he asserts. john boehner. i like a lot of republicans. i really do. i hope they like me even though i strongly disagree with them. john boehner is a decent guy. he said that our efforts to regulate the excesses' of wall street and the financial industry was holding wall street accountable. he said this was akin to using a nuclear weapon to kill an ant. just what, that is a pretty big

dam and, if a up about 8 million jobs. -- guess what, that is a pretty big damn ant, it ate up about 8 million jobs. mitch mcconnell, we have worked together for years. we just eulogized ted stevens a few days ago. i like him. he calls for the health care bill to be "repealed and replaced." he wants to repeal the protections for parents of diabetes. he wants to repeal the right of a parent who keep their children on their insurance plan wall their children are in college. he would like to repeal a tax cut that would kick in soon for small businesses who will put an

end to provide health care for their employees. he would like to repeal the preventive care for seniors to keep them from being more sick. he wants to replace this with the tyranny of the insurance companies. ladies and gentlemen, if you read through this, they are pretty clear about what they believe. there the party of 2010 of repeal and repeat. repeat the old practices of the past. i believe that this is out of step with what the american people want in it is our job to draw those clear distinctions. when the american people, when they're focused on our differences, i think we will do just fine in november. there's a choice for americans in this election and it is not between democrats and the almighty, this is between the democrats and the party of

repeal and repeat. the present and i believe and we have said repeatedly and i think you do to, that it is much forced to accept a situation that we cannot bear rather than to steal our splined and embrace the promise of change even the change is always frightening. that is why you put us in the white house, to steal our spines and in turn how turn this great country around. how where is it written that the u.s. must yield its economic supremacy to china? where is it written that we cannot once again be the leading manufacturer of automotive and industrconsumer-products in the? where is it written that we cannot be as innovative and

creative in the new technologies the future -- technologies of the future? if we do not, we cannot lead the world. ladies and gentlemen, every american knows that there's no possibility of us leading the 21st century with the same education, energy policies that we have had in the last century. they also know that change creates uncertainty. we will lay out honestly what we did and what the alternative this -- what the alternative is. there is a place my friend knows

just along the line in delaware and this is called the avondale quarry. this is a deep deep for a of clear water with high cliffs on the side. there is dis dare as nest, the crow's nest, and eagle's nest. these are things and people go up and tried to jump off of the highest one is about a hundred feet. our remembered being the worst kind of kid, i would be one of those kids that would jump off and people would say, isn't that frightening? we know it is frightening about this, you go down very deep. you go down so deep that it is black and for a split-second, your chest constricts because you are frightened and you don't know if you're slimming down or

up. you'd get about 15 feet towards the top and you can see the light. you are still drowning. you know you are moving in the right direction. that is what we have to make clear to the american people. they know that they should not be doing the call now. they know the depths that we were put in by this less administration will take time. i promise you, they're like the people that i grew up with in my neighborhoods in scranton. you sit around the kitchen table in my house where people lost jobs and think in this that i said, the news came in come the stock market is up, it did not matter.

these to be a chain of supermarkets down in the philadelphia area and they would hire about 120 people. many people around the kitchen table said, you know, it will be okay. our objectives, the president and mine, and i know yours, it is to stop the want of this flight of stairs and allow every parent out there to take a look at their kids eyes and say, it will be okay. it will be okay. that is what we are about. the only way it will be okay is if we don't turn back now, if we don't continue to stay the course on producing an entire new industry generating new investments, generating an opportunity for americans to be

able to once again lead has the world in economic growth. -- once again lead the world and economic growth. as i see it and i am sure you see it, this is not about the next election, how this really is about the next generation. i truly believe that the public realizes that we're focusing on the welfare of the next generation. we will be going back to washington in the majority.

god bless you all and may god protect our troops. thank you. [applause] >[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> up next, ed royce holds a town hall meeting. and after that, danny davis. >> one of the things i regret about political and rhetorical life in washington is every major figure from the president on down is merely reading what

someone else has produced. >> our guests or speeches for president carter's secretary of state. we will discuss his insights on washington. >> now a town hall gathering with representative ed royce. the california republican is in his ninth term and he represents orange county. this is an hour and five minutes.

>> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, one nation, under god, with liberty and justice for all. a couple of other people the budget introduced in the audience, the real ed royce, and royce senior. also did joini would start withp up of four we are in washington, d.c. and open that up for your