that is that july 2011 is not the date where we race for the exits. it is the date where having done an assessment, we begin a process of transition of tasks to afghan security forces based on conditions. and we began a processsof irresponsible drawdown of our forces. >> do you believe that we will begin a drawdown of forces in july 2011 given the situation as it exists today? >> it is not give as the situation exists today.+ it is given as projections are. i do believe that that will be the case. >> you believe that we can begin a drawdown in july 2011 under the projected plans that we havv? >> that is the policy and i support it, senator. >> i understand you supporting the policy. conditions on the ground, will they indicate that we will begin a withdrawal? in the words of the vice- president, july 2011, you will see a lot of people moving out. bet on it. do you agree with the comment of president karzai's chief that he has lost confidence in the ability of the united states and nato to succeed in afghanistan? >> i do not, senator. as i mentioned ea

that is why july 2011 date is critically important.fter the speech in west point by the president last december, according to general caldwell who is head of the training effort and afghanistan, there was an awareness when the president set that date to begin reductions of our troops, there was an awareness in the afghan leadership that they better get going and there was an increase, indeed a surge in recruitment in the afghan army according to general caldwell. he said the reason for that was because the afghan leaders understood that this is not open ended. they got on the stick and i got on the pawn and they started to work all the different ways they could stimulate recruitment. recruitment jumped dramatically in the afghan army. we pressed general caldwell -- are you saying that these young men in the countryside were listening to the speech in west point? he said that was not the point for the point was that the leaders of afghanistan got the point. that the bad get moving and they did. it has had an impact in terms of recruitme

they believe that we are leaving as of july 2011. i could relate to you anecdotes all the way down to the tribal chiefton level in afghantan. and they -- it seems to me that organizations and countries and leaders in the region are accommodating to vat eventuality and that does not bode well f success in afghanistan. so i guess it's more than a comment that i made -- an elaboration of the comment i made yesterday. if we sound an uncertain trumpet, not many will follow. and that's what's being sounded now. and that's one of the reasons why we see some of the events taking place that are in the region. not just confined to afghanistan. so i know that i've used up most of my time as chairman, maybe general petraeus would like to respond. >> senator, first of all, i think july 2011 is etched in stone, but, as i ted to explaiit there as a date at which a process begins, that is based on conditions, and that i think was explained clearly at the speech at west point by the president, which i was privileged to attend. beyond that, as i said

they believe that we are leaving as of july 2011. i could relate to you anecdotes all the way down to the tribal chiefton level in afghanistan. and they -- it seems to me that organizations and countries and leaders in the region are accommodating to vat eventuality and that does not bode well for success in afghanistan. i guess it's more than a comment that i made -- an elaboration of the comment i made yesterday. if we sound an uncertain trumpet, not many will follow. and that's what's being sounded now. and that's one of the reasons why we see some of the events taking place that are in the region. not just confined to afghanistan. so i know that i've used up most of my time as chairman,aybe general petraeus would like to respond. >> senator, first of all, i think july 2011 is etched in stone, but, as i tried to explain it there as a date at which a process begins, that is based on conditions, and that i think was explained clearly at the speech at west point by the president, which i was privileged to attend. beyond that, as i sa

our policy of withdrawing in july of 2011, as i under it, we're going to begin to withdraw in july of 2011. the only thing to question is the pace of the withdrawal, is that fair? >> indeed, senator, as i described it -- i want to get you a copy of the statement i made this morning because i tried to provide a very precise description. >> july 2011 begins a process, a responsible draw down of the surge force and includes the beginning of a process of transition of some tasks to afghan officials and forces based on conditions and, again, all of this based on conditions. >> i want to make sure i do understand because you told senator kauffman it doesn't matter if we leave just a matter of how quick we leave. is that not true? >> based on conditions. given current projections. again, senator, i want you to read the statement i gave at the outset. >> as of june 2012 do you anticipate us having more or less than 50,000 american soldiers in afghanistan? >> senator, i wouldn't hazard a projection. i think that would be speculative and, again, we're a year from the beginning of the process, w

much has been made about the july 2011 withdrawal. is there a way that we can -- particularly with your leadership -- assure the afghan people that this is not a cut and run deadline or drop dead date for decision? that may impact what furtter exact sense -- acceptance of the effort on their behalf. >> we absolutely can, senators john. i have sought to do that with my encounters with the afghan government, and also with are pakistani partners with whom we work very hard to forge a good partnership. they've done such impressive counterinsurgency operations at high cost to themselves on their side of the durand line. and as you note, and the secretary did point out the number of balls that paradoxically seemed to show that although levels of violence have gone up, they have greater hope for the future in greater optimism. that is something that we want to play on and to show them that their hopes are well-founded by our actions together with our afghan partners. >> there is some concern that many will withhold their support may be becau

they believe that we're leaving as of july 2011. i could relate to you anecdotes all the way down to the tribal chieftain level in afghanistan. it seems to me that organizations and countries and leaders in the region are accommodating to that eventuality. that does not bode well for success in afghanistan. i guess it is more than a comment that i make, and elaboration on the comment i made yesterday. if we sound an uncertain trumpet, not many will follow. that is what is being sounded now. that is one of the reasons why we see some of the events taking place in the region. they're not just confined to afghanistan. i know i have used up most of my time. maybe general petraeus would like to respond. >> first of all, i think july of 2001 and is etched in stone. i tried to explain it as a date at which the process begins that is based on conditions. i think that was explained clearly at the speech at west point by the president, which i was privileged to attend. as i said yesterday, i do not think it is productive to discuss journalist

much has been made about the july 2011 withdrawal. is there a way that we can -- particularly with your leadership -- assure the afghan people that this is not a cut d run deadline or drop dead date for decision? that may impact what furtter exact sense -- acceptance of the effort on their behalf. >> we absolutely can, senators john. i have sought to do that with my encounters with the afghan government, and also with are pakistani partners with whom we work very hard to forge a good partnership. they've done such impressive counterinsurgency operations at high cost to themselves on their side of the durand line. and as you note, and the secretary did point out the number of balls that paradoxically smed to show that although levels of violence have gone up, they have greater hope for the future in greater optimism. that is something that we want to play on and to show them that their hopes are well-founded by our actions together with our afghan partners. >> there is some concern that many will withhold their support may be because t

again, that's the point, actually july 2011.hat's the point at whic again, the point responsible drawdown of the surge forces begins at a rate to be determined by the conditions. >> exactly. >> so it's not whether we're going to draw down, it's the rate that is determined by conditions on the ground. >> that's the policy, correct. >> and there will be no more new introduction of troops? >> that is not the intention right now. >> no, but i mean, i think both chairman mullens, the secretary gates and secretary clinton said in the foreign relations committee that this would preclude any drawdown of troops. secretary gates said there may be the 3,000 troops we may need for guards and things like that, but essentially this is not a situation where we're going to be increasing the troops in afghanistan. >> senator, as a commander, as a military commander who owes the commander in chief and our troops in the field my best -- i owe the president my best professional military advice. that's something that's a sacred obligation with our t

petraeus, defense secretary gates, and the president have all said the july 2011 deadline would only be the beginning of the end of u.s. involvement. >> we did not say to starting july 2011 suddenly there would be no troops from the united states or allied countries in afghanistan. we didn't say we'd be switching off lights and closing the door behind us. what we said is we begin a transition phase in which the afghan government is taking on more and more responsibility. that is the strategy that was put forward. >> ifill: petraeus em fa sisesed the notion of that transition phase. >> it will be a number of years before afghan forces can truly handle the security tasks in afghanistan on their own. the commitment to afghanistan is necessarily therefore an enduring one. neither the taliban nor afghan and pakistani partners should doubt that. >> ifill: but several republicans continued to warn against setting timetables of any kind. arizona senator john mccain. >> what our friends and enemies in afghanistan and the region need to hear is is that the withdrawal of u.s. forces from afghan

we are assuming that we will have those kinds of conditions that will enable that by that time in july 2011, that is the projection, and that is what we have supported. >> do i take that to be a qualified yes, a qualified no, and not answer? >> a qualified yes. there is a nuance to what the president said that was very important that did not imply a race for the exit, a search for the light to turn off, or it did imply the need for greater urgency, and that target was, i think, and number of targets that included the leaders in afghanistan, it included some of our partners around the world, it may have >> general, just to follow upm. here, there is a great deal of confusion about this. you just said that beginning with a droll, there were deconditions based, contingent upon certain factors. there is a recent work by jonathan alter that basically quotes, inside the oval office, president obama said that, be honest with me. you can do this in 18 months. sir, i am confident that we can hand over. if you can't do the things you say in 18 monnhs, no one is going to suggest we stay, right? y

let me explain why i think the july 2011 date is so harmful.nd what we're trying to do is to win the loyalty of the population, to convince people who may dislike the insurgency, but who also make distress their drug -- their government that they should align with us -- that this trust their government that they should align with us and take a risk. they will run if they think that we will begin leaving in the year. one song person has said, and "that is why they will not work with us. they say we will leave in 2011 and the taliban will travel their heads off -- will drop their heads off. this is causing afghan leaders to hedge their bets on us. this is not only making the war harder, but making the war longer. if the president would say that success in afghanistan is our only withdrawal plan, whether we reach it before july 2011 or afterwards, it would make the war more winnable and hasten the day when our troops could come home with honor, which is what we all want. in addition to being harmful, the july 2011 withdrawal date looks increasingl

we are not asking for victory by july 2011. we are not asking that afghanistan be stabilized 13 months from now. what we are asking is that by december we have enough evidence to demonstrate, if you will, the proof of concept, that the approach we're taking is trying progress and we're headed in the right direction. i think the expectations on the civilian side are unrealistic. i will let the chairman speak to this, but the reality is that every step of the way, the military was deeply involved in the development of the president's strategy. >> completely. from the standpoint of july 2011, the need to make progress by december and in that review look at the strategy and really evaluate -- and really validate it is the right strategy. if not, from the military perspective, make recommendations that it might change. we are not there. we are not to july 2010 yet. there is a lot to do between now and the end of this year. to get to a point where we start to return some of the surge troops based on conditions on the ground, numbers,

julie, let's start with you and the committee makeup of the senate jishly panel. when the hearing start on jewel 28, there's -- june 28, chairman lay hi walked us through the timeline. how do you suspect she will do on a final vote? and will she go to the senate floor? >> i think we're all assuming that all the democrats on the committee will back her, though yes there's an open question whether some of the republicans on the committee who supported her when she was up for solicitor general last year will do so again. a number of them have said quite emphatically that that vote shouldn't be taken as a signal of what they are going to do this time. so she could get as many as three or four republicans voting for her depending on how she does in the hearings and how they feel that will play politically. they are getting a lot of pressure from outside groups, antiabortion rights groups, for example, to say this is an extreme nominee. you really ought not to vote for her. but because the committee is so skewed in democrats' favor, there is very little they can do to b

we began to have to do stupid things if the supplemental is an pass by the fourth of july recess. we will have to begin planning the money that we have and the overseas contingency fund for the navy and marine corps will begin to run out in july. we will then turn to owen them money and the base budget for them, causing us to disrupt other programs. the army comes along a little behind that, and we have reach a point, so we began to have to do disruptive planning and disruptive action beginning in july. we could reach a point in august , in early to mid-august, where we actually could be in a position where the money that we have available to us in the base budget runs out and we could have a situation where we are furlough wing civilians and where we have acted duty military. >> mr. secretary, you mentioned a startling statistic. you talk to think about the joint strike fighter in a plant where it takes 7% of the plant in the government was being charged 80% of the all-- overhead. i am sorry, 6% of the floor space and yet you are being charged 70% of the overhead. how does that h

general petraeus derecommit to the july 2011 date this week in an interview. but at the same time, judy , if that's when it begins withdrawing , even if it's symbolic withdrawal at that point, if it continue into 2012, it becomes not only a problem for the united states, for the troops fighting there, but it becomes a political problem for barack obama running for reelection, having made that pledge. >> woodruff: the president himself made clear it was a soft date just yesterday. >> the president had said it was a soft date. he's trying to, obviously, get some wiggle room on it. politically it would be a problem if in the summer of 2012 there is not significant, positive progress, that there isn't some sense of a governable nation, that this isn't the graveyard of empires, which we've learned from alexander the great to gengus khan and the british and russians that that's what afghanistan has been. >> woodruff: financial reform. we're gog completely change the subject. the conference committee came out with an agreement, a consensus of sorts last nit, although

"in july 2011, you will see a whole lottof people moving out." i don't know if the book is accurate. it has quotations in it. but there is -- honestly, general, there is a disconnect between the comment you just made in response to the chairmen and what is being depicted here in the president's repeated statements that in july 2011, we will begin a withdrawal. this obviously sends a message to our enemies that we are leaving, and our friends that we are leaving. and then there is an accommodation in the region. i guess, maybe, could you clarify the difference between what you just said and what is quoted in the book that are direct quotations? "i am confident that we can train and hand over to the ana in that timeframe." "if it cannot do the things you say, and no one will suggest we stay, write?" that is a quotation, apparently a direct quotation, from the president of the united states. >> senator, i am not sure it is productive to comment on conversations that took place in the oval office -- >> i understand that. >> what i would come back to

normally that mechanism doesn't get going until we get into late july and august. i think it is an indicator that we're seeing conditions conducive for development over a lot of tropical atlantic. we were expecting a busy season before the season started. we're still expecting a busy season. >> brown: mr. van heerden, that season is coming. that means everybody there must need to adjust. >> yes, and , you know, we all are hoping that they get this well capped as quickly as possible , and that we can get to the actual final cleanup phase and try and put this whole tragedy behind us. >> brown: all right ivor van heerden and james franklin, thank you both very much. >> you're welcome. >> ifill: tomorrow, ray suarez moderates an exclusive "newshour"/google/youtube conversation with b.p. executive bob dudley. find out how you can submit your questions by visiting our web site, newshour.pbs.org, or you tube's citizen tube page. you'll be able to watch live online on our web site and on you tube at 3:30 p.m. eastern time. and we'll air excerpts on tomorrow's "newshour." >

july is the target date to begin the process. host: you do not believe it should be a firm deadline where they begin withdrawing? guest: i hope to be there in october and get some information from general petraeus. then as we move into july, the president will say, we have to do something. the volume should not be determined today. that is something that we should look at next year. i get frustrated with the same old political speeches. we do not know how many people will be withdrawn. let's wait and see the process. but i think there is a lot of political hay that people like to make over this. the general petraeus is very committed. i spoke to him personally before his confirmation hearing. i think he is the right man for the job right now. we should be honest with ourselves. if the karzai government has not trained in of troops, we need to understand what that means. host: should they change strategy at that point? guest: i think we should examine it. i would turn to military leadership to see if it is working. are we on track

ameri star casino in kansas city on july 30th. thank you, bill. >> i'm honored you would ask me to take over the desk, larry, thank you so much. i'm ready to step in at a moment's notice. >> larry: what a -- so you're making an announcement tonight. >> do you want to finish the hour or would you like me to take over right now, larry? >> larry: well, this was tough, bill. it was -- it was time. i was are ready to do it. cnn folks agreed to it. we sat down. we are going to do specials and more time with the family and i want to expand, i want to do other things that i haven't been able to do. >> i am reminded of what my father, who was a broadcaster the day miquel mantle retired, stay isn't some he began the broadcast. >> larry: put me in that class? >> mickey mantle? you are the mickey mantle of broadcasters. mantle played 18 seasons. you played more than that so i know some people out there will say it is maybe inappropriate to say too soon for a man who is in his 70s, but it is too soon. i hope you're -- i hope you're doing this

. >> ifill: david, let's talk about this deadline, the july 11 beginning to pull outta date. i don't think he exactly called it a pull-out date. but there is still some discontent, especially on capitol hill, about whether that's even something we should be aiming for. the president didn't send any signals today that he is backing away from that. >> it's been very clear, that general petraeus himself is very uncertain about this timetable. he was asked last week in his congressional testimony whether he supported the president's july 2011 timetable, and he in effect said, "yes, but." he then framed a very careful statement that talked about this being conditions-based. in other words, if it's not going well, he wants us to reserve the right to pull out very slowly. if--. >> ifill: which is what john mccain and others said. >> it's what the republicans want. i'd love to know-- and don't-- whether general petraeus, in accepting this job from the president today or last night-- or whenever-- asked for a commitment of the time needed to make this work. and who would take a job th

much has been explained, the decision to begin withdrawing our forces from afghanistan arbitrarily in july 2011 seems to be having exactly the effect that many of us predicted it would. it is convincing the key actors inside and outside of afghanistan that the united states is more interested in leaving thhn succeeding in this conflict. as a result, they roll making the necessary accommodations were opposed-american afghanistan. this is not to say that we cannot succeed. i think that we can and we must. it is to say that with the ongoing difficulties in marjah, a delayed offensive in kandahar, growing concerns about the afghan government, troop commitments still lacking from nato, and the final in units of our own search not set to reach afghanistan until the first of september, it now seems increasingly clear that hoping for success on the arbitrary time line set by the unrealistic.on is simply again, i would echo general mcchrystal. it is more important that we get it right then we get it fast. that goes for kandahar and the war itself. it is time for the president to state unequivocally

again, that's the point, actually july 2011. that's the point at which, again, the point responsible drawdown of the surge forces begins at a rate to be determined by the conditions. >> exactly. >> so it's not whether we're going to draw down, it's the rate that is determined by conditions on the ground. >> that's the policy, correct. >> and there will be no more new introduction of troops? >> that is not the intention right now. >> no, but i mean, i think both chairman mullens, the secretary gates and secretary clinton said in the foreign relations committee that this would preclude any drawdown of troops. secretary gates said there may be the 3,000 troops we may need for guards and things like that, but essentially this is not a situation where we're going to be increasing the troops in afghanistan. >> senator, as a commander, as a military commander who owes the commander in chief and our troops in the field my best -- i owe the president my best professional military advice. that's something that's a sacred obligation with o

julie, let's start with you and the committee make out of the senate judiciary panel. have you think she will do in a final vote, and will she go to the senate floor? >> we expect the democrats to back her. it is an open question whether some of the republicans who supported her when she was of for solicitor general will support her once again. some of them have already said the vote should not be taken as a signal as to what they are going to do this time, so she could get as many as three or four republicans voting for her, depending on how she does and a hearing. i can tell you they are getting a lot of pressure from outside groups, anti-abortion groups, saying this is an extreme nominee. you should consider non voting for her. but because the committee is so skewed, there is little to do to block it. i think she has a majority. >> what is the dynamic of the judiciary committee? >> it is interesting that you have 19 people on the committee, and they were all there last year, said there is that familiarity, and last year you had the departure of some icons like josep

10 through july 15. at that time hundreds of naacp leaders and members will consider bowled and innovative a-- bold and innovative approaches tackling the 21st century. among those leaders will be benjamin todd jealous, the president of the naacp, the current chairman, roselyn brock, former chairman, washington bureau director, hillary shelton, and wendall anthony. all exhibited the fearless dedication on building on the naacp's great legacy. this includes many great heroes that we know, dr. martin luther king jr., who abust is in our capitol rotunda, coretta scott king, his widow, rosa parks, medgar evers, benjamin hooks. and i must mention, a.w. willis, johnny turner and others. that you are unwavering commitment to promote civil rights for all americans is a great tradition that the naacp continues today. i am a member of the naacp and am proud of it. i encourage members to support the naacp. i congratulate the naacp on its 101st milestone and urge my colleagues to support this important resolution an

can we win when the president says the withdrawal will start in july 2011?e need to leave it more open ended? that's a debate to come. i was pleased to see the president's speech today. he talked about defeating al qaeda. he said we are a nation at war. the question is, will he back up his military, as that deadline gets closer, and remain muscular if he's under a lot of pressure in his own party not to be that way. >> larry: michael, is general mcchrystal confident about an eventual victory there? >> general mcchrystal recently called his sort of centerpiece operation in marjah a bleezing ulcer so that doesn't reflect the sort of confidence one would expect from the commanding general. so -- as you look at his other -- the other public comments he makes, they're all cautiously optimistic. even calling them cautiously optimistic might be an optimistic way to characterize them. afghanistan being a long hard fight. so i think it's -- you know, i think there's definitely a question of how much -- how confident they believe they were in an eventual win. >> larry

last july, means materials in the subway station caught fire. 20 people are dead, over 50,000 are homeless after the was flooding in brazil. the region has received 14 inches of rain. flooding killed at least 44 people while leaving thousands homeless in the same area. >> most of general motors workers will not get a summer break. the automaker has been forced to shut down over the summer because of low orders. but customer demand is up. gm is aiming for an additional 56,000 vehicles to be produced. for verizon is offering data plans. verizon is expecting a big jump in dated usage as new smart phones entered the market. this is up about 17% from today. the amount of money bp needs to spend climbs each day. jane king has that story in the bloomberg business report. >> bp said the cost of the oil spill has reached about $2 billion. $33 million a day. spending is sure to escalate. seeing bp stock falling in london trading this morning. nordstrom rack plans to open another store in the area this summer. a new store will be opened in the annapolis harbor center. the only other nordstrom racks a

moran for july 1 and 2, ms. ros-lehtinen for today, dr. paul for june 30 and july 1, ms. foxx for today, mr. fortenberry for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following member mace be permitted to address the house for five minutes to revise and extend their remarks and include thereon extraneous material. mr. mcgovern, mr. ween over new york, mr. perriello of virginia, mr. defazio of oregon, mr. quigley of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following member are recognized for five minutes each. mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous condition sonet to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i rise to express dissatisfaction with our involvement in afghanistan.

we are not asking for a victory by december or by july of 2011. we are not asking that afghanistan be stabilized 13 months from now. what we are asking is that, by december, we have enough evidence to demonstrate the proven concept, that the approach we are taking is showing progress. i think the expectations on the civilian side or realistic. i let the chairman speak to this, but the reality is that every step of the way the military is deeply involved in the development of the president's strategy and signed on to the president's strategy. >> completely and from the standpoint of july, 2011, the need to make progress by december and in that review look at the strategy and validate that it is the right strategy. clearly, if not, from the military's perspective, be able to make adjustments. we are not there. we are not to july, 2010, yet. there is a lot to do between now and the end of this year. to get to the point where we start to return some of those surge troops based on conditions on the ground, the numbers, of places, we are not close to un

admiral allen said today the oil company hopes to double its capacity by mid-july with a new "hard cap" system. it can siphon more than two million gallons a day. >> the issue is for b.p. to move quickly to establish capacity and redundancies, so as we're able to increase the flow, they've got the capacity to produce it. >> woodruff: on thursday, allen sent a letter to b.p.'s chairman, carl henric svanberg, inviting him to meet with president obama at the white house next wednesday. meanwhile, the oil giant worked to preserve its business. its stock bounced back in london today after taking a beating earlier in the week. and svanberg defended his company after a telephone conversation with british prime minister david cameron. >> i think we have done everything, as you know. we have done everything we can to try to kill the well. and we have said that we would do everything expected from us in cleaning up the beach, taking care of all the claims, and learn from this as an incident, from this incident, and make the deep sea drilling an even safer place. >> woodruff: still, "the wall str

the memo claims multiple conversations between clinton and setstastak in june and july. the congressman insisted there was only one conversation. who is lying? the president alleges that president obama new nothing about any of these conversations. why would the white house unless a high-profile surrogate like former president bill clinton on multiple occasions without the knowledge of president obama for month-long negotiations about a low profile on page position -- unpaid position to a congressman who could not accept the job anyway? this is only part of a long tradition. andrew romanov was charging the democratic incumbent for a nomination. he was offered one of three jobs if he would drop out of the primary. the white house first denied the allegations when they came from anonymous administration whistle-blowers, but once the actual e-mail was released by runoff -- by romanov, the story changed. the jobs were offered, but nothing inappropriate happened. after all the stonewalling, what is the latest defense? it was just business as usual. enough is enough. if from e

july 2011 is not the date where we raise for the exodus. it is the day where, having done an assessment, we begin a transition of tasks to afghan security forces based on conditions and begin a process of "response will -- responsible drawdown of our forces." host: what should the american public take from that about the state of armed forces? that was his first question. the secretary representing the administration made it very clear that everything is conditions-based. they explained what transition means. it is not an abandonment. the afghan national police, afghan national army, will be in the lead on combat operations. we will not abandon the people of afghanistan. if we do, we will put every city in our nation at risk. general petraeus testified yesterday that transnational terrorists will regroup in that country to attack the united states, india, europe. this is clear. what we are doing is taking action to protect the american people. host: south carolina. ray on the independent line. caller: good morning, mr. wilson. i question al

up three years ago on the fourth of july. if the government wants to get back to being relevant, it must ensure justice, promote the general warfare -- general welfare, d secure the blessings of liberty. i have not seen much of either party that indicates that they understand that. if they dnot understand that, maybe we ought to elect new people to congress. [applause] >> i appreciate your opinion. you definitely should hold people accountable. people choe to call their office however they . -- to hold their office however they do. when we set up this website, people ask if we were using government money to cate aay for people to express their opinions to us? we said yes. they seemed to think that was wrong. only been -- only in washington would people think it was wrong to use government money to allow people to express their opinions to you. but you're a republican. yes, but people can come to this whatever they are. hi. >> thank you for this town hall, the telephone town hall, and america speaking out. asn american of mexi

with that, julie? >> was feinberg says he wants to speed up the claims process, but it still seems like they're our not strict guidelines for what claims should be paid out and what are legitimate? >> the claims process is now moving over with feinberg where he is setting up across the system to handle the $20 billion in the peseta. bp right now is already handling some of the claims. the president has said he wants to make sure that the process is fair and prompt and that the people of bp do what is necessary in order to pay the claims. >> so, it will be to wait until you get some guidelines or to adjust file whatever you think is appropriate? >> the recommendation would be to four if you -- would be if you think you need to file, file. mr. feinberg is setting up and he would encourage you to move as fast as you can to reclaim some of the money that bp owes you. >> the government also announced that its cost are 6 to $9 billion. will bp continue to get a larger bill? -- the costs are $69 billion. will

aerostar casino in kansas city on july 30th. thank you. >> i am honored you ask me to take over the desk. i am ready to step down on a moment's notice. >> you are making an announcement tonight to? >> this was tough. it was time. 5 is ready to do it. the cnn folks agreed to it. we sat down and we will do specials. more time with the family. i want to explain that. 01 to do other things that i want to do. >> my father said this the day mickey mantle retired. say it isn't so. mickey mantle, you are the mickey mantle of broadcasters. he played 18 seasons and you played more than that. i know some people out there will say it is inappropriate to say too soon for a man who is in his 70s, but it is too soon. i hope your doing this of their own volition and not because of what the media says. >> no pressure from cnn, did not pay attention to that. i love what i do. it was time. >> as long as it is coming from meal and not dictated by "the new york times." >> i did the 25th anniversary week. plus mac i am flying home from a week, and i'

allows for consideration providing for adjournment during the month of july. mr. speaker, this is a simple and straightforward rule. it allows the rules for the wall street reform conference report and either the tax extenders jobs bill or subject matters related to the jobs bill, such as unemployment insurance, to be considered on the same legislative day that they are reported out of the rules committee. this is an important step that must be taken if we are to pass these bills before the senate adjourns for the funeral of senator byrd. this bill allows for clear actions, up and down votes on the conference report to prevent wall street from melting down like it did two years ago and a bill to provide unemployment compensation to people who have lost their jobs and cannot find work in this economy. mr. speaker, these are clear-cut choices. either you support fixing wall street or you don't. do you believe unemployed americans looking for work should receive unemployment insurance to pay for their mortgages, utilities, food, or you do not. so far my republica

on the july date, your position as well heard and i think well debated on capitol hill. i refer you, if you can, go to the senate hearing from last year, last week with general petraeus. i think john mccain is the leading voice on the other side to say, as we have heard for years, that these deadlines are artificial. they are false. you can put it out there, but the administration admits or says themselves they will look at things again in december and looked again before july. that is all conditions-based, and if it is all conditioned- based, what does it mean? it has caused a lot of consternation. you can hear it in the voices of the senators. one after another, they are asking for explanations. they keep saying yes, we supported. host: a member of mcchrystal's team who was president for celebration of mcchrystal's 33rd wedding anniversary said, "it was clearly off the record." aides made it very clear to michael that it was private time. back to the phones. savannah, georgia. sam on our line for republicans, you are on the "washington journal," and we are always on th

. >> july 2, 2009. "congress travel tab swells, rising tenfold from italy to the galapagos."is that you doing the analysis? >> at the time, i had a good friend who is now at the "washington post." he is one of those guys who can get into some data, set up computer programs, and somehow spit out numbers that i would not have any idea how to come up with. >> is that the one email that shows the algorithm? >> that was part of the computer program that he used to put together this chart. >> but the average person could not figure that out. >> i have no idea what that chart means. >> where did he go after the figures for this travel story? where did he find the figures? >> congress is required to disclose within 30 days or sometimes 90 days a very basic set of information about where they traveled. they are required to put that in the congressional record. the congressional record is a phone book-sized record of everything that happened in congress the day before. every few days, there will be a single page put into that about the trips that happened in the previous period. what t

on tuesday, july 13, 2010. or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution whichever occurs first. and that when the senate recesses or adjourns on any day from wednesday, june 30, 2010, through sunday, july 4, 2010, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on monday, july 12, 2010, or such other time on that day as may be specified in the motion to recess or adjourn or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. section 2, the speaker of the house and the majority leader of the senate or their respective designees acting jointly after consultation with the minority leader of the house and the minority leader of the senate shall notify the members of the house and the senate respectively to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if in their opinion the public interest shall warrant it. the spe

julie. caller: i have a couple of comments. one thing that bothers me is that he mentions that she has great empathy. in my view, and that they should not have anything to do with a supreme court justice. it is supposed to be about the constitution and law, not about feelings for a particular people. host: anything else? you said you had more. caller: yes, i had heard the press had tried to get some ideas from her brother, who supposedly has a radical liberal list views, and the press was shut out of his classroom when they tried to do that. i wonder why we do not see that in the press. host: have you seen that in the press? guest: yes, one of the papers released was her senior thesis from princeton university where she wrote about socialism. in the acknowledgment section, she references her brother and how he had been an inspiration to her, in terms of her course of study in the issue. of course, the press wanting to know about her, try to track him down. i was not one of them, so i cannot speak to that, but i understand he wa

>> it could come up in july. we have had some hearings on whether or not it could be exploited.e always do what we did once before, and that is offered members to put an equal alternative. the bomb with the most votes is still standing, then that is the one we -- the one with the most votes that is still standing, than that is the one we adopted. we had a couple of republican bills that were targeted to just a few taxpayers. >> before we go, the administrative officials have said that peter orszag is going to be leaving soon. can you assess his tenure, and who should replace him? >> we have some cable choices right there in the white house. -- capable choices right there in the white house. i think it is important that you have an economist of orszag's ability. secondly, you need somebody who is very capable and understands the budget, which is not something you can do on the job. it needs to be someone who has a good grasp of the budget process. many would fit that bill. i think the president has several tauruses and all of them good. >> i want to -- several choices and all of