e actions of north korea that they do. that north korea does. the first thing you said is you'll be guided by what they do not do. >> mackey, this is a situation of north korea is making. we have not tested nuclear devices. north korea did. not fired missiles threatening other countries. north korea has. north korea wants a relationship with other countries around the world including the united states we need north korea to demonstrate it can be a participant in the sixth party process and have a different kind of relationship with the rest of the world.

we will evaluate this on an ongoing basis. this is a deliberative process. we're going to consult closely with other countries in the region, but the responsibility here rests with north korea. it has to demonstrate -- it has to earn its place back to the negotiation table. >> same topic. >> go ahead. >> of the previous question, can you say that there's a possibility that there might be a meeting? is that a possibility? >> i am not anticipating that as a possibility. >> what about the chinese three- step proposal? are you saying you're not ready to accept it?

>> the sixth party process in balls close consultation with the other project involves close at consultation with the other partners. china may have an idea of where we can proceed to a better place and we have our own ideas. other countries also have their faults on how to move forward. we will be this cult -- we will be consulting the sweet

even as we consulted, the primary responsibility rests with north korea. but korea is responsible for the place that we are again. if they want to move somewhere else, then they have to demonstrate they are prepared to change. >> can you say at that proposal was discussed in the meeting?

>> i am not going to characterize -- that chinese government in characterize its own position. we're in the meeting with deputy secretary, i think there was a follow-up meeting with bosworth and kim. we will be consulting with our other partners in the region and we will charge a course for. but even as we consults on future engagements with north korea, the primary responsibility is north korea's. it brought us to this point, and if we are going to move to a better place, it will be up to north korea to demonstrate it is prepared to engage constructively.

>> >> that is really up to north korea to take responsibility for any of its actions. we are all trying to interpret what has happened and work collaborative lead to interment -- collaborative leak to determine the best path for. >> to you believe it depends on china? whenever something happens in the region, there the first for consultation. >> we call the six party process because we of the country's that armas significantly affected by and have the ability to shape peace and security in the region. china has a special responsibility.

it has been a leader within the six-party process and we will look to china to demonstrate leadership going forward. china has had recent high-level meetings with the north koreans. we will vow to their sharing their perspective with us -- we will value their sharing their specs -- their perspective with us. they have a special role to play in pushing north korea to be a more constructive player. >> for position [unintelligible] >> i did not hear the question. >> the ambassador has proposed another high-level meeting between united states and north korea. >> i am not here to be spokesperson.s

i'll leave it to china to describe their view of the current situation. they were here at the state department today and shared their perspective on where they rested on where we are, their interpretation of what needs to be done based on their conversations with north korean leaders. we have our own ideas. we will be consulting further and sharing our ideas at some point with our partners in this process. together we will chart a way forward. i will leave it to china to describe its tube of the kurds' situation. >> they have frequent visits to china. >> at this point, we have just had china's perspective this morning. i am not reading too rigid willing to read tea leaves here.

-- i am not willing to read tea leaves here. >> on to the middle east talks, what can you expect to see here tomorrow? secretary clinton starts to relaunch another round of talks. >> i suppose will allow further details this afternoon. there was a final walk-through of events for tomorrow a little bit ago. we have not got a full readout, but we will have midinettes this afternoon that will provide further detail. i will anticipate that they will start with statements by secretary clinton, president abbas, and prime minister netanyahu. there will then be trilateral meetings in her outer office. ofre's the prospect

additional site meetings during the course of the time they will be here. and at the end, we will have a readout for you by george mitchell. >> where will they make their remarks? >> i believe on the eighth floor in the ben franklin room. that will be open for media coverage. >> will there be a big table in there? someplace where they might sit and talk, or will all but talking be done elsewhere? >> this was part of the subject of the walk-through. i think that they will be at a table. again, i have not been fully briefed on the specific arrangements. >> do know if it is rounder square? >> i cannot describe the table. i would anticipate that the delegation would be here as a rough guess for roughly three

hours, it could be longer. we do not have the day entirely scripted. but i would anticipate that george mitchell will brief you sometime in the early to mid- afternoon. and because we do expect have a very significant meeting contingents here tomorrow, we will move this briefing to the dean acheson. of course. >> this is the secretary's first foray to bring the two sides together. as she reached out to predecessors who have tried to do this in the past? >> she has had the opportunity to interact directly with the number of veterans some of them still on the team, and some of

them on the other team. for example, she has this relationship with this fellow who has been some time talking to leaders, president clinton, and she has benefited from his direct experience. but she has also frequently discussed this issue ahead rock -- with ehud barak, and others who have been part of this process before. barak is still part of the team, and george mitchell has experience going back to the late 1990's. she is already the recipient of a lot of experience in helping bring us to where we are. over time, she has received briefings from those who had experience here.

but the been that this is -- inside the room both daytime -- today and tomorrow, you have leaders on all sides who have understood the history of these efforts in going back more than a decade. hold on. >> proceedings overnight. we have around of condemnations from the white house and the state department to both parties in these talks. today we have a group of settlers saying that they are going to start construction that they have not already started in response to yesterday's shooting par regardless of the fact that there is a moratorium. what is the concern about the outside actors that neither of boston and netanyahu controlled directly, that they might have on these talks? >> first of all we are gratified that, notwithstanding efforts by

extremists on all sides to take actions that impede progress, the commitment that we see today with the president meeting with prime minister netanyahu and president abbas, the condemnations that you saw yesterday, if you are seeing the kind of commitment and courage that we think is necessary to prevail. violence was not an act of courage, it was an act of cowardice. what kind of courage does it take to murder pregnant women? hamas is a captive of the conflict but it will my -- it will not in just for negotiation. we understand fully that from our past experience, during the

course of the next year, there will be efforts on all side too complicated, if not indeed, further progress. it will be up to the leaders to demonstrate their commitment, as they are doing as we speak, that they will not be deterred by these acts on various sides. they're demonstrating their commitment to try to work through the complex issues, and we're gratified by their support, their involvement, their commitment, and all we can say is we offer the same determination to try to end this conflict, not for further violence, but to negotiation and a just agreement that produces two states living side by side in peace. in one of the core issues of mr. barak, saying that his side is

willing to consider dividing jerusalem into three parts, one part for the israelis, one or for palestinians, and a shared region says -- surrounding the holy sites for both judaism and islam under of international auspices perhaps. as they come up at all? can you confirm that it would even be part of the deal finally? >> the secretary had a meeting with prime minister netanyahu last night. the president has had a meeting with prime minister netanyahu today. the secretary had a further meeting here tomorrow. we are sharing ideas among the parties. i cannot say -- i was in the meetings today -- whether this is the position that the israelis have put on the table or not.

clearly the issues of settlements, jerusalem, refugees, borders, security, are the issues that we have been talking about it in the lead up to these meetings. they will be discussed at these meetings. we will be negotiating these issues as we try to reach a final agreement. >> where the september 25? any indications that the israelis may move against it? >> the direct negotiations that we sought for the past 19 months, they have arrived. they are under way. we're talking about all the issues. we want to see the start of the big process. moving forward, that is what we are pursuing today. we're touching all the bases. hold on.

>> the palestinian president is adamant about stopping all settlements as a precondition for talks. are they being more flexible on this? >> i can report to you that these are meetings that are ongoing. all the core issues are being discussed, and i have the benefit of not knowing precisely what they're discussing at this moment. >> following up on that question on the israeli defense minister, dividing jerusalem, a spokesman for netanyahu came out and said that jerusalem will remain the eternal capital of

israel undivided. i we'll understand fully -- had been a part of previous rounds of peace talks as well. there is going to be a lot of public speculation, a lot of public posturing in the coming hours, days, weeks. there is a negotiation ongoing. that is what counts. it is not how you posture in public, it is what you are willing to deliver in private. that is how you get to a final settlement. that is why we felt that these direct negotiations were important. it is the only way to resolve these complex issues. they're going to be done at the negotiating table, not here at the podium. michelle. >> the prime minister's office said today that mr. netanyahu told secretary clinton yesterday that it would be no extension of the moratorium on september 25.

can you confirm that? >> i will repeat what i just said -- there are negotiations going on. there are going to be a lot a stray voltage that one side of the other conveys. there is negotiations going on. what counts is what happening inside that room, and we're not going to speculate here as to what is being discussed. we are addressing all of the core issues. you will hear from george mitchell tomorrow as to the character of our discussions, and what the net steps are. -- next steps are. i'm sorry? >> that is what he said. june in mid-afternoon.

>> is there going to be any access to the trilateral in the secretary's our office? when they are actually sitting down for the direct talks, rather than the ben franklin room, which we all know and love but is the size of a football field. is there going to be any footage or press access to that said that people can shoot them sitting down to talk? >> a i think it is possible that we might release some official voters. i do not anticipate any access to that meeting tomorrow. >> in what respect? [inaudible] >> to the extent to the core issues include borders, the per

perspective terry story of the palestinian state will be discussed as part of these talks. -during the course of the coming days and weeks we hope to have regular interaction between israeli and palestinian officials in ways that we have not had any while, and during the course of these meetings we would expect both issues being discussed within the context of the negotiations, and you are able to continue to address and resolve current issues to avoid the kind of impediments to progress that we have seen in the past. is gauze that and the situation in gaza part of this process? yes, it is. and we're gratified that the recent changes in policies that have been made have had an

aza.ct on the ground in go more needs to be done. >> what changes have been made? >> in terms of the flow of goods and material into the people of gaza. it is tangential to the court final status issues. it is in direct, but i am certain that as we increase contacts between israeli and palestinian officials, a full range of issues will be discussed. including gaza. >> has there been context with hamas officials? >> i refer back to george mitchell's transcript at the white house today. there are four principles as to who can produce a paid in this pursuit of peace. anyone who is committed to

peace, nonviolence, recognizes israel, recognizes previous agreements, can have a role to play in this process. abbas is not part of this process because they refused to agree -- hamas is not a part of this process because they have refused to agree. >> the moratorium does expire, is there a plan be? >> that is the third effort at this issue. we are in the negotiations. that is where we want to be. we are addressing all the issues in such a negotiation. you will hear from george mitchell tomorrow. >> what role saudi arabia playing? >> saudi arabia advance the arab peace initiative.

it understands this process. we value the role the saudi arabia has played. we have been consulting with saudi arabia along with other countries in the region. others are here to demonstrate their recent report -- their support for this effort. we will continue to consult closely with saudi arabia as the process moves forward. >> p.j., from what you have been speaking of in this briefing as well as what occurred at the white house, basically you are saying this is really a rub ik's cube. the iranians and some of their road elements, how did they enter into this to sabotage this? you mentioned have run. -- hebron.

are you saying to syria or the lebanese that they have to pull back from the border, as well as a demand from the israelis that the palestinians have to say flat out that it is going to be a jewish state? it is a rubik's cube. how you gauge these talks? >> we're pleased that the negotiations have been started. it is something we have been working intensively toward for 18 months. direct negotiations are the only way to reach an agreement and to resolve the conflict. we're very mindful of where countries like iran or substage entities such as hamas can play

spoiler roles. we are gratified that despite yesterday's violence, the leaders have shown their determination, shown their commitment to continue the process today and tomorrow. we will rely on them to continue to show that kind of commitment and courage and leadership because we anticipate that yesterday's violence tragically will not be the only one that we see. i think it will be important for people in the region to look at the contrast between the division of hamas, and the vision of leaders like president abbas in building up the institute's knesset -- institutions necessary for an eventual palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security with israel. the two visions of are in stark

relief, and we're gratified that on this side of the equation we have a committed leaders like president abbas who is willing to resist, condemned the violence, and to continue his pursuit, his life's pursuit. you we're leaving the last few minutes to go live to president obama, who just finished a series of meetings with leaders of the white house -- middle east leaders at the white house. >> could afternoon, everyone. upon taking office i declared that america is a friend of each nation and every person who seeks of future of peace and dignity. and that the united states was ready to lead in pursuit of that future. since the beginning of my administration i have stated that it was our policy to actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between israel and the palestinians. as well as a comprehensive peace between israel and all of its arab neighbors. and to support secretary

clinton's leadership, i appointed as special envoy in one of our nation's finest baseman, george mitchell, to guide our efforts. our goal is a to-state solution that ends the conflict in ensures their rights and security of both israelis and palestinians. despite the inevitable challenges, we have never wavered in pursuit of this goal. i have met with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and palestinian and off party mahmoud abbas on numerous occasions. between them, secretary clinton and senator mitchell have made countless trips to the region. over the past year, both the israeli government and the palestinian authority have taken important steps to build confidence. with senator mitchell support, the israelis and palestinians have engaged in proximity talks,

even in the face of difficult circumstances. we have always made it clear that the only path to lasting peace between israelis and palestinians is direct talks between israelis and palestinians. tomorrow after nearly two years, the parties will relaunch those direct talks. today i had a series of very productive meetings with key partners in this effort. i urge prime minister netanyahu and president abbas to seize this opportunity. i thank president mubarak and the leader of jordan for their help, and i look forward to hosting these leaders at a dinner at the white house tonight. i want to express our gratitude to the many friends and allies, especially our quartet partners, and former prime minister tony

blair will be joining us representing the quartet dinner this evening. the purpose of these talks is clear. these will be direct negotiations between israelis and palestinians. these negotiations are intended to resolve all final status issues. the goal is a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967, and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and a viable palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with a jewish state of israel and its other neighbors. that is the vision we are pursuing. i know these talks have been greeted in some quarters with skepticism. we are under no illusions. passions run deep. each side has legitimate and enduring interests. years of mistrust will not

disappear overnight. building confidence will require painstaking diplomacy and trust by the parties. if there is a reason that the two-state solution has eluded previous generations. this is extraordinarily complex and difficult. but the status quo is unsustainable. for israelis, for palestinians, for the region, and for the world. it is in the national interest of all involved, including the united states, that this conflict be brought to a peaceful conclusion. abouts we're clear right the challenges ahead, so do we see the progress. they are already come are critical operating on a daily basis to build security and improve conditions on the ground. among the israeli and palestinian public, there is

wide support for a two-state solution. the broad outlines are known to both people. even in the midst of this discourse, ordinary israelis and palestinians, state leaders, civil society groups, doctors, scientists, businessmen, students, find ways to work together every day. their heroic efforts in the grassroots shows that cooperation and progress is possible and should inspire us all. in addition, prime minister netanyahu and president abbas are two leaders who i believe one piece. both sides have indicated that these negotiations can be completed within one year. as i have told each of them today, this moment of opportunity may not send, again. they cannot afford to let it slip away. now's the time for leaders with courage to deliver the peace that their people deserve.

the not states will put our full weight behind this effort. we will be an active and sustained participant. we will support those the make difficult choices in pursuit of peace. but let me be very clear -- all to lead the united states cannot impose a solution and we cannot want it more than the parties themselves. there are enormous risks involved. for all parties concerned, but we cannot do it for them. we can create the environment and the atmosphere for negotiations, but ultimately it is going to require the leadership on both the palestinian and israeli side as well as those in the region who say they want a palestinian state. a lot of times i hear from those who in heat -- who insist that this is a top priority, yet too

little to actually support efforts that could bring about a palestinian state. only a rail -- only israelis and palestinians can make the difficult choices to make progress. if only they can prove to be jutted they are ready to end this conflict and make the compromises upon which lasting peace -- what we can do is to support those conversations, support those talks, and support those efforts and not try to undermine them. the hard work is only beginning. neither success or failure is inevitable, but this much we know. if we do not make the attempt, then fell year is guaranteed. -- failure is guaranteed. it both sides to not commit to talks in earnest, the longstanding conflict will fester and consumer another

generation, and as this we simply cannot allow. there will be momus the test our resolve. we know that extremists and enemies of peace will do everything in their power to destroy this effort. as we saw and heinous attack , which we strongly condemn, but too much blood has been shed, to many lives have been lost, to many parts had been broken. despite what the cynics say, history teaches us that there is a different path. it is the path of resolve and determination. where compromises possible and long-lasting conflicts can in. the path traveled by those who brought peace to their countries from northern ireland, where senator mitchell was so deeply involved, to the falklands, to africa, asia, to those to forge

peace between israel and egypt, and israel and jordan. this path is open to israelis and palestinians it all sides persevered in good faith and with a sense of purpose of possibility, we can build a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the middle east. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> more on the middle east peace talks from the east room of the white house later today. prime minister netanyahu, president abbas, king abdallah of jordan, and egyptian president mubarak. you can see that live on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. coverage continues tonight with the california senate debate

between barbara boxer and republican candidates carly fiorina. it is the first debate between the two candidates, and they will answer questions from a panel of california political reporters, live tonight at 10:00 a.m. east -- 10:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> book tv's primetime continues tonight with a look at social networking. david kirkpatrick on the growth of facebook. julia angwin talks about myspace. the cult of the amateur talking about the value of digital media by that people. and then media giant, google. but tv primetime tonight on c- span2. >> up next, a discussion on third-party candidates from this morning's "washington journal" with richard winger.

host: we have been doing our summer series. this week we are looking at issues involving electoral politics. we looked at the 2010 senate and house races on monday. yesterday we looked at the impact of political ads. today we look at the role of independents and third-party. our guest is richard winger who joins us from san fraisco. could you give an explanation of what solid access news is? and its role on political tickets? guest: ballot access news is a 25-year-old print publication, covering changes in the law that affect political parties and independent candidates. they are constantly changing every odd year. half the states have bills and

legislature to change the laws. every year there are about 20 lawsuits filed over it. host: when it comes to getting thesthird parties on ballots, what is it about the laws that are changing, and what is being challenged? guest: there is a lot of hostility in state legislatures, especially in some states, toward minor party and independent candicy. this has been a problem in the country for almost 100 years. it is very strange. we are practically the only democratic country and a world where a substantial number of powerful people think it is legitimate to prevent people from running for office. it is unheard of in great britain or canada for any party to ever think about changing the law to keep its competition off the bell. and the britain anyone can get on about -- to keep them off the

ballot in this country. in canada but it only takes 100 signatures. it does not occur to people in most countries that is legitimate for two parties to get together and keep competition off the ballot. host: for those who tried to keep the parties off the ballots, what is the main reasoning? guest: it depends on whether they are talking honestly or not. if you want an example of an honest comment, i was at a georgia state legislative hearing once and a legislator on the elections committee said, i don't want no damn libertarian running against me. i appreciated that. when the law came before judges, the judges will not say something like that. they constantly tell us we are

in danger of overcrowded ballots that will cause the uer confusion. the truth is, we suffer from under-crowded ballots. i have been tracking state legislative candidacies for 20 years. every election year between 30% and 35% of the state races have one candidate on the ballot, even for the more important office of u. house of representatives -- typically 10% have only one candidate on the ballot. the is no history of overcrowded ballots in this country. for the u.s. house if you look at all the regularly scheduled partisan elections, except in two states, we have never had a race with more than eight candidates on the general election ballot. the two states are tennessee and new jersey -- the most they ever

had was 11. if you look at the statewide races, the most crowded belt we ever had for a regularly scheduled election was new jersey in 1993 for they have 19 candidates on the ballot. host: we had about 250,000 identifying them with libertarian, and on the green party, 241,000, 367,000 on the constitution party. aside from this, what other independent parties are there? as far as membership, headed they compare with those

identified as either republican or democrat? guest: only 29 states have procedures by which people choose the party and their voter registration form. the statistics they just gave are only from 29 states. you look at the percentage of people who register into a third party, and the states that have registration by party, it is the% of those in the country -- 3% which is a party other than democrats or republicans. there are many strong parties that only its estimate one state. the most successful minor party is the vermont progressive party. every year and a deluxe 5 or 6 state legislators -- every year and a lex that, and have one the mayor of burlington -- the biggest city in the ate.

another strong, 1-8-party is the nnesota and an aborted. guest: our guest is richard winger. he will be with us until 10:00 a.m. to talk about the role of independents and third-party site. richard winger, real quick, what drove you to pay such attention to third parties? what got you interested? guest: many years ago in the only nationally organized parties that got on the ballot with the prohibition

party, the socialist labor party, and the socialist workers party. and those were very little known, very obscure. they seldom got publicity. yet i noticed sometimes the got rather a lot of votes. i was curious to find out who was voting for them. i started analyzing the election returns. but i lived in california. my own state had no wonder parties, no independent candidates. that surprised me. i started looking into the fact that every state rights their own ballot access laws. i got so fascinated that i never stopped. host: the next call comes from tennessee. caller: good morning. i would like to propose a new, independent party -- a water

party. because of the monopolistic agriculture practices -- if our government will be an employer of last resort is to create a new new deal and turn nestle bars into victory gardens. it is pathetic. the number of farmers we have lost of the last 100 years --we need food and national security. the rest of the world is looking to us for the greenevolution. it is n biotechnology. host: go ahead, mr. winger. guest: that is exactly the kind of person the country needs, who is well-informed about a particular problem, with ideas about solving it. they are not the sort of ideas the major parties are likely to pick up.

before the 1890's the caller could have started a new party to promote his ideas, and he would not have had to worry about getting his candidates on the ballot. there were no ballot access laws or government-printed ballots. the voters could choose their own. i'm not suggesting that we go back to that system, but it makes me very sad that when people like that caller come up with the genesisor a new movement, the government in so many states and custom. let me explain the worst law -- georgia has not had an independent or a minor party candidate on the ballot for the u.s. house in a regularly- scheduled election since 1964. it is because their laws are so strict. yet the courts repeadly opel

them. in 1971 the u.s. supreme court upheld the georgia law. host: here is a phone call from california on the independent line, from herman. caller: i had many disagreements regarding the selection of electors. the constitution provides that every elector should be chosen by the state met the. all states but one allowed the electors to be chosen by a system of voting for the winner- take-all -- for example, california -- we have about 54 or 55 electors. every presidential election the electors are all given to

one single party. presently, because of the majority of the democrats in our state, they get every one of those. if we were to have chosen those electors, one from each congressional district, and two would be chosen at large, we would not have a winner-take- all. no political party would have a monopoly on choosing a presidential elector. in sramento every december every four years of president and vice-president -- we need to abandon the winner-take-all principle. it prevents a elect george from being chosen from independent parties -- it prevents electors from being chosen from independent parties. host: we will get a response. guest: there was a 1950 proposal

that passed. it is better than the idea of giving one to each u.s. house district. the plan said the vote for president in each state should be on a proportionate basis. if the party got just over 47% in the stateit would get the same exactly of the electoral vote in that state. fractions pose a difficult. the plan proposed to drop human beings, and instead say you could have percentages -- up to four points beyondhe decimal point to apportion them. that would be a better plan than the one you suggested. the when you suggested discriminates against democrats. -- the plane you suggested.

there are some many urban districts where the democrats carry a vote overwhelmingly. in 2000, for instance, president bush would have gotten 55% of the district's even though he got less than half of the two- party vote. host: someone on twitter asks -- guest: sometimes the minor parties have their own caucus. the libertarians elected four state legislatures in new hampshire in 1992. ey did not join either caucus, but had their own. also, when the green party elected a state legislature and in 2002, he caucus by

himself. host: the republican line, alabama. caller: i appreciate your hard work on this. there is another ballot access issue i want to discuss. in 2009 law was enacted to make sure ballots were sent overseas to our militar, in time for them to get them bac there is a waiver built in four states to claim hardship, though. it is usually because their primaries run too long for them to get their electors on the ballots. i do not understand why those states will not send the ballots anywhere without the candidate'' names printed, and allow the troops to use the write-in feature. there's also a federal belt like that. but if they use that feature,

i'm sure that the trips are smart enough to. -- there is also a federal ballot like that. it would take away the hard ship claim. i know it is a little bit off- topic, but it would be another solution. thank you. guest: sure, you are correct -- there's a federal, blank write- in ballot that has existed since 1993. i do not know why it is not use more. i think it is used for people on submarines. the federal government is working on it. a few days ago they gave waivers denied fourtes, but none nig

other states. by 2012 all states will have surely move their collections to later than august. host: coming towards november, are their states were independents are making some waves -- where they are? guest: yes, if you look at governor and u.s. senator races, pay special attention to colorado or the constitution party has a very well-known gubernatorial candidate. i'm embarrassed to say i'm not sure how to pronounce it. tom -- and then in minnesota the independent party nominee is at 13% from a better positioned at this time in the cycle than jesse ventura was in 1998.

and he was elected. in illinois the green party is pulling over 10% for governor. in north carolina and georgia the libertarians are pulling up to 7% for both governor and u.s. senator. in new england, independent candidates in massachusetts, the state of maine, and rhode island are very strong. the independent in rhode island is a potential winner. host: what other states besides georgia have issues as to how these laws work? guest: there's a new threat in the movement for a so-called top two election system. it provides that ery candidate runs in the primary, and every voter gets the same primary ballot. then only the two people who come in first and second are

permitted to run in november. i have just finished an expert report for a lawsuit in the washington state against that system. i have gone through all 720 examples of instances when minor parties and someone in the top two blanket primaryand have found that if there are a least two major party candidates in the same race, out of 717 instances only twice that a minor party person placed first or second. that might lead you to think if minor parties do so badly in the first round anyway, they are weak -- what difference does i make? that is a misunderstanding of how they get elected. typically, only when the public looks at the major party nominees and decides they like neither. the trouble is, in a top two

system there is no attention paid to the minor party candidates. so, to the extent that top two system spreads, that is a new threat to minor parties, and their ability to campaign and introduced new ideas, and possibly win in november. we have -- washington state started to use the system in two dozen a. it resulted in a complete democratic/republican monopoly there. now, unfortunately, the voters of california have voted for the same. host: our guest is the publisher of solid access news. he is richard winger. as you look to the front page -- julie from missouri on the democrats' line.

caller: and in my state we have the big election for governors in the november -- we have two candidates. there were only one or two other people running for that category. i do not know the difference between a libertarian, green, or constitution parties. can you explain? there is no formation on these different parties here in this state. by the way, i like your background. i'm from that state. please give me a good dancer. guest: in the missouri senate race there four on the ballot. a democrat, republican, libertarian, and constitution party. the constitution party is socially conservative. the libertarian party is more socially liberal. it is probably better if you

look at their party web pages. i'm not slide in the green party, but they d not get on the ballot this year in misery. host: would you consider the tea party a third party? guest: well, the tea party is really movement. i regret to did not call it the boston tea movement. they attached a word "party" to the name of the movement, but generally they are not a party. they are generally republicans, and it causes confusion. there are three things were a group qualifies as a party -- and got it on the ballot. florida, michigan, and nevada. but that makes the tea party movement people furious.

the michigan bell at qualified tea party nearly got removed a few days ago by the state court of appeals, and will go to the state supreme court. host: our guest is richard winger for about 20 more minus. this is the republican line, from pennsylvania. caller: i agree -- i come from pennsylvania which has closed primaries, so youave to be registered as either a democrat or republican to vote. i have always been an independent. i campaigned with ron paul. i wanted to vote for him during the primaries. as an independent we could not vote in pennsylvania. like him to address that. guest: pennsylvania when it to be one of the strongest states for successful third parties in this country. 1910's there and

was a minor parties really competitive with the mor ones. the washington party carried the state in the eleoral college for teddy roosevelt in 1912. for years afterwards, pennsylvania voters would like to-party people to office. the prohibition party in the 1920's. the socialist, as late as the 1930's, from reading. but pennsylvania has become one of the worst states and the country for treatment of minor parties and independent candidates. in 2004 for the first time ever, state courts in the pennsylvania said if a mir party or an candidatet this on, thenhe courts have to check. if the petition does not have enough valid signatures, they assess costs against the person who submitted it.

they did this to ralph nader in 2004. he was charged over $80,000. what did you do but turned in a petition? when they checked it, it was found not to have enough valid signatures. then, pa. did it again in 2006 to the green party. this year republicans challenged the libertarian party and tell them, you better give up because if you do not, and don't have enough valid signatures, the car costs will be between $90,000.100 $10,000 -- the court costs. it is wrong. in pennsylvania, in effect t courts have takenn the role of

election administration. we are trying to get the federal court to recognize that. there is a case pending now. but the state courts have been blunt. host: oregon, rick --you identify yourself as a progressive? caller: yes, in the u.s. senate candidate for the progressive part in oregon. the most important role for third parties now is to have a voice for the people ting to amend the constitution to abolish corporate personnel. that is my main goal in running, and there are at least 12 of us who have pledged to do the same. if we make it impossible for politicians to buy senators, then i think that america can work again. guest: how hard was it to get on

the ballot? caller: because we paid late we had to pay $3,000. but once i had the endorsement, other than that it was automatic that would be on. guest: oregon has usually improve its ballot access laws in the past 20 years. it is one of the best states in the country. as far as the idea of corporate person had, people who organize minor parties and participate in them generally have important issues they want to talk about. not on the problem, but on solutions. it is idiotic of this country to stifle those wawas his. we need new ideas. minor parties generally do not win, but when a campaign, that is the best possible vehicle. -- wheat generally stifle those

voices. it is the best forum possible to spread new ideas on how to spread new solutions to our problems. the supreme court has been both deaf and blind to that concept. when that allows states to what belt when the parties and independent candidacies, they're putting a huge footprint on the first amendment. -- when it allows the states to wipe them out. havg appeals.ly i have my hop up that they might listen. host: here is a question. guest: yes, and c-span is a great asset to the movement. c-span has been a terrific

supporter of minor parties and independent candidates' ideas spreading. host: minneapolis on our democrats' line. caller: hi, mr. winger. a thing that i heard you say california had a party called the "minnesota progresses?" i would like to hear more about it. guest: oregon and vermont are the two states with t progressive party. minnesota has an independence party. it is a party of the center. but elected ventura in 1998. himself back in the middle. host: for those to make it onto the ballot, what is their

ability to be competitive in terms of money and advertising? guest: they are almost never competitive with money. there are rare exceptions -- ross perot. some of those states with bad access laws are constructed so only very wealthy people, or those with support from wealthy people can get on the ballot. it is terrible. the north carolina ballot access is so bad no independent candidate for the house has ever qualified. they have been using government- printed ballots-1901. a particular union was so mad at a democratic memberf congress who voted against the health

insurance reform act that they got an independent candidate on a bout against the democrat. we estimate they had to spend between $150,000 or so it to pay petitions -- the got the independent candidate on a ballot against a democrat. it is pathetic. after the get on the ballot, they don't need as much money as the major party competitors to win. if you have a winning message, if you are included in all the debates, and have some money, you can win even if out spin. jesse ventura is a good example. he had only one-tenth of the amount of s major opponents. he was in all the debates and had a winning message. host: there is a story that jim

in ohio has been approved to run again for the house as an independent. what does history tell us about candidates to leave a major party and run as independents? guest: we will have to wait to see how well he does. it took so long for ohio to figure it out. it shows up clumsy these ballot access laws are. well lot in oho required him to turn in 1% of the last of the past for governor in his district. well, ohio is making itself do a lot of work. the counties, especially this one -- it took them a month. it would have been simpler if the law said the candidate needs 1% of the last budget passed for congress, or the office the person is running for.

this petition was due in the month of may, and has taken until now to figure out if he had enough signatures. that is not good for his campaign. host: next caller. caller: in rn to ve an opinion from you on local races. city d school boards, and so on. i have always believed everybody should put their affiliation down whenever they run. and not make any races non- partis. because they are not and never have them. i think a lot of our problems start at the local and continue from there. do you have an opinion on that? guest: yes, i tend to favor partisan elections for city office -- at least policy-

making. look at the example in the california. it is a small city in los angeles county. it has become famous recently. the city council approved huge salaries and pensions for themselves and other high- ranking employees of the city, as the city manager. i believe he will get a pension of $600,000 per year. i think if this city had partisan city elections were there would have been at least two parties, the out party would have noticed that and made a huge outcry simply for the selfish reason to help them selves. i think that parties do more good than harm. i know they're not very popular, but every political scientist who has studied

parties says we need them. i wish people would read this research. host: santa monica on the inpendent line. caller: i do not feel that everyone in this country is being represented. you have two major parties. there are a lot of different political beliefs here. feel i amrsonally being reesented. i know many others feel the same way. who do you vote for? th worse of the two evils. guest: there is a good solution. 70 countries use proportional representation. these include the most successfully-govern countries in the world.

if we had proportional representation, any party that got, say 5% of the vote would then have 5% of the seats. then everyone would be represented. even mexico uses proportional representation -- almost every country in central or western europe does, althoug britain and france to not. they are thinking about it, as should leave. host: indiana, the republican line themax. guest: thank you for your efforts in this ballot access and for your fight against the new world order. as a republican, ron paul is the only republican on the scene i could go for for president. for the viewers, check out this website infowars.com.

guest: there is a huge, and represented segment of the population in this country -- all the people convinced it is a big mistake to be waging war in afghanistan. the democratic party supports that war, and so does the republican party. ron paul is republican, and he does not, though. there should be a tea party in this country, and people should be about to vote for it. host: one more phone call -- champagne, illinois, on the independent line. caller: i think that what mr. winger is doing is vital and important, but many third parties are not paying attention to smaller, less glamorous, hard-working positions. for example, in our town, our parkland college community board

is elected. they raised property-tax is with the bond. they didot even have to do a referendum. yet they run unopposed every year. there are many positions like this that the third parties seem to ignore. if they want to be taken seriously, they have to work the dictate the less glamorous positions and work their way up. in some way i can understand why people are upset that they want to be governor without running for dog-catcher first. guest: illinois requires petitions of 5% of the last of the past for a minor party or independent candidate to run for

a municipal, district, or county office. that's one of the reasons you don't see many such candidates for the small, partisan offices in illinois. the state of illinois has the third-toughest petition requirement of all 54 district offices. there are bills in their legislature to change it, but they never pass. host: our guest is the publisher of ballot access news. if people went to your site, what would they learn? guest: most only look at the blog entries. i put it up about fo per day. they can also click on the paper copies. there is a lot more substance in my paper issues. i think i had more readers just looking at my blog

>> president obama with president abbas at the white house. a major objective of the talk is to agree on details on a palestinian state alongside israel within a year. >> i will be making a statement and a little bit.

-- in a little bit.

>> in about an hour from now, they will speak with reporters at the east room of the white house. we will have that live for you at 7 eastern here on c-span. campaign 2010 coverage continues tonight with a debate

between barbara boxer and carly fiorina. >> book tv's primetime continues tonight with a look at social networking. david kirkpatrick on the creation and influence of place ". julia angwin documents the rise of myspace. the cult of the amateur author debates someone from time magazine. but tv primetime tonight on c- span2. >> the c-span networks -- providing coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social networking sites. view our content anytime at the c-span video library. we take you on the road with our digital content bus.

it is washington your way. the c-span networks -- now available in more than 100 million homes, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> earlier today, outgoing economic adviser christina romer called to move forward on policies that would cut taxes. she also -- also less for new infrastructure and trade agreements. from the national press club, this is just over an hour. >> i am a reporter for bloomberg news and the president of the national press club. will the world's leading organization for journalists and we're committed to programming and fostering a free press

worldwide. for more information, please let bette -- visit our web site at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker, which includes guest of our speaker as well as working journalist. i like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. after the speech concludes, i will ask as many audience questions as time permits. from your right, a reporter from market watch. paul page, the journal of commerce. a member of the president's council of economic advisers and a guest of the speaker. diane judd gregg. a guest of the speaker.

skipping over the podium, we have andrew schneider, chairman of the speaker's committee at the national press club. skipping over our speaker for the moment, the senior vice president who organized today's luncheon. a member of the president's council of economic visors and a guest of the speaker. the president of psg communications. a reporter with bloomberg. and a producer with new tang dynasty television. [applause] dr. christine aroma, chair of the president's council of economic advisers, is making her first ed to get -- appearance at the head of the national think tank at the press club. at the same time, she is making

her last appearance as a head of the in-house think tank. she is returning to teaching economics at the university of california at berkeley. her tenure at the council is one for the history books. when christina robert came to washington just after barack obama was elected president, she arrived with a long list of credentials in studying the ups and downs of the economy. she sat on the committee that decided when the economy was in and out of a recession. she directed a program on my trip policy at the national bureau of economic research. what she was really known for was her expertise on the great depression. what worked and what did not, in getting our country out of it. she contributed to president obama proposals, the largest economic stimulus package in u.s. history. at the time she thought it could keep the unemployment from going much higher than 8%. it is now 9.5%. today the economy is front and

center as an issue in the midterm election. and new polls shows that 59% of americans do not approve of the way the president has handled the economy. experts are starting to worry about a double-dip recession. dr. robert returns to berlin but her husband david who is also an economic professor at the university. she confessed that she was reading "ceo budget options." she won a bet -- she will not be far from the action. the president has asked her to serve on an economic recovery advisory board and he will be proposing new economic recovery efforts which we're looking forward to hearing more about today. please welcome to the national press club, christina rummer. -- roemer.

>> thank you for that kind introduction. it is lovely and have a chance to finally speak to the national press club before i return to california. because i am stepping down from the council of economic advisers at the end of this week, today's talk is a sentimental one for me. i have brought my own audience with me, many members of the council of economic advisers here with me today. oemer. husband, david rom i brought three special friends to the head table. the first recession that i really remember is in 1981 and

1982. i began graduate school just as the economy peaked, and over the next one. five years, output plummeted and unemployment rose dramatically. that recession was personal. my father lost his job at chemical plant in the spring of 1983 shortly after the trough of the recession. i vividly remember the phone call that he told me he had been sacked. he was careful to say that i should not worry about my wedding, scheduled for that summer. there was money put aside for that. just before the wedding, my mother learned that her teaching job was also uncertain for the next year. david knight never the less got married as planned and the wedding was probably all the more special because my mother and her two sisters conducted as well. i remember i sense of relief returning from my home run --

honeymoon to find that my mother school district had found the money to keep her, and not bother had found all less well paying but good job. the economic health of my family was almost fully recovered. it was a terrible recession, but one that economists understood. like many post-war recessions, it was started by a difficult decision by monetary policy makers to raise interest rates to bring inflation down. the suffering of ordinary families like my own was very real and costly, but once inflation had been reduced and the federal reserve lowered interest rates, the economy came surging back. unemployment which peaked at 10.8% at the end of 1982 fell to 8% by early 1984. the current recession has been fundamentally different from

other post-war recessions. this is not my father's recession. it is the recession and born of unsound practices that led to a full-fledged financial crisis. precisely what made it so terrifying answer difficult to cure is that we have been in largely uncharted territories. on all of financial meltdown in the world's largest economy at the center of the world's financial system is something that the world has experienced only once in the past century, in the 1930's. does the president took office in the midst of a recession of historic proportions, but for what she history provides little guidance. this afternoon i want to talk about the tremendous economic challenges that the country faced back in january 2009 and

the challenges we continue to face as we reach the second half of 2010. i want to discuss what i think we've learned over the past 20 months about the causes of our economic difficulties, will be accomplished through extraordinary policy actions, and the tremendous work that remains before the economy is fully recovered. according to the national bureau of economic research, the recession began back in the december of 2007. it is not clear if that the pumping of the housing bubble has had serious consequences. the dramatic decline in housing prices and the related drop in stock prices destroyed $13 trillion of household wealth in 2008. not surprisingly, a fall in house prices and a decline in will produce consumer spending and investment, particularly in residential construction. as a result, even before the collapse of lehman brothers in september 2008, the u.s. economy

has lost more than 1.5 million jobs and gdp had fallen by more than the average in the previous two recessions. as we all know, the worst was yet to come. as declines in house prices assess sorry did -- accelerated, those holding mortgage-backed securities set up a genuine financial panic. the collapse of lehman cent credit availability plumbing -- plummeting. the crisis could have been catastrophic. as it was, it was as severe as anything we have experienced since the great depression. dole was clear that the strain on our financial markets was intense, what was not clear what at the time was how quickly and strongly the financial crisis would affect the economy. precisely because such severe financial shocks had been rare, there were no reliable estimates

of the likely impact. to this day economist not fully understand life firms cut production as much as they did, or why they cut labor so much more than they normally would, given the decline in output. our firm is so dependent on short-term finance that temporary freezing of credit was off forces them to cut back immediately? or does that appear injured by a wholly unknown type of recession caused firms to hunker down in the way they had not previously? these are questions that economists should and surely will be investigating over the coming years. in any event, almost all analysts were surprised by the violent reaction. the other thing that you anticipated was the degree to which the recession would be worldwide. i can remember early discussions with in the economics team about whether economic stability for the rest of the world might help to shore up our economy. previous financial crises and --

in sweden, japan, and east asia have largely localized defects. it was only after the data for fourth quarter gdp for countries such as japan, korea, and the united kingdom started being reported in late january and february of 2009 that it was clear that almost every other economy was also declining, in many cases at a more rapid pace than we were. despite the fact that we work in uncharted territories, the new economics team back in december 2008 was painfully aware that the economy was facing a terrible downturn, and that we were fast approaching the edge of a cliff. at a meeting we had put the group in mid december, i began by saying that the economy is very weak and deteriorating fast. the weekend before the meeting, the team said emmanuel -- a memo to rahm emanuel echoing that sentiment and laying the groundwork for a long -- a larger stimulus package.

most policy makers had been contemplating a stimulus of $500 billion or less, we urge steady growth substantially because of the severity of the downturn. just as the recession was unprecedented in post-war american history, so was the policy response. the american recovery act was passed less than a month after the inauguration. it was large, well diversified, temporary, and the fast acting. many would like to see the more iconic bill, a moonshot the concentrated spending on a single activities such as building a nationwide smart electrical grid or comprehensive high-speed rail network. as happened with many decisions, pragmatism one out. we agreed that many of the things that would improve the economy passes were on glamorous measures such a state fiscal relief and tax cuts for working families.

because the final bill was a mixture of hundreds of measures, many of which did not come with recovery act science are easily identified all links to the act, it's been hard for people to see but the act has done. it is precisely because it worked through existing programs and spread the fun is widely that it could get out quickly and reap the benefits. despite his pragmatism, the recovery act replace many of the president's top priorities for- looking investments. invest more than $90 billion in clean energy and provides a down payment on the transition toward renewable energy and greater efficiency. the aid to state and local government startling with budgets, it does is on health and education, and the education funds including incentives for greater accountability and widespread quality improvements. the middle class families who got the short end of the stick for the past decade are getting

tax cuts, unemployment relief and support, to help put food on the table and the mortgage paid as the economy slowly recovered. the policies of financial stabilization were similarly pragmatic. we opted for continued system wide support for a bond guarantees and joint credit provision plans from the federal reserve, but not an aggressive federal takeover of troubled institutions. the stress tests form the centerpiece of the response, implemented as scientifically as possible by the federal reserve and other regulators. it was designed to give an honest accounting of the state of our largest financial institutions and to determine what further actions were needed to ensure insolvency and in some -- and stability. this unprecedented pragmatic policy actions have made an enormous difference. on the financial side, the stress tests reassured investors and set off a wave of private

capital raising that was exactly what the system needed. credit spreads, an indicator of perceived risk, have returned to almost pre-crisis levels, and what credit remains tight for consumers and small businesses, they have stopped tightening and are gradually starting to listen. large firms are able to get the credit they need for investment and day-to-day operations. the financial industry has paid back the u.s. taxpayer at a rate few thought possible. for the real economy, the turnaround has been tremendous. real gdp it went from calling an annual rate of nearly 6% at the end of 2008, the beginning of 2009, after growing steadily over the past four quarters. likewise, employment went from calling a rate of 700,000 jobs per month to growing at the beginning of 2010. these swings from are up find negatives to positives are

testament to the speed and effectiveness of the policy response. but compare the problems we face, the turnaround has been insufficient. the the unemployment rate has come down 0.6%, it is still at 9.5%, and unacceptable level by any magic. -- l. -- real gdp is growing but not fast enough to create hundreds of thousands of jobs each month that we need to return implement to its pre- crisis level. it is clear that the recovery act has played a large role in the turnaround in gdp and unemployment. in a report that jerry bernstein tonight issued, we estimated that by the end of 2010, a stimulus package like the recovery act would raise deal to be -- real gdp and unemployment. at the council of economic

advisers, we documented in a series of reports to congress there is widespread agreement that the act is broadly on track to meet milestones. the nonpartisan congressional bustle office -- budget office's and arrange a private analysts suggest that it has already raised -- raised employment by 3 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been. with the act has not done, as alan that alluded to, is prevent unemployment from going above 8%. something else that we predicted it would do. the reason that that prediction was so far off is implicit of what the result of what i had been saying. an estimate of what the economy will look like it the policy is adopted contains two components, a forecast of what would happen in the absence of the policy and an estimate of the effect of the policy. as i described, our estimate of the impact of the recovery act

has proven to be quite accurate. " we like virtually every other forecaster failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be in the absence of policy and the degree to which the usual relationship between gdp and unemployment would break down. the report was very clear that there was a great deal of uncertainty about the base lines, and though there were some private forecasters that anticipated unemployment as high as 11%, that chart did not share the uncertainty. it allowed critics to take it out of context and falsely claim that the spike in unemployment early in to douse the night is somehow evidence the recovery act did not work. if they were doing it again, i would not focus on the policy and no-policy projections. i would emphasize the important part of the analysis, the estimated impact of the recovery at. apart that has been broadly accepted and corroborated.

i certainly do not regret having done the study. during the transition, it helped to build the case both internally and an external debt a stimulus of unprecedented proportions, and only in retrospect doesn't look rosy. at that time it was scary as hell. it helped convince congress to lay out as big a program as possible. it helps to prevent the package from shrinking greatly during congressional negotiations. more generally, i will never regret trying to put analysis and quantitative estimates behind our policy recommendations. macro economic policy-making is incredibly hard. if policy makers, scholars, and private analysts cannot discuss design issues, impact estimates, and baseline forecast, i cannot

imagine how we will ever managed to get policy remotely close to right. we need more numbers, more policy papers, more competing analyses, not fewer. the thing that i do regret is that there is still so much unfinished business. i would give anything if the unemployment rate really were down to 8% or lower. the american people are suffering terribly, policy makers need to find the will to take the steps needed to finish the job and return the american economy to full health, and no one should be blocking essential actions for partisan reasons. that the economy remains as troubled as it is despite aggressive action reflects the fact that this has not been a normal recession. just as the downturn was on charted territory, so is this recovery. because the recession began with interest rates at low levels, we cannot have an interest rates

fall and housing investment and other sectors come roaring back as they typically do in recoveries. that or because of overbuilding in the commercial real estate, it is likely to remain subdued for some time. indeed, the economy faces numerous headwinds not normally present in recoveries. in addition to the oversupply of housing, households had interests during crisis that is likely to make a more prudent for years to come. in much the same way that the great depression gave rise to a generation high savers and cautious investors. likewise, there was a decline in well likely to lead to increase savings to replenish retirement accounts and pay off debts. such savings are healthy for the economy in the long run, but in the near term they mean that consumers saving will be looked likely less robust than before the crisis. state and local governments have also been hit particularly hard

by this recession. the tax revenues are notorious, and the decline in housing prices has further impacted tax revenue. job cutting is likely to continue to be a drag on gdp going forward. and while the private sector has added jobs every month so far this year, state and local governments have reduced employment by 169,000 since last december. the administration understood that the recovery would be difficult precisely because of the -- many of the usual drivers of growth were missing. that is why we included $266 billion of additional temporary recovery measures in our 2011 budget. congress has taken some important steps, including an standing unemployment insurance, allocating funds to prevent future layoffs, and passing a higher tax credit to ensure

incured firms to hire unemployed workers. however it has added substantially less than what the administration proposed. as a result, the economy has that have all the additional support that it needed. early in the spring that there was hope that new drivers of growth, particularly investment in exports, with substantially compensate for some of the headwinds. business investment and equipment and software rose an annual rate of more than 20% in the first two quarters of 2010, an exporter rapidly. unfortunately both those sources of demand have taken a hit in recent months. the reason briefed debt crisis and anemic growth in much of europe contributed to a decline of both stock prices and confidence, and to a rise in the value of the dollar. the latest data on durable goods shipments suggest that in equipment investment is only growing modestly in the third quarter, and last friday gdp revision for the second quarter indicates that our exports are

growing substantially less rapidly than our imports. to result of these powerful headwinds in recent developments is that the united states still faces a substantial shortfall in aggregate demand. gdp by most estimates is still about 6% below trend. this shortfall in demand rather than structural changes in the composition of our output or mismatch between workers' skills and jobs, the fundamental cause of our continued high unemployment. firms are producing and hiring at lower levels simply because there is not demand for a normal level of output. in the long run, the transition to a higher safety, higher export economy can restore demand and enhance implementing normal, but at the moment, that process is operating painfully slowly. the pressing question then is what can be done to increase

demand and to bring unemployment down more quickly. failing to do so what caused millions of workers to suffer unnecessarily. it also runs the risk of making high unemployment permanent as workers' skills deteriorate with lack of use and their labor force attachment weekends with hopes of another job fading. policymakers should certainly try innovative, low-cost policies. the president's national export initiative is an excellent example. given the fixed costs associated with exporting to a new market, small investments in information provision and commercial diplomacy can bring about a substantial increase in our exports. likewise, responsible new trade agreements can help open markets and increase trade in the short run and over time. policy makers should also take sensible actions to increase confidence. while some in the business community talk about regulatory

uncertainty as one reason they are cautious about hiring and investing, i suspect that uncertainty about future sales is a much larger determinate up firm's actions. and however do more to highlight and, by our pragmatic approach to regulation. as cason strain -- as one person dedicated, the benefits-the cost of the obama administration's regulatory actions during its first year far surpassed those of the first years of the previous two administrations. for the health of the economy, we should continue and to trumpet this prudent regulatory approach. while we all love to find the inexpensive, magic bullet to our economic troubles, the truth is it almost surely does not exist. the only sure-fire way for policymakers to substantially increase aggregate demand in the

short run is for the government to spend more and tax less. in my view we should be moving forward on both fronts. the message should be carefully chosen so that they have the highest bank for the buck possible. the state fiscal relief to prevent teacher layoffs just past is an excellent measure. the small business tax cut will lead to excellent job creation effect and should be passed. at the president said in his rose garden remarks on monday, there are range of other sensible measures that deserve consideration such as tax cuts for struggling middle class families, and business is willing to invest in the united states, and much-needed additional investments in infrastructure. the key is that we need to take action and we need to do it quickly. given our long run this would challenges, in need additional support should be done in a responsible way. this makes sense to use some temporary support for emergency

measures. most action should be paid for over time with future spending cuts or appropriate future revenues. but concerns about the deficit cannot be an excuse for leaving unemployed workers to suffer. we have tools that would bring unemployment down, if we could only find the will and the wisdom to use them. on election night almost two years ago, by has been denied that the most uncharacteristic thing. we had friends over to watch the returns and celebrated the obama at victory with a set date class of champagne at around 8:00 california time. by 8:30 p.m., our friends and gone home and we were left wondering what to do with our joy. i declared i needed to be part of the crowd. with all the sounds of honking horns into downtown oakland. we stopped at the first three

corner where people were gathering and there we were, to middle east economist dancing in the streets with the oakland teenagers. dike so -- to middle age economists and dancing in the streets with the oakland team edges. what we did not realize that november evening was how large an economic nightmare laid before the new president and the american people. it would require actions you would have contemplated that evening just to keep the unemployment rate from rising beyond low double digits. it has been an honor be on any i could imagine to be part of the team of president obama selecting to craft a policy response. i am proud of the recovery act that we have taken. i believe that it does make the difference between the second great depression and a slow but genuine recovery. a passage of health-care reform

and and a regulatory reform, their accomplishments that will be with us long after the recession is over. they will ensure that our children inherit a future in which families can afford the health care that they need and where workers and firms never again have to face the specter of a cataclysmic economic meltdown. i desperately hope that policy makers on both sides of the aisle will find a way to finish the job of economic recovery. we already navigated through miles of difficult, uncharted waters. surely we can go the rest of the way. the american people deserve nothing less. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for speaking to us today and thank you for having time answer questions from our audience. i know we have several good

ones. in your address, you talked about an immediate need to spend more and tax less, to continue to work for an economic revival. being mindful that later on, you are exacerbating the deficit but it is something that needs to be responsible way to cut spending and pare that down. at what point, what would be the signal that the u.s. economy is at that. maine, where you can transition? how do we know when we're out of the woods? >> that is an excellent question. the obvious thing is to say that we need to do more now. certainly looking at the unemployment rate of 9.5%, it is clear that additional action is needed. as i described, doing it and at fiscally responsible way is incredibly important. how do you know when you can

make the transition? the president has described that we need to be what working on the problem of the deficit and getting the unemployment rate down together. that is why he set up a bipartisan fiscal commission to talk about the long run and medium run fiscal situation at the same time we're thinking about what we do in the short run. but i also suggested is that even as you think about short run policies, you can be mindful of the long run deficit. for as you paiy are crafting the measure today. that is in many cases the best policy for now. >> where the odds of the u.s. sliding into a double digit -- double the procession question mark >> larry summers would know exactly. the important thing is that they are very small. i think the american economy is clearly going through a rough

spot that think that is described in the spring, it looked as though we were really starting to grow more strongly. the troubles in europe definitely cause some turbulence, took the hit on confidence and on stock prices and things like that. my prediction is we come through this period of turbulence and go back to steady growth again. the important thing is that even that scenario, or before we hit that period of turbulence, it was not enough. often coming out of recession, you had gdp growth of 4% even 8%, said have a forecast of normal or a little bit normal, but that is better than having it all at almost 7%, but not enough to bring the unemployment rate down quickly. you made reference to the european debt crisis. how concerned should u.s. be

about a resurgent sovereign debt crisis? but in the u.s. did to prevent the problems of other economies from threatening global recovery? >> i think we've been very encouraged by the actions of the europeans to deal with the situation in greece. certainly their stress tests or something that were very helpful in getting the read on the state of the financial system and was reassuring to markets. i think the most important thing that all the countries of the world should do would be thinking about the balanced program, what we need to do to get people back to work now, and what do we need to do to be thinking about making sure our long run fiscal house is in order. the important thing is to emphasize that those things do not have to be in conflict over a period of time. a sensible economic policy can

match more expansion now with credible measures to get the deficit down as you go forward. one of the things i think again that we often lose sight of is how important growth is, not just for people, not just for dealing with what is obviously a terribly important problem, but it helps the deficit in the short run because tax runs are down. even matters in the long run because as i alluded to, one of the things you worry about when the unemployment rate is at 9.5% for a long period of time, when the long term on an unemployment rate is as high as it is, you worry that workers start to lose skills, they drop out of the labor force, and some of the unemployment becomes permanent. that is terrible for the people involved, but also for your long run deficit, because those are people that are not. to be paying taxes as we go forward. it all you care about is the deficit, dealing with the short

run economic problems is also incredibly sensible and good economic policy. >> because there will that be stimulus from the economy and going into a cost-cutting environment, is the u.s. committing to a long-term impact of slower economic growth? >> i think the most important thing is we do not do that. as an economic historian, one of the things that i started talking about at least a year ago was thinking back to the great depression and what happened in 1937. if you remember your depression history, from 1929-1933, the economy declined dramatically but it's started to grow again with the new deal actions on the monetary side. one of the things that happened is that it grew strongly, almost an average of 10% in those years

from 1933, 1934, and after. what became evident in 1937, a collective sigh of relief that the economy was growing again. it was not fully recovered. the unemployment rate was still quite high. but there was a tendency for the federal reserve to say, if we can draw back on our actions. there is the fiscal side, a tax increase, started to get its fiscal house in order. and this led to the recession of 1938 where unemployment shot up again, a big setback. why the 1930's were as bad as it was, because recovery was short -- was cut short by a very natural policy actions. we can see where they come from. we're living through them them. we lived through extraordinary actions, actions no one would have bought or wanted to take. there is a tendency to say, as soon as possible, but stopped that. it's important to say, let's get

this recovery much more firmly established, much closer to all the way done before you start to pull back. you >> that is where you run the biggest risk of causing permanent scarring to the economy and obviously the people. >> looking at your historic example, unemployment was still in the double digits when world war ii began. that leads to the next question that we have here about the structural rate of unemployment. in the 1990's, the structural rate of unemployment was believed to be about 4%. as you see the changes in the economy in terms of the economic

model that the u.s. is falling, in terms of structural changes in employment trends, is the natural rate of unemployment inching upward, and what would be expected in the future? >> that is obviously an incredibly important question. what i was trying to argue in my talk is that we are not seen that yet. the rise in unemployment we are living with, the 9.5% unemployment we have is almost entirely a cyclical phenomenon. it is a reflection of the impact that gps dramatically below trend, but we don't yet have the men back to where it needs to get. that is the overwhelming -- do not have demanded back where it needs to get. there has been a lot of discussion about some sectoral changes in the economy, the fact that finance and construction may be a smaller part of the economy going forward. obviously, other things are going to need to grow to feel

that base. those kinds of several changes are happening all the time. likewise, there is a lot of talk, the sector rolled decline in manufacturing has been going on for several decades. that is something that we had going on when the natural rate of unemployment was 4%. those kind of changes, the evidence of what we are seeing now -- those are pretty common phenomenon. the higher rate of long-term unemployment is a consequence of the fact this has been a terrible recession that has gone on for a long time. if you lose your job early in the recession, we have not been creating a lot of jobs, so you tend to become long-term unemployed. i respect as the economy recovers and the overall unemployment comes down, you expect that rate to come down as

well. >> you discussed some permanent sectors of the economy that may be smaller in the long term. you cited finance and construction. is it a good thing that the financial industry may be a little smaller? >> i was at a speech in new york where i said something about it will be a good thing if all those people that were in finance do something useful like medicine or science. it did not go over well with that audience. it is certainly -- the perspective i bring to this is that market economies are wonderful, dynamic things, and one of the great strengths is that as new opportunities come up, as certain doors close, the door open. i think that is an important or the process. if some things are going to be

smaller for awhile like construction, because we have an oversupply of housing, some overbuilding now, what is important is that other things fill the gap for the kind of workers that were in that sector. something very high on the president's list of concerns, and something we are certainly thinking about. >> how many people do you know who are unemployed or underemployed, and what have you learned from their experiences? >> i often talk about, when we would go back to california periodically, and you think you are having an innocent walk out to the mailbox, and there is your neighbor you have known for years to come out and says my daughter is unemployed, my son- in-law is about to lose his house, why aren't you doing more? you cannot go anywhere and not know that there are many people who are struggling incredibly.

earlier this spring, one of the nicest things i have done as chair was a two-day road trip to ohio. >> you can see the rest of this at c-span.org. going live now to president obama. >> good evening, everyone. tomorrow, after nearly two years, israelis and palestinians will resume direct talks in pursuit of a goal that we all share. two states, israel and

palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security. tonight i am pleased to welcome to the white house key partners in this effort, along with secretary of state hillary clinton and the representative of our quartet partners, former prime minister tony blair. president abbas, prime minister netanyahu, the majesty king abdallah, and president mubarak. we are but five men. our dinner it this evening will be a small gathering around a single table, but when we come together, we will not be alone. we'll be joined by the generations, those who have gone before and those who will follow. each of you are the heirs of peacemakers who dared greatly. begin and sadat, rabin and

king hussein. statesmen who saw the world as it was but also imagine the world as it should be. is the shoulders of our predecessors upon which we stand. is there work which we carry on. which wetheir work carry on. it is the wisdom and courage to walk the path of peace. all of us are leaders of our people, who no matter the language they speak where the faith they practice, all basically seek the same things, to live in security, free from fear, to live in dignity, free from want, to provide for their families, and to realize a better tomorrow. tonight they look to us and each of us must decide, will work diligently to fulfill their aspirations?

i know each of us holds a title of honor, president, prime minister, king. we are bound by the one title we share. we are fathers blessed with sons and daughters. so we must ask ourselves what kind of world we want to bequeath to our children and our grandchildren. tonight, and in the days and months ahead, these are the questions we must answer. this is a fitting moment to do so. for muslims, this is ramadan. it is rare for those two months to coincide. this year, tonight they do. different face, different rituals, but a shared time of devotion and contemplation. a time to reflect on right and wrong, a time to ponder one's

place in the world. a time when the people of two great religions remind the world of the truth that is both simple and profound, that each of us, all of us, in our hearts and in our lives are capable of great and lasting change. in this spirit, i welcome my partners, and i invite each to set a few words before we begin our meal, beginning with president mubarak and onto his majesty, queen abdullah, prime minister netanyahu and prime minister abbas. president mubarak. [speaking foreign language]

>> like you and the millions of palestinians and israelis and arabs and the rest of the world and the people of the middle east, it is important to have these negotiations and hope it will lead to peace within the two-party within one year. our meeting today would not have taken place without the considerable effort exerted by the u.s. president and his administration under the leadership of president obama. i pay tribute to you, mr. president, for your personal commitment and determination

since the early days of your presidency. i appreciate your preservation throughout the past period to overcome the difficulties facing the launching of the renegotiation. i consider this a manifestation of your commitment and a significant message that the united states will shepherd these negotiations very seriously and at the highest level no one realizes the value of peace more than those who have known words. -- have known wars. it was my destiny to witness minivans in the region during the years of war and peace -- to

witness wars. i have never dared an effort to push it forward and i still look forward to its success at completion. the efforts to achieve peace between the palestinians and israelis [unintelligible] progress and regression and rector is at best. it remains a dream in the culture. there is no doubt that there is great frustration and anger among our people because it is no longer acceptable or conceivable on the verge of the second decade of the third millennium that we failed to achieve justice through peace.

peace that would put an end to the centuries of conflict and free the aspirations of the palestinian people, allow for the establishment of better relations between the palestinians and israelis. it is true that reaching a just and are prevented peace treaty between both sides has been elusive for almost two decades, yet the accumulated experience of both parties in rounds of negotiations have caused previous understandings since 2000 and subsequent understanding, and with the previous israeli government, both contributed in the outline

of the final settlement. this outline has become well known to the international community and to both peoples. the palestinian and israeli people. it is expected that the current negotiations will not start from scratch. no doubt the position of the international community as stated in the consecutive statements and particularly in the latest august 20 statement, they respect to relevant international resolutions and supported the outline of settlements using [unintelligible] not prejudice to the outcomes of negotiations.

the aim is to reach a peaceful settlement and allow for the independent state of palestine to merge and live side-by-side in peace with the state of israel. i met with prime minister meant -- prime minister netanyahu many times since he took office last year. in our meetings, i listened to assertions of his willingness to achieve peace with the palestinians and for history to record his name for such an issue. i say to him today that i look forward to achieving those assertions in reality and his success in achieving a long- awaited peace which i know the people of israel yearn for just like all of the people in the region. reaching peace with palestinians would require from israel taking important and decisive decisions that are undoubtedly

difficult, yet they would be necessary to achieve peace and stability. [unintelligible] they will not create rights for israel. they will achieve peace are security with israel. it is a full priority to complete freeze all these activities until the process comes to a successful in. i say to the israelis sees the current opportunity. i do not let it slip through your fingers. make a comprehensive peace your goal. extend your hand to meet the hand already extended at the arab peace initiative. i say to president mahmoud abbas, israel will extend its -- we will continue our concerted efforts to help push really the

aspirations of your people in retrieve the initiatives. we will stand by you until the independent state of palestine and the land occupied since 1967 with east jerusalem as its capital. once again i would like to express my thanks to president obama and are expressed are, -- commitment to the principles with which arab and regional policy rests upon. please accept my appreciation, and peace be upon you. [applause]

>> in the name of god most compassionate, peace be upon you. for decades, a palestinian israeli settlement elude us. millions of men, women, and children have suffered. too many people have lost faith in our ability to bring them the peace they want. radicals and terrorists have exploited frustrations to feed hatred and you night -- ignite wars. the whole world is been dragged into regional conflicts that cannot be addressed effectively until arabs and israelis find peace. this past record drives the importance of our efforts today.

there are those on both sides who want us to fail, who will do everything in their power to disrupt our efforts today, because when the palestinians and israelis find peace, when young men and women can look to a future of promise and opportunity, radicals and extremists lose their most potent appeal. this is why we must prevail, for our failure would be their success in sinking the region into more instability and wars that will cause further suffering in our region and beyond. president obama, we value your commitment to the cause of peace in our region. we count on your continued engagement to help the parties will forward. you have said that middle east peace is in the national

security interest of your country, and we believe it is. it is also a strategic european interest, and it is a necessary requirement for global security and stability. peace is also a right for every citizen in our region. a palestinian-israeli settlement on the basis of two states living side-by-side is a precondition for security and stability of all countries of the middle east. with the regional peace that will lead to normal relations between israel and 57 arab and muslim states that have endorsed the arab peace initiative. that would also be an essential step towards neutralizing forces of evil and war that threaten all peoples. mr. president, we need your

support as a mediator, honest broker, and a partner as the party's move along the hard but inevitable path of settlements. your excellencies, all eyes are upon us. the direct negotiations that we will start tomorrow a show results, and sooner rather than later. time is not on our side. that is why we must spare no effort in addressing all final status issues, with a view to reaching the two-state solution, the only solution that can create a future worthy of our great region, a future of peace in which fathers and mothers can raise their children without fear, young people can look forward to lives of hope, and 300 million people can cooperate for mutual benefit.

for too long, too many people of the region have been denied their most basic of human rights, the right to live in peace and security, respected in their human dignity, enjoying freedom and opportunity. if polyps are disappointed again, the price of failure -- if hoax or disappointed again, the price of failure will be too high for all. our peoples want us to rise to their expectations, and we can do so if we approach these negotiations with goodwill, sincerity, and courage. thank you. [applause]

>> mr. president, excellencies, shalom. peace unto us all. i am very pleased to be here today to began our common effort to achieve a lasting peace between israelis and palestinians. i want to thank you, president obama, for your tireless efforts to renew this quest for peace. i want to thank secretary of state hillary clinton, senator mitchell, the many members of

the obama administration, and tony blair, who have all worked so hard to bring israelis and palestinians together here today. i also want to thank president mubarak and king abdullah for their dedicated and meaningful support to promote peace, security, and stability throughout our region. i deeply appreciate it, your presence here today and began with the hebrew word for peace, shalom. our goal is to forge a secure and durable peace between israelis and palestinians. seek a brief interlude

between two wars. we don't seek a temporary respite between outbursts of terror. we seek a peace that will end the conflict between us once and for all. we seek a peace that will last for generations. our generation, our children's generation, and the next. this is the piece my people fervently want. this is the peace all our peoples fervently aspire to. this is the peace they deserve. a lasting peace is peace between peoples, between israelis and palestinians. we must learn to live together, to live next to one another and with one another, but every peace begins with leaders.

president of boss, you are my partner in peace -- a abbas, you are my partner in peace. it is up to us with the help of our friends to conclude the agonizing conflict between our peoples and to afford them and a beginning. the jewish people are not strangers in our ancestral homeland, a land of our forefathers, but we recognize that in other -- and other people shares this land with us. i came here today to find an historic compromise that will enable both our peoples to live in peace and security and in dignity. i've been making the case for israel all of my life, but i did not come here today to make an argument. i came here today to make peace.

i did not come here today to play a blame game where even the winners lose. everybody loses if there is no peace. i came here to achieve a peace that will bring a lasting benefit to us all. i did not come here to find excuses. or to make excuses. i came here to find solutions. another history of our conflict and the sacrifices that have been made. i know the grief that has afflicted so many families who .ost their dearest love one's only yesterday, four israelis, including a pregnant woman, and

another woman, a mother of six children, were brutally murdered by savage terrorists. two hours ago, there was another terror attack, and thank god, no one died. i will not let the terrorists block our path to peace, but as these events underscore once again, that peace must be anchored in security. i am prepared to walk down the path of peace, because i know what it would mean for our children and for our grandchildren. i know it would herald a new beginning that could unleash an unprecedented opportunities for israelis, for palestinians, and for all the peoples of our region, and well beyond our

region. i think it would affect the world. i see what a period of calm has created in palestinian cities and throughout the west bank. real peace can turn this boom into a permanent arab of progress and hope -- a e permitrsa of progress -- a permanent era of progress and hope. we or at the crossroads of three continents and the crossroads of history, the crossroads of the future. our geography, our history, our culture, our climate, the talents of our people can be unleashed to create extraordinary opportunities in tourism and trade and industry and energy and water and so many areas.

but peace must also be defended against its enemies. we want the skyline of the west bank to be dominated by apartment towers, not missiles. we want the roads of the west bank to flow with commerce, not terrorists. this is not a theoretic request for our people. we left 11 on and we -- we left lebanon, and we got terror. we left gaza, and we got terror once again. this is why it defensible peace requires security arrangements that can withstand the test of

time and the many challenges that are sure to confront us, and there will be many challenges. both great and small. let us not get bogged down by every difference between us. let us direct our courage, our thinking, and our decisions at those who reject those historic decisions that lie ahead -- our courage, thinking, at those historic decisions that lie ahead. all of us in a position of leadership are familiar with this. i suppose there are many reasons for skepticism, but i have no doubt that peace is possible. president abbas, we cannot erase

the past, but it is within our power to change the future. thousands of years ago, on these very hills where israelis and palestinians live today, the jewish prophet isaiah and the other profits of my people in this end a future -- envisioned a lasting future for all mankind. let's today be an auspicious step in our joint effort to realize that ancient vision for a better future. [applause]

>> his excellency, president obama, his excellency prime minister benjamin netanyahu, secretary your clinton, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to start by thanking president obama for his invitation to host us here today to relaunch the permanent state of negotiation to reach a peace agreement covering all the permanent issues within a year. as we move towards the relaunch

of these negotiations tomorrow, recognize the difficulties and challenges and obstacles that lie ahead, yet we assure you that we will use the years of the negotiations and benefit from the lessons learned and make these negotiations successful. we also reiterate our commitment to carry out our obligations and we call on the israelis to carry out their obligations. we are not just setting a precondition but a goal to implement closure and prevent freedom of movement including

[unintelligible] we will spare no effort and will work diligently and tirelessly to ensure that these negotiations achieve their goals and objectives in dealing with all the issues, as well as the release of all our prisoners in order to achieve peace that the people of our area are looking for, peas that achieves freedom, independence and justice for the palestinian people in their country and in their homeland. we want peace that will correct the historical injustice and one

that bring security to the israeli people and we want peace that will give us all the people of the region a new era where we have prosperity and stability. our determination stems to of great extent from your firm and sweeping drive with which you engulf the entire world from the day you took office to set the parties on the path for peace. this same spirit exhibited by secretary hillary clinton and senator george mitchell. the presidents of his excellency president mubarak and king abdullah shows their substantial an effective commitment where egypt and jordan have been

playing a supporting role to advance the peace process. they are effective role is further demonstrated by the arab peace initiative which was fully endorsed by all of the arab states. this initiative showed a genuine and sincere desire for peace and provided a valuable effort to make peace. the presence of tony blair is most telling signal, especially since he has been involved in the palestinian authority for many years and in the efforts

for state building. the time has come for us to make peace, and it is time to end the occupation that started in 1967 and for the palestinians to get freedom, justice, and independence. it is time that an independent city state be established with sovereignty side-by-side with the state of israel. it is time to put an end to the struggle in the middle east. the palestinian people who insist on their rights of freedom and independence are in most need for security and peace because they are the victim. those who would harm its the most from this violence, and it is sending a message to our neighbors, the israelis and to the world that they are also careful about supporting the opportunities for the success of these negotiations and that just and lasting peace as soon as

possible. we will work to make these negotiations succeed, and with this spirit, we trust that we are capable to achieve our historic initiative, making peace in the land of peace. mr. netanyahu, what happened yesterday and what is happening today is also condemned. we do not want any blood to be shed at all, not one drop of blood on the part of the israelis. we want people in the two countries to lead a normal life. we want them to live as neighbors and partners for ever. let us find a final agreement for peace and put an end to a very long period of struggle and forever, peace be upon you.

[applause] >> i want to thank all the leaders, the delegations that are represented here, because they are the ones who oftentimes are doing a lot of the work. this is just the beginning. we have a long road ahead, but i appreciate very much the leaders who are represented here for giving such an excellent start. i want to commend prime minister netanyahu and president abbas for their presence here. this is not easy. both of them have constituencies with legitimate claims and legitimate concerns. there is a lot of history between them. for them to be here, to be willing to take this first step, a most difficult step, is

a testament to their courage and their integrity, and i think their vision for the future. so i am hopeful, cautiously hopeful, but hopeful that we can achieve the goal that all four of these leaders are seeking. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> will have more on the middle east peace talks on "washington journal," tomorrow morning. we will be joined by the millie's house call director and former advisor to the negotiating team. daniel levy, former special advisory to prime ministerehud barak. later, secretary of state hillary clinton will be joined by israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and palestinian authority president mahmoud abbas. is their first face-to-face meeting since 2008.

we expect to hear from special on boy george mitchell. live coverage thursday at 10:00 a.m. on c-span. >> c-span campaign 2010 coverage continues tonight with the california senate debate between incumbent barbara boxer and republican candidate carly fiorina. this is the first debate between the two candidates and they will answer questions from a panel of california political reporters. that is live tonight at 10 eastern on c-span. >> there is nothing about finance that is like rocket science. you think about ponzi schemes. the biggest ponzi scheme for wall street is telling someone who has worked really hard to earn a buck that they are not smart enough to understand how that but is going to be invested. >> in 2007, analyst meredith whitney was the first to

predict major losses for citigroup, one of the world's largest initial services company. she's our guest sunday night on "q&a" on c-span. >> now to a gulf oil spill briefing with retired admiral thad allen. speaking with reporters from houston today, he says that the peak of the efforts plug the well may resume tomorrow. >> i will talk a little bit about sub sea oil which has been a topic of concern to a lot of folks. i will be happy to take your questions after that. we are currently in a holding pattern of shore, waiting to proceed with the replacement of the blowout preventer from the deepwater horizon. in advance of putting a new blowout preventer on and that will allow us to have pressure integrity in the well as we proceed with the well killed itself. we have hit a weather window

where it has been difficult to move forward. we anticipate removing the blowout preventer with a latching mechanism that will be attached to a drill pipe string that will be suspended from the q-4000. there is a picture right to my left ear. the combined weight of the drill string latching mechanism is approximately 1 million pounds. when the release that blowout preventer from the well, it will be suspended at about 5,000 feet below the surface. there are two things we are concerned about when this occurs. number one is that weight -- wave height. you can imagine in writing up and down on the waves, exerts more dynamic loading and that pot system. we are concerned about the weight and the ability of the pipe system to handle that. there is a limit as far as the wave height to be able to recover it. when you have something suspended 5,000 feet below drilling rig, you have a

pendulum motion. it swings around, related to the period of the swells when they come for. it creates a set of conditions that dictates when you can safely do this. we are in a window where we cannot do that because it exceeds the safety factors. we believe in the next 24-36 hours we will hit the weather window that will allow us to proceed. we are making preparations right now to take advantage of that weather window which we believe will last thursday through potentially sunday to remove the blowout preventer. the first step will be taken tomorrow around midday. we will bring in the discover enterprise. they already have a riser pipe that has been dropped down to about four thousand feet with a latching device and they will remove the capping stacked which

we put in on the 15th of july that basically shut the well in. we will remove that and the discovery enterprise will then move away. the q-4000 will come in and will be ready to insert a blowout preventer. we are moving in advance knowing when we had that window we need to be able to move right then. the q-4000 will be hooked up ready to release the blowout preventer and will be there ready to do that when they achieve the weather window which we think will come sometime in about 24-36 hours from now. once that happens, the blow up for dinner will be lifted, brought to the surface -- a blowout preventer will be lifted and brought to the surface. if you look at the photograph to my left, you see to tugboats underneath the kid as 4000 managing debt. you can see how large it is.

it will literally raised the blowout preventer of for the q- 4000. if you look to the picture on the left, there is a high derrick there is a set of cranes. the q-4000 has a high to be able to lift that blowout preventer completely up out of the water and place it on the deck. it will take apart the lower marine riser package and store those on the q-four thousand, get in closer to shore and in transport budget transfer those to other barges to be taken to another staging area. this will be done under supervision of the joint investigations team. once the blowout preventer is removed, development driller 2 which was drilling the second relief well will move in with the new blowout preventer and

place it on top of the well. there'll be a series of diagnostics conducted to make sure a blowout preventer is functioning properly including testing the valves and the ability to retain pressure and so forth. once the blowout preventer has been tested, we will be in a position to proceed with the killing of the well, if you will. it is contingent on completing these steps, and that is her.ingent on whetheeat it could be dependent on whether the pike is in contact with any segment that could have adhered to it while we are redoing the static killed. one of two things can happen. the blowout preventer comes free, we lifted up, and at some point we will cut the pipe below the blowout preventer and that will be taken to the surface by

another vessel. if we cannot free the pipe by applying 80,000 pounds of pull, we will manually open it and remove the blowout preventer and then cut the pipe off. we will try to pull the holding up together if we can. if we cannot, we will do it mechanically. we believe if we do that we can go ahead and proceed with killing the well sometime after labor day weekend. this is based on the weather and the condition of the pipe when we attempt to remove it. that is the current status. i was out at the well site on monday aboard the two-four thousand. i climb below on the catwalks to look at the area where they will bring up a blowout preventer. it would be amazed at how much up and down vertical movement there is that is hard to detect unless you are sitting right on top of it. it is a good safety call to wait

for the right weather window to proceed. i would like to also talk about subsea oil monitoring. there has been a lot of conversation about the potential and extent of any hydrocarbons that might be present in the gulf of mexico. there have been several academic institutions that have sent research vessels out. there has been extensive monitoring conducted bynoaa and epa since the start of this event. my goal was to take on the extensive efforts that are going on and unify them into a comprehensive knowledge management based picture of the gulf of mexico as it relates to hydrocarbons in the water column. today, there have been 27,000 samples taken and over 182,000 square miles in the gulf of mexico. my goal is to bring all this

together and get it into one coherent picture that of the government and the academic community can look at and understand and discuss and draw conclusions from. to that end, the admiral is preparing an implementation plan for the issue by testing program. this week we are socializing that plan with academic institutions around ago. yesterday we had meetings at the university of south florida. today we are meeting with the gulf of mexico institute in biloxi, mississippi and we will also meet at tulane university. the goal is to understand the work in progress and any value added we can gain by talking to the academics involved in trying to understand the presence of hydrocarbons. this will allow us to better understand what kind of threat remains out there. this will also set the stage for long-term natural resource damage assessment and any long-

term simply requirements that might need to be carried out. i have a couple of charts appear to indicate the density of some of the testing that has been done. these relate to testing anywhere from using autonomous underwater vehicles to collect samples to putting down crab traps in and around the coastal areas. oil sticks to it, and you pull them up occasionally to see if there has been the oil in contact with them. there has been testing with the noaa oceanographic vehicles. a lot of people have been working on this very hard since the start of the spill. with the well head under control, the shifting concern to hydrocarbons is the prudent thing to do at this point. we are anxious to unify the technology effort in support of understanding better.

i would be glad to take any questions you have for me. please, go ahead. [unintelligible] what are you hoping it will tell you about the explosion and how happen? >> it will be in the purview of what we call the joint investigation team. the team has been holding hearings not only in new orleans but here. that was the body that issued the subpoenas for the blowout preventer, so there'll be a chain of custody to make sure we know exactly the condition and that there is continuous monitoring. a ultimately it will be taken to a point somewhere on land where everything we have put together

with the other debris and pieces that have been recovered from the rig itself. a lot of this is currently at the coast guard station on the mississippi river gulf outlet in new orleans. that is the nominal plan at this point. >> can you just elaborate on the risk of moving forward when the water is too rough? what actually could happen? >> we do not want to have the capability of the vote lifting unit surpassed by the weight load. they are engineering within a margin of excellence. if you are going to be lifting a million pounds, they want the pipe to be able to withstand 1.7 5 million pounds.

>> if i understood, you are planning to remove the capping stack before the weather window appears? do you have to wait 24-36 hours to start doing that? >> we can remove the capping stack a little before the q- 4000 because it can withstand greater ec states. the riser pipe coming down from the discover enterprise was designed to fit on a well. we used it to produce oil coming up. the latching device will live the brought preventer. it is not the same kind of mechanism to lift it. it has different set the parameters to operate in. we can remove the capping stacked in advance and have the key40-00 ready to go in the weather window. if everything holds according to plan, tomorrow around noon we

will start removing the capping stacked with the discover enterprise, and move the q-4000 to be in place when we have the weather window. >> what does your team know about the condition of the blowout preventer right now? is it certain there was damage to it before the explosion? >> i think we have learn certain things along the way, and i don't want to presuppose what will be a technical analysis. that will be done by the forensic team. there are some things we do know. first of all, it did not actuate fully, otherwise we would not have had the event. we thought at one point the pipe might have been suspended from the upper seal in the lower marine riser package.

it indicates the fragility of the pipe. there were some issues about whether or not there were hydrates further down in the lower marine riser package that might have hampered the movement of the pipe. we could have gone on for a long time putting cameras down there and conducting what we would call fishing, but at this point we were getting negligible return on that investment. at this point we think it is advisable to lift the blowout preventer off. we will not know the exact status until they get it ashore and actually look inside it. >> pieces of the damage pressure collor allegedly came up weeks before the explosion. >> not that i am aware of. i think it is speculation at this point. we will have to let the investigative team take a look

at it. operator, i would be glad to go to the phone at this time. [unintelligible] [unintelligible] >> they need to be below 4 feet to start moving the capping stack. ideally they would be about 3 feet. feet.