tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN August 6, 2009 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
in the past several years, the recovered reserves of natural gas have more than doubled. last month, there was an historic advance in a clean energy legislation. the bill would help position the united states as a leader in clean energy. the administration looks for to looking to enact swift legislation that will reward clean energy innovation. working together, we can enact legislation that ensures economic recovery, creating millions of jobs. i ask that my entire statement put into the record. thank you, madame chairwoman.
>> next, we will hear from the honorable thomas stricklands. he is from the u.s. department of the interior. he is speaking on behalf of the secretary of the interior, ken salazar. >> on behalf of secretary ken salazar, you saw it pleased to be here. -- i am please to be here. i thank you, and the secretary does, for your leadership on this important issue. we are entering a new day for energy production in the united states, a time for more efficient use of energy from all sources. together, this is the foundation of a clean energy era. as a president obama has said, there is a choice before us. we can remain the world's leading importer of oil and -- or become the leading exporter of clean energy. the department of the interior
manages 20% of america. these lands that only include some of our treasured landscapes, but also some of the most productive energy areas. until recently, energy production of focus has been on conventional resources including oil, gas, and coal. insuring these resources is essential to our energy security, but we also have undeveloped potential on our public lands and under the leadership of president obama and secretary salazar, we are pursuing these opportunities. the bureau of land management has identified over 20 million acres of public land with energy potential and over 29 million acres with solar energy potential. there are also 140 million acres of public land in alaska with a geothermal resource potential as well as significant biomass
potential. these public lands have the potential to produce a total of 2.9 megawatts of solar. 206 megawatts of wind. 39,000 megawatts of geothermal energy. there is also significant potential in our offshore waters. the department of energy, the national laboratory has identified more than 1000 gigawatts of potential of the atlantic coast and more than 900 gigawatts of the pacific coast. the american business community is responding. on june 23, 2009, the department of the interior announced plans to construct new meteorological towers of the coast of new jersey and delaware, the first of their kind ever offered by the federal government. companies are also investing in similar facilities in the southwest and geothermal production -- projects
throughout the west. at the same time, we are also maintaining our production of oil and gas. currently, the intercontinental shelf produces 27% of our oil. in sum, we have abundant, clean, renewable energy sources in our land and off our coast which, taken together, will provide a substantial portion of our energy in 2020 and beyond. we can store carbon both in the ground and in plants, in the department is actively pursuing the work necessary to make that technology a reality, biological carbon sequestration. the department is developing methodologies and standards to accompany efforts on a commercial scale. we are working with the department of energy. the carbon demonstration project, we are promoting these
efforts on public lands. we are currently active in five demonstration projects. there is an enhanced coal bed methane project in new mexico. saving america's treasure of landscapes through landscape- scale conservation efforts will be one of the major contributors -- contributions we will make to carbon reduction. the carbon produced by this will -- produced by the sequestration of carbon size, including but not limited to forests and grasslands, has not been fully quantified but could be virtually in less. we have a number of projects throughout the country focused on these particular efforts. the experience of our land managers in pursuing these projects as part of our broader responsibilities, and that should be useful to the committee as you develop verifiable carbon reductions that are associated with
environmentally-sound uses of a private lands. in conclusion, a problem as complex as climate change takes the coordinated effort of all the branches of the federal government, collaboration with leaders around the world, state and local governments. i would like permission to have my written remarks handed into the record. >> without objection. thank you, all of you. when we went through what happened since we changed the gavel to myself, he left out a couple of things i wanted to make sure we looked at. one was the supreme court ruling that carbon is a pollutant covered by the clean air act. the subsequent action by the epa, a very important action that build on the work of the bush administration that we knew had been there, which is to take
the first steps toward an endangerment finding. under the clean air act, we have got to protect our families from pollution. here we are. we are in a circumstance where the supreme court ruled that carbon is in fact covered by the clean air act. the first steps to be endangerment man have been made. it seems to me -- and the other thing that happened -- we did change presidents. now you have a circumstance where you have a court, the highest court in the land -- once there is an endangerment find, we have to clearly act. we have a president who believes this is an economic opportunity. my question for all three of you is this -- one way or another, we are going to have to lessen the carbon amounts. it is either through the clean air act, or through some
flexible legislation that we are all looking at, the house has passed of version of it, which gives us tremendous flexibility. my colleagues on the other side -- i think i wrote it down. one of them said "it is a tax and tax scheme." i do not know of any taxes in it whatsoever. as far as i know, there will be lots of tax credits to help consumers. my question is, one way or another, we have to address carbon pollution. do you feel the flexibility you can put together in a well crafted bill would make it better for businesses and consumers and create more jobs. >> without question, madam chairman. i would start by focusing on the energy opportunities this country faces. businesses are burdened with energy waste. it is like trying to run a race with an iron ball change your
feet. there is some much we can do as a nation to improve our competitiveness by using energy more efficiently. the study i referred to says we can save $7 billion a year in the next decade. that is not a small amount money. -- we can save $700 billion a year in the next decade. i was talking to a glass manufacturer who said they can make glass. he cannot sell this class, which cost a little bit more, because contractors have put in low bids. that is the type of problem we need to overcome with things like coats -- codes to solve the energy problems in our country. >> anyone else? >> i think one of the most important things is that this is on market mechanisms. we need to move to market mechanisms to solve our problems. we need to ensure those markets are structured correctly. that is what we are attempting to do -- correctly structure the
markets in a way that will ensure the market will make the rights elections. >> i would just add that, as part of the whole calculus to make this work, we need to have adequate sources of renewable energy, and we believe we have that now in a variety of areas, and again in public lands. we have a huge backlog of applications for solar projects. accelerating the process of these solar publications. secretary salazar put forward rates for development on the outer continental shelf, which is a huge potential resource. >> i also want to point out that under the house bill, it is projected that the nuclear power plants would result from that bill, as a result of putting a price on carbon there through the market. senator alexander urges the building of 100 new nuclear
power plants. he, and we believe that would cost ratepayers $70 billion a year. i believe that anyone who is very fervently for nuclear power should be for this type of global warming legislation, because it would spur more nuclear power, and ratepayers would be assisted through tax credits. i am confused by some of the proponents of nuclear power are missing the point. i guess like to ask mr. we llinghoff if you have seen that analysis? most of the nuclear power plants i know are supporting this legislation. >> yes. i have not seen the specific analysis, although i think i have seen some reports of it.
i think it comes back to market mechanisms to the extent that you make of fossil fuel generation more expensive and nuclear power less-expensive. it is ultimately going to drive those technologies and the markets. >> thank you. >> thank you. before i start, i have some requests to make. last week, concerned with the statement repudiating the statement on the green jobs study -- i would like to insert into the record that study and the response to your statements. >> and we will put hours back in there as well so they can be side-by-side. yes. [laughter] >> and since you made the statement -- i would like to insert the statement by a member of the finance committee and this committee, senator baucus
who says this is a tax bill. the house bill will refer to the committee, it will automatically be referred to by the finance committee as a tax bill. >> there are tax credits in it. we are going to start this regardless of who puts what in the record. that is ok. >> let me ask the three of you -- one of the consistent things we keep coming up with -- and it was always back to win vice president gore had -- when vice president gore had tom woodland, and he said if we were to pass the key of the treaty, and these are essentially cap in -- cap and trade bills. he came up with the response that all the developed nations would live by the emission requirements of kyoto.
he said it would raise the temperature by now more than 0.07 of 1 degrees celsius. the chair of the environmental services cannot the same thing. he said it would reduce it by 0.1 of one degree. lee said jackson said it would not reduce it at all. let me ask the panel. if you think we passed the bill as it is today, it will have the effect of reducing the co2 worldwide? real quickly? >> i do, and the analyses you are citing assume that america will not leave or innovate. what i hear is the rest of the world is waiting for the united states to take strong steps and eager to follow american leadership. i also believe in the american entrepreneurial spirit.
once on to burn norse get strong signals, it will move forward. -- once entrepreneurs get strong signals, they will move forward. >> china, elsewhere -- again, does anyone else want to respond to that question? do you think it will reduce the overall co2 if we pass this thing? >> i am not a scientist, senator, as you know. i do not have the scientific background. i support the position of the administration. >> we have heard time and time again that american possesses 3% of the oil reserves in the world and use 25% of the world's oil. yet that 3% number refers only to the nation's 21 billion barrels of proven reserves. to prove reserve, you have to drill.
if you cannot drill, you cannot prove reserves. 83% of federal onshore lands are inaccessible or restricted due to our policies here. 85% of offshore continental in the united states is off-limits. more assessment, honest assessment combines 21 billion proven reserves -- that is combined with the usgas estimates of technically- unrecoverable oil resources. that shows american oil resources equal to 149 billion barrels of oil, or seven times the number cited by the democrats. and those who are conservative -- those are conservative government estimates. methane hydrates, oil shale, corp. estimates 1.1 trillion
recoverable in utah, wyoming. to put that in perspective -- that equals more than two dozen years worth of imports from saudi arabia. i think it is clear that we have the resources. i would say this in a statement. you said there were two alternatives. this is your statement, secretary strickland. either we can remain the world's leading importer of oil, or we can become the world's leading exporter of oil. i think there should be a third one. develop our own resources. you're the only country in the world that does not develop our own resources. the question i have is to do you agree with these analyses? should we develop our own resources? the start with you, secretary strickland. >> is the position of the administration that we should
actively and aggressively developed our conventional energy resources. since this new administration came into office in january 21, we have offered just under 2000 parcels for least. 2.3 million acres. there were bids on 145,000 acres. i accompanied secretary salazar to new orleans. we have a bit coming up in august with respect to additional offshore lands. we are looking at the oc in its entirety. we think there is substantial opportunity to continue to develop oil and gas. we think it has been undervalued and under develop -- under developed. we are moving quickly to bring balance. that is not at the expense of
our conventional committed. we agree there are additional opportunities. >> secretary strickland, i appreciate that response. it is and all of the above response. thank you. >> thank you. >> i want to ask a question in response to the quest for further development of our own resources. if we develop more of our will -- oil and energy resources as they are defined today, do we help global warming get to be reduced? >> the most important steps we can take or to improve energy efficiency, to innovate with renewable energy sources, to
bring a low carbon sources. developing our own fossil resources in environmentally- responsible manner and comprehensive way is important for it achieving a number of objectives. the most important thing we can do in the short term is energy efficiency -- >> energy efficiency. therefore, as the contemplate touching the abundance of oil and gas in our country, we therefore do not automatically control the growth of global warming? i think we need to stop going through this charade and step up to the plate and say, look. yes, perhaps we cannot find some more oil. we want to reduce our cost for living, etc., etc. leading scientists say that the united states must cap emissions
by at least 20% by 2005, and the study that i talked about before said be can reduce our energy use by 23% i-2020. at little or no cost to energy efficiency. how crucial is it to our long- term objective of reducing carbon emissions in our world that we are again reducing by at least 20% by the year 2020. >> in my view, senator, it is important to get started. is important to take the steps needed to assemble the right incentives for families around the station. there are such huge opportunities where we just need a consistent and clear policy
structure. >> mr. wellinghoff? >> i agree. it is absolutely essential we start the energy efficiency as early -- early is the key. that is why it is important to allow by market mechanisms, cap and trade, to have efficiency rise to the stock -- to the top of our energy resources? . >> the international energy agency says that achieving reductions will require an annual global investment. annual global. of $400 billion a year on research and develop a. the gao estimates the u.s. government spends one or $4 billion a year on energy research and development. -- spends $1.4 billion a year on
energy research and development. how much should our government spending? >> in the past, our government has under-invested in energy research and under-invested dramatically. at this is a focused to increase our investment in this area, in bringing the best lines and to clean energy research. if we do that, we can solve these problems. >> mr. wellinghoff? >> in addition to research, we need to do development deployment. that is what we are doing to get these things in place. both are important. research and development and d & d is important as well. >> are we far short of what we
have to do? >> absolutely. >> madam chairman, at least we are discussing global warming like it is real and not just somebody's fictional view of what is happening in our world. thank you. >> thank you. senator alexander is next. >> thank you, madam chairman. the chairman mention the relative cost of nuclear and wind. we have an interesting report this week on our energy future. the relative cost of developing the comparable amount of nuclear and when would be about the same, according to this report. 100 new reactors -- that would not include the cost of transmission, which must be hundreds of new transmission towers, or maybe thousands for the wind turbines. and it does not speak to backup power. you still have to have new
clear, cool, something else for when the wind does not blow. -- you still have to have nuclear, coal, something else for when the wind does not blow. in terms of "dirty energy," that is not true. the subsidies go to wind. 19 times per kilowatt hour. 19 times the subsidy for nuclear. much more than coal. 30 * all other renewable. mr. strickland, your department is the custodian of our national landscape. we are celebrating 100 years of protecting it. what are you going to do about 180,000 new wind turbine sadr 50 stories tall, many of them in the west and thousands of miles of transmission lines? and the solar thermal plants that are being built -- to equal
one nuclear plant, it would take a solar plant that is 30 square miles. they tell us in the southeast to use biomass. i figured out that we would have to continuously for is an area the size of the great smoky mountains to equal one nuclear reactor, and we would have hundreds of trucks roaring in and out every day carrying the stuff. some conservationists are talking about a renewable energy sprawl. are you developing policies to deal with that? >> senator, we are. right now, the blm is looking at solar and of programmatic ils. rather than letting this developed haphazardly with individual projects, let's look at where they are best located, that takes into account some of these environmental issues as well as transportation issues. we are looking at transportation corridors in the same way. we are working closely with the
western governors association. the idea is to take into account the very points to make. the environmental considerations. these are real issues which will process and work through. >> we would not want to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment. did i remember right -- you wrote for told me one time that you thought with a concerted effort over 20 years, we might be able to electrify half hour cars and trucks? " that is correct, senator. -- >> that is correct, senator. i just want to add -- congratulating you for all your work on this topic. you got the first plug in vehicle in washington, d.c. area. congratulations for that. >> thank you. did you ever do a study on how much this would reduce our
reliance on foreign oil? >> it could dramatically reduce our reliance. it is quite significant. >> you are dealing with policy over there, and i congratulated secretary chu for his interest in nuclear power. my question is for white -- why don't we have a clean energy standard? this is about teen energy. why are we picking and choosing and subsidizing. why don't we have a mandate? we do not have a mandate to build. we have mandates that basically require people in the southeast to buy wind from south dakota, which makes no sense -- or to force us to put wind turbines on our bridge talks which are our most treasured places. it does not make any sense. why do we not have a clean energy standard or why do we not
have a baseline clean energy standard and renewable clean energy standard? would not produce a lot more pollution-free energy more rapidly? >> the bill that came out of the house contains a powerful mechanism for doing roughly what you're describing -- >> excludes nuclear power. >> it includes a cap and trade mechanism. >> i am asking you about a mandate. we have a mandate for wind and solar, really mainly wind. why not do the same. -- why not do the same? >> the bill as a whole accomplishes the objectives you were talking about -- >> so we do not need the renewable mandate then? >> i think that is helpful part of the overall mix. i think there's going to be discussion in this chamber. >> thank you, madame chair. >> thank you. let me see my list here.
>> thank you, very much, madame chair. thank you for your testimony. as i hear about what we can achieve through increased energy efficiency in the amount of renewable energy that can be created in the timeline of 2030, i guess some of the statistics that were mentioned -- mr. wellinghoff you said we could produce a certain number of gigawatts by 23. 20% of energy by 2013. is it not important to read these into a coherent strategy to reduce our appeal -- our reliance on foreign oil? >> yes, i believe it is. parted it is the dialogue between senator alexander and secretary sandoval. this is the key if we want to move off foreign oil. we have to electrify the
transportation system and ensure that we have cleaned the electric energy to provide a that for the transportation systems. i think it is very doable, yes. >> that was strongly agree with chairman wellinghoff. within $2.4 billion of grants under the recovery act have been devoted to exactly these purposes. this is the future. >> mr. strickland, do you want to add to that? >> i totally agree with that. i think heretofore, just within the department of the interior, there had not been enough efforts to look at our public lands, inventory them, put our regulatory framework in place to accelerate permitting so you could access is renewable resources that are there, as well as the transmission peace. we need to get these pieces in place.
we need to develop our renewable resources. >> i think i heard 3 yeses to the question. i think it would be helpful to have the administration layout just such a more detailed strategy. it is a huge challenge to this country to be dependent on a few nations for foreign oil. it is a huge cost to be spending $2 billion a day on foreign oil. we would create a lot of jobs by spending money in the united states. the money have a vision that we could lay out to the american people of a triple when. triple win on national security, creating jobs here, and the third being reducing the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. leadership and skittish stewardship of -- leadership and stewardship of our planet.
2030 is a while into the future, but maybe we see the numbers crunched and what can be produced, it can be done in a shorter time. i wanted to specifically pursue the comments about the electrification of see passage for transportation. i applaud senator alexander for his work in this area. statistics are along the lines that if we were to have all of our cars produced in the near future, they would get 30 miles on simple electricity and of braking systems, regenerative braking systems to be captured -- to recapture energy lost. we could reduce by 80% the carbon dioxide generated by car transportation. are these numbers in the right area, or do we have the right numbers? would it be feasible to have an aggressive strategy in which we
basically say that some day in the future, every new car produced in america will have to go 3 miles on electricity and -- 30 miles on electricity? >> there is no question the savings could be substantial. that is for two reasons. first, electric motors are much more efficient and combustion engines and the allow us to tap into low carbon energy sources. the carbon emissions from a fleet that is electrified is going to be much -- he mentioned 23. maybe by that time, i will be a grandfather. by that time, my grandkids will look at my kids and say, what you mean? you did not plugged in cars back then? i think they will think that is as odd as not having so phones -- cellular phones today. >> any comments?
>> the think your numbers are correct. there are two very good statements -- studies done on this issue. one was done by the nrdc. they looked at what carbon emissions would be for automobiles and what all carbon emissions would be if we move to electric transportation. definitely, there would be reductions in carbon it is feasible -- reductions in carbon. it is feasible. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. i defer to my colleague. >> thank you. i introduced the bill -- the
national security -- the national energy security act. one of the reasons i did that was because i have been concerned for a long time about our environment and national security. it's the public knew all vulnerable we were today in terms of oil, they would be shaking in their boots. it seems to main that today -- it seems to me that we are sending 60% of our oil coming from overseas, and 60% coming from opec nations. we send to ledger $40 billion overseas to countries that that produced this oil. we have no idea of the environmental impact that is having. i thought to myself on many occasions, we should be doing from a public policy, security, so forth -- we should take
advantage of all the natural resources that we have. mr. strickland, i talked with former senator salazar about this. at the same time, we should be as aggressive as any place in the world to find a way to use less oil. perhaps in a dozen years, we would be out there as the country that is least reliant on foreign sources of oil and the country that uses oil police, and then we would be, i think, in terms of competitiveness right where we should be. i am glad to know that you are moving for. i wish the president would talk about the fact that not only will we use less oil, but we are going to go after those areas where we can responsibly find oil. i would like you to look to that bill. it was put together and sponsored by many generals, admirals or concern.
it talks about finding more, using less. it talks about 85% of our vehicles would be electrified. talks about the fact that we need the grid. it says that we will need $165 billion to the grid. we need the grid not only for wind and solar, but we need that for the rest of the energy we produce for the country. the other thing i want comment on is the issue of -- in your testimony you talk about a major reason why energy efficiency is not used more extensively, the cost of greenhouse gas emissions is not reflected in the price of energy. if tax energy would cost more, people would use less and switch to less reliable sources. >> that is something that i have a hard time understanding. i think he once said that we did
not have to build. if we did solar and wind, we would not have to have nuclear or we would not have to have cold, or we might not have to have gas. -- we would not have to have coal, and we might not have to have gas. it defies logic. 50% cold -- coal, 50% gas. 20% to clear. 0.8 solar. i have talked to the best experts in the world. they have said you have to do all that. if you think some day down the road we're going to take care of our energy needs through solar and wind, it is just plain not needs. -- niave. what is your reaction to that? how can you say something like that when the facts are different? >> senator voinovich, that is
not exactly what i said. looking at a number of scenarios in respect to the market, it may be possible to bridge to carve an energy future utilizing a combination of renewable resources, which would include solar, wind, geothermal, hydro kinetics, biomass, and energy efficiency, and the man responds, i and natural gas. if you look that combination, every expert i have talked to would agree that it is feasible, depending on how we structure our markets. >> 50 years from now? 100 years from now? >> certainly there is a transition, no doubt about it. we need to look at natural gas. in this country, we have probably over 100 years worth of natural gas. the secretary indicated that we have revised our coal figures.
if we look at the two comparatively, natural gas, when you burn it, puts out half the car and the -- carbon that coal dust. it makes sense to emphasize a bridge with natural gas, more than it would a bridge with carbon-intensive coal. >> i am out of time. i want to make one point. we encouraged electricity to go to natural gas. our gas prices went through the top. we lost millions of jobs in this country because of the high natural gas costs. i had people in my office -- a move it jobs from the u.s. because of our natural gas costs. we did not pay attention to the impact on our economy. these are all these things relate to each other. you cannot do these things in a
kaboom. >> and i am not suggesting that we do. we have found vast amount of new natural gas that we never knew existed before. we need to look at that, consider that, as hollywood fit into the bridge of being a low carbon society. >> thank you. >> thank you, madame chair. i want to thank the witnesses for their testimony. the think we all agree with senator voinovich that there is not one source that will solve our energy problems. i think it is niave not to look at renewable and doing a better job with grenoble's. -- renewable. we need to leave on global
climate change, reducing our carbon footprint. several of you have mentioned what is happening in other countries. he specifically mentioned that, secretary. i guess my concern is, whether america will find the innovations we came up with that were developed here in america, perhaps with government support, all the sudden being used in other countries and literally purchased by other countries, making us dependent on energy developed in other parts of the world for our own energy needs. i will give you one example. we are developing in baltimore allergy-based ethanol. it has promised. if it works, it could be a tremendous source of energy. the carbon footprint is
negative. that is a new technology. there is going to be companies that move ahead on this. whether they are in america or another country. i worry we may not be doing enough. enough to keep this technology here in america, based in america rather than another country. a lot of this will be very fungible. i do not want to import energy. i do applaud, again, the american recovery and reenlistment -- reinvestment act. we wanted us to have a major impact on this issue. this is a major step forward on an electric cars and batteries. i do worry that we may be missing the opportunity for allowing our markets to --
>> your concern is very well founded and were now by recent history. the technology behind the photovoltaic cell was developed here, and now other countries have the lead in developing that technology. the technology behind the prius battery was developed in the u.s., and now it is commercialized elsewhere. we need to keep the technology is here. programs like the one announced yesterday, programs like the bill in the house, are essential to make sure the united states leads to clean energy revolution. quickset think americans would be surprised to learn that that technology -- >> i think americans would be surprised to learn that that technology was developed in america.
we helped develop the. now we're getting back to it. i think you're taking the right steps right now. i hope we have the staying power in order to accomplish the goal that all of us want to see, america being energy independent in an environmentally-friendly way. secretary strickland, i want to get back to you on the public lands. public lands are critically important for energy production in america. can you tell us where we are, as far as the use of public lands for renewable energies? where do you see as as far as, i hope, changing that equation? using more of our public lands for renewals? >> i think we are in the very early stages of using public lands in the potential for renewable energy. just this spring, regulation was put in place to provide for the development for offshore wind and the intercontinental shelf.
the was one project that went forward. at least the application for the project had gone forward. we are very much in our infancy. we are very much for in the project in place with respect to solar. much the same, we have limited proposals for solar, up until recently. now we have a huge backlog of private-sector interest in developing solar on our public lands. as i mentioned, recovery act dollars are putting four offices to deal with that backlog so we can deal with these projects through the permitting system and those that meet the standards for environmental review and otherwise makes sense will come on line. it early on in this effort, but there is a huge potential. >> i think it would be good for our committee to have the information as to the amount of public lands that are being devoted to renewable compared
to traditional extraction's. >> senator, and will be glad to organize a committee. whoever would like to sign, we will make it official. >> thank you. mr. wellinghoff, he said in april. there is no need to build new nuclear power plants or coal plants in the united states. you said that base load capacity would become an anachronism. 10 senators spent a lot -- sent a letter to the president. we were troubled that the top power industry regulator would make, what i believe was reckless and unrealistic commons. i will ask that that letter be submitted as part of the record. thank you. secretary salazar recently testified before the energy committee. you talked about my colleagues
questions about public land being used for renewable. secretary salazar testified that 138,000 acres of land would be needed to build a wind farm with the capacity to replace one cold-fired power plant. that is roughly 3 1/2 times the size of washington, d.c. i guess the question comes down to -- are we willing to set aside an area that is 3.5 times in the area of the district of columbia to replace each of these cold-fired -- coal-fired power plants. how do you plan on doing that? >> first of all, i did respond to a question by senator voinovich. i like to clarify. what i did say is -- appropriate
market scenarios, i believe is possible to construct a combination of renewable resources, which would include not just wind, but also geothermal, and we're finding more geothermal than we ever knew existed. there are literally hundreds of gigawatts of geothermal and ngo -- geo pressure wells in texas. we are finding hundreds of gigawatts of hydro kinetic resources in our rivers and streams. we also of biomass and other renewable. add to that, 20% energy efficiency that mckinsey talks about in their study. add to that the 188 gigawatts we found in our study.
combine that with our 100 years of natural gas that we have in this country. the recent scenario, the market constructs where we could in fact move to a lower carmen transition, utilizing just those -- lower carbon transition, utilizing just those resources. that is where the transition as. the land that it takes to put that wind up, i think that secretary salazar said there are estimates of 100,000 gigawatts of the atlantic coast. we have that. we can take care the area we need to ultimately develop the wind. i think we do have the resources. we to have the land area potentially to develop if we look at all the resources and how they can be combined together. >> as a question of how much land is being used for nobles on
shore, you may want to include some of those offshore issues as well. mr. strickland, the president of the american farm bureau testified before this committee. he said there would be winners and losers in the agricultural community based on waksman markey -- waxman-markey. they have a very little of such opportunities in this bill. they are constrained. the federal lands to not qualify for of such opportunities. the majority of federal lands, half of wyoming, great portions of colorado -- i am concerned about how the agricultural community could possibly survive under waxman-markey
given what the president of the american farm bureau has to say. do you have any solutions from your department? >> in terms of the issues that we deal with relative to access, we see that as a continued important volume and critical to the economy of the west. we do not believe that is at risk here. we also believe that there are outstanding opportunities for carbon sequestration, and that involves collaboration and cooperation with the agricultural community. in fact, senator inhofe has been a leader in this. i met with a rancher this weekend. he has an easement he has helped facilitate important wildlife values in montana.
very clear examples of how we can partner between the public and private sector to advance environmental values. i think there are opportunities along the lines. we can work with the agricultural community to make sure that those lands are part of the solution. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. secretary strickland, first of all, thank you for your service as the united states attorney. weak u.s. attorneys need to stick together. also, please pass our regards to our friend and colleague secretary salazar. you just mentioned wildlife. i am understand what life adaptation amendments that accompanied previous senate legislation in the climate change area are gathering broad bipartisan and multi-regional support. is that your observation?
>> it is, senator. that is an important role, frankly, we believe for department of the interior. obviously, the apartment of agricultural -- agriculture as well. this is one of our responsibilities that we have with the public lands, and more broadly, to protect wildlife and to deal with the real world impacts of climate change impacts on land and the species. it is extremely important. i know you have shown great interest and leadership on this. we would like to work with you on this. >> very good. years ago, i practiced in an area -- in an era where electric utilities were far more vertically integrated. since then, we have seen the breakout into transmission companies, generation companies, and i would like your thoughts on whether we should be trying to incense -- incent
the electric utility industry to move towards conservation as well? where there conservation can offset the diminished sales that are associated with conservation? >> i think we absolutely should. we are incenting distribution utilities and private third- party to become more involved in energy efficiency and demand response by incorporating into the whole organized market in this country tariffs that allow all demand response and energy efficiency, to get up into those wholesale markets. we can have those markets open and allow for the demand side, as well as the supply side, to participate. it will encourage distribution utilities and other parties --
third-party site will abrogate customers and reduce the overall cost. >> that is a good price signal into the market under the existing market structure. my question whitmore to whether we should try to -- there have been efficiencies captured by the desegregation into transmission issues. should we be pursuing a similar desegregation so that the conservation portion of the utility's portfolio has to be separate and therefore more distinct and competitive and go beyond just all market signal into the existing market? >> i am sorry. i did not understand apartment. i believe we should. the more we can desegregate and bundled services and make them more competitive all family, i think the more players we will get in, the more ideas we will
get how to do it. yes, i would agree. >> thank you. my last question -- this relates to nuclear power. over time, a lot of objection has manifested itself to nuclear power, primarily around safety. but the u.s. navy and the european power agencies have demonstrated that nuclear power can be managed safely. around cost -- because ratepayers, and i can think of chairman wellinghoff's it is he trying to defend. as we move to a modular systems, we can manage the cost aspects better. the third piece is disposal, that we create the most hazardous waste mankind is capable of creating. we cannot have a means of getting rid of it.
there is a technology, called traveling wave of nuclear technology, that appears, at least, to create nuclear power of our existing nuclear waste stocks without adding and becomes a net gain in terms of our nuclear waste threat exposure. are you following that? if you would like to take it as a question for the record, because i am just of the time, please feel free to do so. i would like to get the answer on that. >> i would look into that, senator. >> thank you very much and to all my colleagues. i found this to be extremely important. . .
if you could confirm that it is true that 68 million acres of undeveloped offshore oil and onshore oil leases are still not in production, i think that is an important part. we need to know what leases are out there that have not been acted on. i want to thank all three of you very much for your time and your answers. >> madam chair. >> yes? >> never mind. you have a second panel.
>> mr. cupp, we will proceed with you. whenever you like, that is fine with us. >> that is fine. chairman boxer, i am happy to be here today. the stakes could not be higher. the american southwest will be at risk of a truly catastrophic drought and summers in michigan will be like summer in texas today. is there just a few of the things that we have learned from the authoritative signs reports that the government released this past june. yet, i am optimistic. my message is simple. we can achieve strong emission targets by 2020. we can achieve those targets at
low costs. in meeting those targets, we can create new jobs and new businesses. we can achieve strong targets by 2020 -- and this has been stated again and again. the epa has looked at it. the department of energy has looked at it appeared so has mit and mckinsey and company. these experts have used different tools and different assumptions, but they have all come to the same conclusion. we can cut emissions in 2020 by 17% to 20% or more. we can reduce emissions of low costs -- the epa has done an exhaustive study. they found that between now and 2015, the annual cost to the average household will be less than the cost of a postage stamp.
the porsche families will have a few more dollars in their pockets -- the poorest families will have a few more dollars in their pockets. the cost of the house bill will be very low. between now and 2030, the average household will have cost about 22 cents of day per person. lowering our emissions will create new businesses and new jobs. one of the most important studies on how we can reduce emissions has been done by mckinsey. they have found dozens of ways to cut our emissions. i would like to introduce exhibit one for the record. and just one of those barges coal power plants and the technology ccs where new builds
can be done with enhanced oil recovery. ccs means carbon capture and storage. that means capturing the carbon dioxide and burying it deep underground. there are three main ways of capturing carbon dioxide. i'm going to focus on one of those that is the chewed ammonia process. a team of experts at the duke university have looked at 11 low-carb and solutions. one of those solutions is called choad ammonium to catch co2. there are dozens of different benefits and workers in the work force that will be involved to
make the process work. let me give you a few examples. we will need more miners, steel workers, attended, pipefitters, designers, engineers, every type of engineering, construction workers, computer modelers, a geologist, and factory workers to make the thousands of different components of that will go into the finished products. finally, the last exhibit -- highlight to show some of the specific companies around the country that are poised to play a role in creating this technology, companies in virginia, texas, arizona, and new mexico, literally everywhere. as you can see, we are looking at the component manufacturers of one of hundreds of technologies and companies all live in the country that will benefit. in conclusion, putting a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions is
an act of patriotism twice over. it is their right thing to do for our kids and grandkids and it is the right thing to do to help the american league in the clean energy revolution as it has led every other technological evolution in the past century. it is important to pass the law by december. >> thank you very much. mr. firman, welcome. >> thank you for inviting me to testify. mid-american energy co. is the largest utility company in america. our generation x is about 50% call, 20% renewals, 20% [unintelligible] and 10% [unintelligible] .
this is a subsidiary of berkshire hathaway. we will fully commit to take the necessary actions to meet these goals at the lowest possible cost to our customers. controlling costs is critical because it will make the polluters pay. it will be your constituents that will pay for the programs that are implemented. [unintelligible] it will force companies to provide productive investments. we oppose the trade part of the cap and trade and the allocation of the collegmethodology. the cost of buying and production -- unproductive emissions alone while paying for the new infrastructure. we do not need market signals in the trading program to act.
the bill's formula for distributing a that split between commissions and sales. that means the utilities with nuclear and hydro generation will receive allowances that they do not need it also means that utilities with coal and natural gas generation will not receive enough allowances. this inequity will be costly for the customers in the west pacific. mid-america will only receive 49% of the allowance is needed to meet the bill's requirement. this creates a shortfall of 11 million allowances in the first year could that is 25 percent -- as $25 per allowance -- in the first year. that is $25 per loans. -- that is $25 per allowance. these are just some of the inequities provided by the wall street trading scheme in its
distribution formula. and our view, there's no value added by imposing the cost of a volatile and speculative trading program on a highly regulated industry. the way to remedy this is to give states a choice. keep the caps in place, but allow them to participate in the program or to develop an alternative mechanism for working directly with the regulating utilities to meet the caps under a state implementation plan without the trading. in both cases, the federal government would set the standard and enforce the penalties for noncompliance as it does for many environmental prevent today. the industry would then be responsible for implementing the program. while not a perfect analogy, when congress raised fuel economy standards, it gave bottoming irresistible understand will standard and told them to comply. there were no allowances, no offsets, and a trading. it was just a standard and
demanded to meet it. however, all three allowances should be distributed based on emissions. under the acid rain program, the free allowances went to the emitters and need them for compliance. utilities with nuclear and hydro generation will receive millions of free windfall that they do 94 complaints. the acid rain program gave 90% of its allowances to be matteem. [unintelligible] the utility could meet its emission targets and be required to purchase millions of additional loans.
it would eliminate the penalty for early action. utilities around the country have built thousands of megawatts of renewable energy. under this bill, there early action reduces our historic emissions and reduces our allowance of account -- allows allocations. if the goal is to reduce emissions, we must advance construction of renewable resources, change customer behavior's, developed carbon capture in storage. i appreciate the chance to be here this morning and would be glad to answer questions you might have. >> i have so many questions. i want to talk about the speculation issue raised. i endorsed and what happens when speculation. we have all seen it. it is cause for some concern. that is why i would not
supported bill fifth of as it had some of fish and oversight. they put a floor of $11 on the price. some utilities have come to me and said what about a calleo llar? >> the aspect of a caller would promote protection for the customer. even with that, there would be imposed second cost to customers which we believe would not be productive. if a customer's own to spend a dollar, we wanted to be spent on actually investing in infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions. the need to spend a second dollar to get an allowance to get to the second cap would not be productive or useful to us. >> if you're worried about the consumer, i am as well.
i'm going to make sure that her consumers are not hurt. could you talk about that? many of the utilities and do support the western martin bill. but some are very heavily cold. if you could talk about the colar ancollar and get back to s other point. we have to get back to protecting the customer, my constituents, everybody. we have talked about the issues if we do not do that. it strikes me that a business person would rather choose a hard cap and no ability to get allocations, and no ability to get offsets. it seems to me that that would
be sending costs for them through the roof and they would miss the opportunity for job creation and the money we need to do these things. mr. kirk, if you could respond. -- mr. krupp, if you could respond. >> mid-america is in a very unique position. they have made some business decisions of that, in retrospect, were bad decisions. they wholesale 30% of their electricity to the wholesale market under waxman marquee. the allocations follow the electrons. the allegations go to the people they're selling to, the customers. mr. way to protect the customers -- the best way to protect the customers is to have this for the benefit of their customers.
midamerica reflects a number of decisions that they have made. certainly, the cap with no trade, that would be extraordinarily expensive to consumers. trading gives us the flexibility to hunt down the lowest cost options. it offers the flexibility to switch fuels, to open a new nuclear power plant, and in no trading makes one single utility responsible. they may not have the flexibility to do all of these other things. >> comment on collar idea. >> that is another word for a safety valve. the problem with a safety valve is that it busts in the integrity of the caps. we're not going to guarantee the environmental reduction. we will not be able to say to
other nations that we are making reductions, therefore, we want you to make reductions, too. in response to the legitimate concern about price, it does so in that it violates environmental integrity. and the allocation to the retail consumer -- mid-america does not get all of the allocations it would like -- but the fact that it goes to the consumers, that controls prices. as far as market manipulation, i stand with you. whatever comes out of this committee needs to have jail time for those who manipulate the market. there should be not any exotic derivative trading. it should be publicly on the exchanges. >> if we know $11 is the low
price and we know that, at that point, we can still give the market signal, then i do not know why we cannot consider this as one way to put more there. >> were you here during my opening statement? >> i was. >> you heard me quote a long list of house and in democrat -- house democrats members who would reject it. that is augmented by jim hansen, who is probably the strongest voice, historically, for the limitations of the co2. he says that capt. trade would be the temple of doom -- he says that to the cap and trade would
be the temple of doom. there are a lot of people who join us and say that this is not going to work and frankly, it is not good to pass. but they're very good at the slogans. you stated that your customers, my constituents, are going to pay for this. the other responses that to the worker adjustment protection would offset the costs. would you elaborate on that? >> absolutely. at mid american, we have not had a subject base rate increase since 1995. to mr. krupp's comments about the mismanagement of our company, we take exception to that. in this bill, if you look at the exorbitant cost that the training component of this would
add to our customers for no value, we find it unreasonable for us to take those fees for loans is and apply that to our customers when we would be much better off taking those dollars, investing in additional renewable, additional non carbon remaining resources, such as nuclear, have actually reducing our emissions to reach caps. that is the fundamental issue with this bill. >> thank you. can you further explain how purchasing the allowances and the subsequent trading would not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as you said, by one else. >> yes. when you look at the way the bill is set up, it takes your 2005 emissions and applies to the declining captive that level. there are two pieces of the costs.
there's the cost of compliance, you're taking actually missions and driving it down to the level of the cap, and then there is a second component to the bill, which is of buying allowances from your very first the mission of co2 up to the cap. that cost provides no benefit and no value and does not reduce co2 in any manner. the cost to risk -- the cost to reduce co2 is the cost to change our infrastructure and reduce emissions. >> i appreciate that. i would like to rescue your view on the carbon capture and storage technology. when would it be available, in your opinion, on a commercial scale. >> when we look at that technology and the opportunities for the advancement of that, commercially, we find that there is exceptional work going on in the industry. there are pilot projects being done. we believe that, in a number of years, there will perhaps be
carbon capture and technology applications available. however, we would also say that the frustration of carbon, pumping millions of carbon into the ground, has not been studied. we do not know the impact of that. nor do we know the permitting requirements, the litigation around that. what happens if it burps, so on and so forth? from a business perspective, we need clarity around these things in order to fully understand the impacts of carbon capture and sequestration. >> i believe and several people believe -- in fact, the majority of people believe that the technology is not here for a lot of these things. if we have all of these resources, and we're the only country that does not develop
their own resources, we ought to be able to use our own resources to wherever the time future is. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. with respect to the observation that the ranking member just made that the technology is not here, it strikes me that, in light of our existing incentives, that this sort of a self-fulfilling set -- self- fulfilling proposition. they tell technology is not here for some of these other technologies because we have not met the market in the incentives for their development. so the technology is in spain and in denmark and emerging in china and is all around the
world. but i find it unsatisfactory, as an ultimate answer, that we would observe that the technology is not here. that is the problem we're trying to solve with this piece of legislation. i see both heads nodding and i appreciate it. i confess that i have been a bit of a skeptic on the carbon capture and sequestration. your testimony says that it is ready to roll. could you elaborate a little bit on that? make me a little bit more comfortable about the prospects for carbon capture and storage. >> absolutely, senator. the idea that it is ready to roll was not actually a phrase original to me. i was quoting an official at
british petroleum, noting that, in norway, there is massive amounts of carbon capture already going on. to your earlier point, the reason why it goes on in norway is that there's a price on carbon in norway. they are avoiding the cost of putting that into the atmosphere. this observation that you need a driver is exactly the chicken and egg problem. . there's a driver, there is no need to -- until there is a driver, there is no need to capture. mitsubishi in japan and in france -- in west virginia, mountaineer, the austin company, has teamed up with adp to begin
installing the chilling of ammonia process. i agree that epa will have to write a regulation and to find halocarbon can be -- and a define house safely carbon can be kept underground. i believe they have already begun that task. the process is well underway. i would reassure you, senator, that our nation does burn a lot of coal. half of our electricity is generated by burning coal. we should leave the path open to clean up that call from carbon dioxide, just as we have been able to clean it up from sulfur dioxide. >> in the same way that i mentioned earlier, the existing
arrangement of government influences on the energy market is not a pure state of nature, from which various = interference. there is also not a natural state, legally, on this. the epa has no choice but to take appropriate action under its lawful responsibilities to regulate the emissions of carbon. if we follow that route, which, at this point, is really a
given. the highest court of the land has decreed that this is what shall be. the alternative to that is really where we are trying to go with the clean energy legislation. would you agree with me that the choice is between a regulatory model that would provide for no allowances, no input, through the legislative process, in any event, versus the legislative solution to get to the same results? >> i would agree that the traces between having epa regulate or having congress legislates, there's no question in my mind that having congress legislate a robust and flexible program can protect consumers and minimize the cost. moreover, if congress fails to legislate, then the regulatory process also includes judicial
review and years of delay. i think that hurts business's tremendously because there are many, many investment decisions about what sorts of new power plants to be built that right now are on hold because businesses are waiting for the rules to be written. will these rules come out of congress? will these rules, the epa? when will they come out? i think a legislative solution is preferable. but you are right. greenhouse gases will be restricted either way. >> thank you very much for this hearing. i thank the witnesses for their participation. we can all agree that businesses do cruciatappreciate this. >> i think that is very important. let me thank both of you. mr. ferhman, i want to put in
for the record that you were in south dakota. >> that is right. >> a number of the missions are love that greatly exceed the co2 emissions that utilities in that state for 2008. 150% of the utilities' emissions -- mid-american customers in south dakota would not need to buy a emission allowances. they could receive an economic benefit to the utility rebates to you agree with that? >> i have not seen the study. but it usually consists of an extremely small number of customers. that portion of your study may be true. the significant impact is on our iowa customers who will be in excess of 20% increase in.
our population is very small there. >> but it is the difference between your shareholders and your consumers. some consumers will come away with $40 into the black per year. that is important. the study shows in the low quintile. i think there is some confusion between your discussion about the consumers versus your shareholders. you also said something that i want to make sure i heard you right. i think he said that, even if you get enough allowances to meet your cap, you have to keep buying more allowances. i don't think that is accurate. >> no, what i said was there is a portion of costs which applies to meeting the compliance target. if you're actually missions are
above the cap in 2012, for instance, there is a cost to bring those emissions down to the cap, either through the purchase of allowances for offsets or investing in less carbon, such as renewals. you also, however, have to buy allowances from your very first ton of carbon that you remit to get up to the total cap level. in this case, all like the acid rain program, you have to buy allowances to not only come down to the limit, but come up to the limit as well. that is a fundamental difference between this program and the acid rain program, which i think that this committee should try to understand and steady so that, as exceptionally a working as so to is, this is not the so 2 program. >> i did want to say, mr.
fehrman, i understand. you have to 3 do this. you either have to deal with the epa where you have no ability to offset the cost that you will be hit with in order to protect their kids from pollution. that is just where it is that. or you can work with us on the bill that will soften the blow to everyone involved. i would like to say that it is hard for me -- i know that the organization that you belong to , electric institute, the support waxman market. i would put in for the record all the names of the electric companies and utility companies
, farmers and agriculture, community, who all support the waxman markey bill. we're looking at ways to make it better. we're looking for ways to make it more friendly to the consumer and to soften the blow and all the rest of it. we will do that and we will have our ability when we get back. i hope you will work with us, sir, rather than just stand up there and say no to everything. from the testimony, where icu going, is for the -- where i see you going, is for the status quo. but the status quo is changing. there will let the any choice but for us to say that we have to protect their families and we will let have the flexibility. we will try and we will do whatever we can, but this kind of a bill is going to give us
the tools and i think it is good to make your life far more predictable. your consumers will be kept cold. and it -- will be kept whole. and we want to work with you. i just do not see how you benefit -- when i say you, i mean your company and its customers. >> when you look at our testimony -- and i very much appreciate your comments -- when you look at testimony, i think that you will find that we have, number one, no opposition about reducing co2. i want to make it crystal clear. if we absolutely agree that we can reduce co2. we absolutely agree that we can reduce it in a manner that is found in western marquee. [unintelligible]
we could make the training component work better and that is our fundamental issue. the way the bill as currently set up is that it severely penalizes midwest utilities. thirdly, we want to work with you. we have said and barred testimony that we will come. we would appreciate workshops. there are people up there we know that have different views than we appeared but we fundamentally believe -- then we. but we fundamentally believe that taze waxman markey and through the work of the senate, they can actually provide similar results with a lower cost to our consumers. >> will then we are extremely interested in working with you on that and we will do tso. i want to get back to mr. krupp. he has seen some of the pluses
of living for all of the country. with the status quo does is that states will move out on their own. the western governors, the mayors are involved, and we have the epa. we have everybody moving without certainty -- with that certainty. i want to talk about my state and put this into the record. we are all going to a horrible recession. my state is hit very hard by housing downturn -- by the housing downturn. it is just starting to come back. in the last few years, between 1998 and 2007, california clean energy economies have been driven by significant investment. it attracted more than $6.5
billion in venture capital in the last three years alone. we have $6.5 billion invested in the last three years alone and it is the result of, they said, public policy and financial centers for clean energy development and energy efficiency for renewable portfolio energy-efficient standards. we also have a plan for california's green building, a bowl for public buildings to be in 20% more efficient by 2015. keith that goal alone would save our -- that goal alone would save our state $50 million. 10,000 buildings -- 10,000 businesses have formed in california.
from the understanding of the venture capital community, they would invest more in clean energy jobs in the future than they did in the high-tech communications revolution. that is extraordinary. between 1999 and 2008, in california, there have been 1401 new taxes. the unleashing of of entrepreneurship is incredible. it happened because california move forward and set some standards on carbon. i think we can all prosper. i want to thank the to review very, very much. we should not fear the future if we do this right, as our president has said, if we do this reform ride, we will see a
whole new platform for economic growth going out into this century. we will go to copenhagen and we will be a leader. i think america is the place where entrepreneurship needs to be on least and these financial incentives, that is just went to unleash it appeare. i a agree with the idea that we are going to whiz by -- we are going to get to where we need to go before the 2030's and the 2050's because of the skills that we have in our country with their people and their workers. so thank you both very, very much. of course, this conversation continues on and look forward to working with both of you as we move forward. thank you.
>> we have a conversation on converting average mortgages to manageable home loans and to look at how many mortgage companies are participating in the federal program. from washington journal, this is just over a half hour. big cup of coffee here. let me introduce our next guest. he belongs to a progressive think tank here in washington, d.c. we will focus on the new report coming out. is this the first? guest: it is the first of several monthly reports on the home modification program. host: what did we learn from the first one? guest: it has been slow to
start. even ratings on the curve there is a big disparity among top performers. one has done 25% of eligible mortgages. you have others doing only 15%. toward the bottom after the steep drop-off you have bank of america and wells fargo at only 6%. we need to figure out what is causing the wide gap. host: let's put the basics back on the table with this program. what is a call? guest: making home affordable. you can go to the website by the same name. it is the making home affordable loan modification program. if people run into problems they call their lender and said that they would like a modification. the servicer will figure out how much the house is worth, how much you can pay.
the point is to get your monthly payments down to 31% of your income. host: how much money was set aside for this and how was it used? guest: a small part has arden said aside and there are several pieces to this. there is a substantial payment to the servicer for each that is modified. there are annual payments as long as the lone stays carving up the barr also gets money toward payments -- the borrower also gets some money for up to five years to make towards their payments. to arrive at 31% of income, the servicer will reduce it to 30%, and then the government will split the difference. -- the servicer will reduce it to 38%.
host: what is the estimated universe of foreclosed homeowners who might be eligible? guest: the administration projects 3 to four million homeowners. the numbers have gotten worse as the economy has gotten worse. assuming that unemployment peaks at 10%, we assume about 9 million homes ovethe next four years. host: from my reading i have been reminded that there are about four companies who have the bulk of all the mortgages. what are they? guest: j.p. morgan chase it is the largest. you have citibank at the low end. in the middle you have wells fargo.
bank of america is the largest, j.p. morgan chase, citibank, and wells fargo. host: of those who are processing the most, and to the least? guest: j.p. morgan jay's doing 20% of their pool. citibank at 15%, and at the low end you have bank of america and wells fargo. host: what are those last two telling treasury? guest: nothing yet. they probably are some that they're working on it and ramping id of. it is interesting that there were both before congress a couple of weeks ago and both testified that the radically increased their staffing since this time last year and were really trying to target all of
they're eligible borrowers. the said some were ineligible, and another 15% did not qualify. of their loans they think about 55% are potentially eligible. so, that we have only seen six% of that done is not very encouraging. host: here is a commentary piece from the philadelphia paper. the author is a managing partner of the new york investment bank. the headline is that banks must be pushed to deal with bad mortgages. he explains the accounting and reserve issues. let me have you comment after i read it. banks typically lose money by for closing them buy it renegotiating the principle of a loan. as time went off and run 12 up to 18 months, the loss takes far longer to show up on their balance sheets. as a result, banks are pushing the mess and attendant losses
us reserves. guest: there are two pieces. how much do you lose in foreclosure? let's say you lose $200,000 and it has not fallen to $150,000 -- that is the maximum you can now expect. because the bank has taken the title it will take them quite a while with all the homes in the market to unload the property at anything other than a fire sale price. so, there is the question of the magnitude of the loss and he is also touching on the timing of the loss. that banks need to reserve money against these losses and yet do not necessarily have to book the losses in public accounting until they are ready to take them. from that perspective, because they are not realizing those
losses, they have to maintain funds against them. that limits the amount of money available for lending. to the extent everyone says we need to solve the housing crisis, that is true. host: we just saw good earnings reports from banks in the last quarter. it might suggest the accounting sheets have done this. guest: yes, there is a lot of flexibility in terms of when they can choose to take those losses. host: let's go to a caller from coconut grove, fla.. caller: yes, andrew, what is your 1-800 number? i want to say if we are disabled, retired, and have a high mortgage i need to speak to someone. host: that is great.
it is a good question to ask. his organization does not do it, but you can put people in touch. guest: the best place to call is 1-88--hope. you can also check out the website for the government which has several members have and can help you determine your eligibility. another place is for hud- approved counselors at hud.gov. it has intermission on local councilors. they can work with you. -- it has intermission on local councilors. they can look at your budgeting and help you to figure your best course of action. host: is that a better first stop then immediately calling
your mortgage lender? guest: to the extent you want to make sure that you have your ducks lined up before you ask of the mortgage lender, it is a good idea. but if you are facing notices of foreclosure and have other threatening letters, i would make the call to the servicer first. i would tell them i'm working on this and ask for their assistance. host: las vegas, the republican line. caller: just recently we called bank of america and ask ed for the modification. guest: the modification program. caller: apparently, we answered all the wrong answers to their questions and did not fit into them all. we have the savings and checking account. the checking account is depleted.
my husband who is a plumber has been unemployed for about three months. i am a hairdresser. the numbers to not add up between the net and gross numbers. we want to pay our line. she said to call back tomorrow. i do not know the answers they want. we are trying to be honest. we are not sitti -- we are not g into the mold. can you help me? guest: yes, it is definitely a black box and greater transparency is needed to let people know how they might qualify. i understand your frustration. i would call back. depending on who you get at the other end of the line, the answers you get can be different. but the truth is, they should not ask about your checking or savings account, or anything other than your income. the program is specific as to
what the input that the model they use to figure eligibility are. they include your fico score, unfortunately, which is often not entirely correct. there will look at your house price and income, and then figure out if you qualify. but i would call them back. i would call a local housing counselor to see if they can help you. people definitely want to stay in their homes. people are scratching to make mortgage payments. help is available in many instances. it is a matter of getting banks to agree to the contract they have already signed. host: the lead story here says that the rate of owning homes is plunging. the rector says that the rate of homeownership is forecast to
keep tumbling in the next decade. this message from twitter follows. guest: the truth is that foreclosure is incredibly costly, not only to the homeowners and to the investors and bankers, but as foreclosures rise local property values decline significantly. your never my go into foreclosure and that will cause you to feel a significant hit on your home. if you need to move for job of virginia, you will not get what you paid for your house out of it. it is at great cost to many parties. and you think about that across the board, local property taxes will have to rise to meet the
demand for local services. with less value in those homes as tax revenues are tied to their values, the rates will have to rise. if we can keep people in their homes we can prevent this glut on the housing market. it comes at a high social cost. yes, foreclosure is an option for some. but most want to stay in their homes. host: atlanta, good morning, on the independent line. caller: fine, thanks. i am a consumer activist. this man, i think, is very misleading. the media, i think, is fundamentally undermining our whole country. i personally work with it% of these companies for clients.
you have people on the funds or not even qualify to take the calls from homeowners. they are incompetent and often just choose to foreclose because they do not understand their job duties. homeowners are not being educated. there are laws on the books now. some of the people running mortgages should be in jail. we are not processing our laws. it is said. homeowners should not have lost their homes because there are laws to protect them. how can you tell people up there, then i did a third party to help you? you would not go into a courtroom and represent yourself. that is crazy. find someone who is qualified to
help. people, stop listening to the media. we are under attack. host: let me interrupt you. with this passion working, let's get an answer from our guest. guest: while servicers have met their capacity and even though they have a ramp up their staff, they're not particularly well-qualified. i do not think they should foreclose on a new one until they have affirmatively determined that the barr were is ineligible for the program. -- and to tell thoseborrowe -- l those borrowers have been proven ineligible. the program is working well in philadelphia.
connecticut and nevada have both implemented it. if you can just give both sides to talk -- we hear over and over again, that you send documents and they say they never got them. if you go to mediation there is a third-party there to ask what documents are needed to make it work. you also require the service are to provide the information of how much is owed and what fees and services they arbitrarily tacked on that were not eligible to be put there. bringing people together is a real solution me of your right. the capacity is not there yet. host: related to that, money to help homeowners go and abusers pockets. mortgage servicers are accused
of preying on people they're supposed to help. these companies are middlemen who collect monthly payments from homeowners and funnel money to banks or investors. this of research are paid by the government to keep homeowners from falling behind 4 least three months. but they have a checkered history. at least 30 servicers have been accused in lawsuits of harassing bar worse. more recently, companies have also been criticized for not helping homeowners quickly enough. -- they have been accused in losses of harassing borrowers. guest: it is a huge problem and gets back to capacity. we need to see bigger sticks and all this. the bad actors should be severely punished for these activities. under the program the fees they
are allowed to pass on into modified loans are only those that returned to investors. suddenly, there are compliance issues that need to be addressed in the entire process. addressed in the entire process. people . flagging those people before they get further into debt is crucial. caller: thank you, i detected last month of bias and i'm glad to see you have a more center or leftist organization on this morning. morning. yesterday there w report on deutsche bank that projected by 2012 that 48% of all u.s. mortgages will be under water.
host: is that 48%? caller: yes, bush a bank said that many by 2012 are projected to be under water -- that is a door to bang. for me there are three problems. -- that is due to a bank that said 48%. the banks are not willing, they're not willing to ride on the principle. my understanding is that these banks cannot really tell you which they are adjusting that actual principle of. they are not able or are unwilling to write down principles. there were so many homes that sold for $300,000 that were only worth $200,000.
they want be worth more than 2 minutes thousand dollars for another 10 years. the banks and not willing to adjust down. -- there will not be worth more than $200,000 for another 10 years. the banks do not want to do this now. they are holding money which is causing the credit crisis to worsen. all these small businesses are going out of business as a result. the banks have bad assets on their boats and will not write them down. host: that mirrors the story that we read earlier. guest: you are absolutely right in terms of the principal balance right down. the bank says ok, at this is no only worth $150,000 as opposed to $200,000.
they have created a waterfall. principal reductions would go further towards alleviating, i agree. there is an effort to match the homeowner modification program with hope for homeowners, the earlier initiative which transfers the mortgage from the existing holder and refinances based on the current value. it then converts it into a fha mortgage. the investors get whatever they will out of the mortgage today and are free to reimbursreinvesd fannie mae secured. but you get to the homeowner out from under their problems of being under water the interesting thing is that the investors more and more are coming down on the side of
principal balance production. they do not want the risk long term. they decide to take the losses today and move ford. to let you know, on american progress action fund, the website, we had senator durban over on monday. he spoke about some of these issues. we had a panel with different experts. you can watch the video where they discuss these issues in the till. host: here is a message from twitter. guest: million-dollar homes are not modified. you might be eligible, but is subject to many unknowns in the model. host: the next question comes from washington on the republican line. caller: hello, how are you, c-
span? i personally have experienced four family members, one of which is my mother when my father died. all of them have loans through countrywide. it happened prior to this huge housing disaster. i personally saw paperwork involving countrywide credit would not take late payments to get caught up, one payment at a time. they wanted it all at once. all the loans made through countrywide -- they had appraisers cannot and over- appraise. i have a three grandchildren with families, who have that three children each. they are getting foreclosed on. they all make good incomes. but they are upside-down in their mortgages. they are all dealing with countrywide.
given the facts on countrywide and their illegal actions -- it is borrower beware. you get young families who are looking for the good life and they make a good income -- this happens to them. i agree that these people should be punished. as far as the intermission coming today on c-span about this -- and has not happened. -- as far as the intermission. this is a small fishing village. we're watching high-raises. -- as far as thisinformation out today on c-span. these are all minority people. we cannot build on this. host: i would jump in. guest: you are right. the fact that house values have fallen is a large driver, both
of the problems we have, as well as a reflection of those problems. it is a negative spiral. i would encourage them to reach out to countrywide who are in the program. if values have declined and they did tonight, i would challenge, asking for specific documentation. but when most people get enough for modification, you do not get a letter explaining exactly why. it simply says, sorry, you are not eligible and we will proceed with foreclosure. because it yourfico score goes into it, it seems that the fair reporting act would require them to give you details. the appraised value of the home goes into that model. i would try to read-apply if you
can provide documentation. an appeals process for the program is critical. if you have that intermission going in the cannot expect good info coming out. caller: how are you doing? i had heart surgery and a severe blockage. i had a bypass about 11 months ago. i'm 61 years old and probably can never work again. i'm trying to get disability. my mortgage company is wells fargo. three months ago i knew that we were getting into trouble because we were paying bills from savings. we took my wife 401k because it was losing. wells fargo said it would help on a hardship alone. that was three months ago. they said first would take three weeks, then six weeks. it kept on.
to date they still have not said that they will help me. they keep saying they are working on it. their customer service people have lied several times. you cannot get above the customer service the permit to complain to anyone else in that corporation. it is frustrating. host: let's find out how common this experiences. guest: unfortunately, it is all too common. we hear this from many folks. the call in their promises. the person you call to follow up with has never heard of it. you give form letters back. -- useget form letters back. -- you get form letters back. wells fargo has 1600 people and
their department. apparently that is not enough. i do not know where their problem is. it is certainly pressure them. continue to call. the job to a local housing council. see if they can help to get through. if you can, find a local attorney ,pro bono. simply to get what they have promised you. if you have written documentation saying wells fargo will offer you the following -- that is the kind of thing they should be made to make good on their word for. host: jerry? caller: sir, i would like you to address the healthcare issue in the country with the 45 million people who do not have health care. understand president obama, what
he is trying to do with this program, is that he is not trying to take away, for instance, people who already have insurance. host: let me interrupt. we're not talking about health care in this segment of our guest is an expert on housing policy. let me turn to question by twitter here to get back on topic. it is a comment that suggests we are repeating our mistakes of the past. how would you respond to her? guest: we cannot all own houses. it is important that we maintain a good stock of rental housing for those. but the answer to do nothing is not the correct response, either.
because of the high cost of foreclosure -- to the system as a whole, to lenders, and to neighbors, the option of doing nothing is not the correct path to take. if we want to learn from history, which a look at the high rates of default during the depression when the established institutions who refinanced and gave a sustainable mortgage, and paid off investors with long- term corporate bonds -- we're moving to that type of model under hope for homeowners, and under the new modification program. . .
guest: there is a tax credit to are able to claim. -- you are able to claim. it is out there. it makes homeownership more affordable. it is maybe a good time to get into the market. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> tomorrow on "washington journal" dole simon talks about reporters in prison while working abroad. max pappas talks of rallying workers at town hall of fans. an update on h1n1 swine flu with the had the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases. with headlines in your calls, "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> topics at today's white house briefing in good health care negotiation, bill clinton's
mission in north korea, and unemployment figures to be read these today release tomorrow. robert gibbs speak to reporters for about 45 minutes. >> can you tell us the current plans about getting president obama with bill clinton in north korea? >> we talked a little bit about this this morning. when the president spoke yesterday morning with president clinton, president obama expressed his desire to get together fairly soon. the two men would have a chance
to talk. as we have described to you all , president clinton was a breach prior to his trip. -- was briefed prior to this trip. there will continue to be a debriefing process on the back end of that trip. there were communications between the former president and the nsc yesterday. that will continue over the next several days. right now we are trying to coordinate the schedules of two rather busy man. >> the nsc staff will talk to president clinton and gather all the information and knees together -- need to be gathered and then they will discuss whatever it is? >> there is nothing currently
scheduled. obviously, i'll put these on to different tracks. it could happen simultaneously. >> is happening in person or on the phone? >> last night it happened on the phone. i do not know where fetal ones -- future ones will happen. i was not part of the region part of the debriefing last night. if you look at where -- i was not part of the debriefing last night. if you look at where bill clinton was, i do not know what was talked about. i can only imagine that given his history on this issue that he would strongly encourage the north koreans to set aside their
renewed pursuit of a nuclear weapon, come back and live by the agreements that they have been party to be for, and to encourage them to understand that the acquisition of those weapons is not going to bring international prestige but further isolation. >> do you have any indication whether the north koreans want anything in return? >> i've not been party to any of these discussions. i have not heard anything. >> can you give us an idea of the administration's timetable on reforming fannie mae and freddie mac and any details on the way they will do it? >> obviously, it is part of
financial regulatory reform. gsc reform will be part of that. these were mentioned in the white paper that the administration released on regulatory reform. there is a discussion on this on pages 41 and 42 of that reform. the story out today is light years ahead of any decision making process here. there is no meeting that is scheduled to do it is safe to say -- schedule. it is safe to say many officials learned of this proposal sometime this morning at the foot of their driveway. >> does that mean there is not a proposal? >> the staff are aware of the problems and are working on it
as a part of financial regulatory reform. to assume that either this is at a time of even a decision by senior economic officials let alone anybody that occupies the oval office is way ahead of itself. >> is there a time frame in mind? >> i do not have a specific timetable. i can certainly look into that. it is certainly part of a broader financial regulatory reform. both play an important role in the president's, and modification program. -- in the president's home loan modification program. >> some experts have wondered about the precedent set by president clinton's trip to north korea. and about whether not it would mean other rogue states making
similar requests in a similar situation but and whether that would now merde a visit from somebody. is that it concern before you guys signed off and what your response is to that? >> i have described this as a separate from the concerns that we have about north korea and its nuclear policy. it is provocative international action. our policy to ensure that u.n. security council regulations are implemented. it is no different today than it was the monday before president clinton got there. this was a private humanitarian mission with only the goal of
piggyback -- of bringing back two journalists to safety. i do read a lot of -- i do not read a letter president into a. the president is enormously painful for the work president clinton did on this and his willingness to undertake such an important mission. that is what this was about. the administration has taken very strong action relating to and responding to the actions of the north koreans. what happened in the u.n. security council, a unanimous passage of those resolutions, and the impact that they have already had on insuring that the north koreans are unable to move weapons out of their country is quite frankly the best response for anybody's criticism. >> there was a letter expressing
concern about whitehouse.gov and what exactly you are seeking in terms of this information. i got an update earlier. i assume that you guys are not going to be changing the ip addresses or anything. >> we have seen and as i have discussed a lot of misinformation on health care reform. some of its acting spread purposely. -- has spread purposefully. we have used the website to debunk things that are simply not true. we ask people if they have questions about health care reform to let us know and we provide them information to say that was not true.
nobody is collecting names. >> is the misinformation that in 2003 president obama did not support a single payer health care system? >> if you look at the statements that have been put up on other internet sites that splice a bunch of stuff together and look at the answers that senators and president obama have given on that, we hope you are right people with a full and accurate picture, not something that only the words opponents might want to put in there. >> the press was meeting with a bipartisan group. what was the message to them? what were the expectations? >> he invited the group to come to the white house today to provide an update on status report of sorts on their negotiations amongst themselves and the committee. his message to them is to continue to work and by
consensus on a new issue we know they have been working hard on and is very important to the american people. the president wants them to continue to work and make progress and wanted to hear directly from them on where they were. it was in negotiating -- there was a negotiating session just recently broken up. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not have one yet. >> the president suggested that it appeared he is losing patience when it comes to bipartisanship and getting the kind of bill that can be supported by republicans and democrat. -- democrats. is he pushing bipartisanship? >> i think his actions today, the indication that came from him to a bipartisan group of senators to come and discuss
where they were on healthcare to notes that he is serious about getting something through congress. he is serious enough doing so in a way that brings about a large coalition. if you look at even some of the finance committee statement from earlier in the year, they had wanted to come to some agreement in june. we have reached warmer months in june without that. he simply wanted an update. i think he is very serious about getting something done. that has been his goal all along. >> are you saying there would not be any potential for improving relations with the mercury? how do not know anything that led up to its -- relations with
north korea? how do we not know anything that led up to it? >> there was no quid pro quo. we went through an exhaustive detail, step by step, how the invitation came for president clinton to go when we are notified about that. >> they took total control. they took all the pictures. >> i have left control over the north korean television cameras. we took great care while this was going on to ensure that our ultimate goal was success. the president and the team will
have a chance to hear directly from president clinton about what he heard and saw. we are anxious to get to that. i think what is crucially important to understand, whether or not north korea wants a better relationship -- we will certainly find out -- they have the power to change that relationship. they have the power to come back to the set of agreements that they entered into to denuclearize. that is our goal. we keep that is the international community's goal based on their reaction to some of the provocative and outlandish statements and actions that the north koreans have taken. they have the ability and the power to do that. we certainly hope that they will come back to implementing the agreements that they entered into while we will continue to
take the steps necessary to enforce security council resolutions to ensure weapons of mass destruction are not spread by the north koreans. >> one more question. are we only against people who might get the weapons and not against those who have already gotten them? >> i think the spread of -- the president has said numerous times the spread of weapons of mass and reduce weapons of mass destruction and nuclear material is our number one worry and cause of concern. he has outlined a series of very specific steps as it relates to nuclear proliferation, that we will continue to work toward and implement over the course of the next many months and years. we have great concern in a
nation that would try to acquire as we would a group trying to get a hold of a weapon and said the nation that party has the weapons. -- inside a nation that already has the weapons. >> going back to health care. he said there is a ban on public options. doesn't that put republicans -- democrats in a quandary when they go to home town halls? they do not know what to say. they do not know where it will end up. they do not know the present will ultimately save. they come back to the fall and is not on the table anymore. then they put themselves out on a limb for no reason. our to making things difficult for them? >> we have outlined our principles. what is most important is that we get choice and competition in
what can tend to be a very restricted market for private insurance. i have not noticed down the street a shortage of personal opinions one way or another. i have no doubt that each member has their own opinion. >> for blue dogs, it is a very delicate issue. they are not going to want to go out on a limb on a public auction and have that limassol off when they come back -- option and then have that limb sawed off when they come back. >> we will be able to go home by the end of the year and explain to every constituent the steps we are taking to get health care reform to every single american. i think that is the most important discussion. we want to see progress continue to move forward.
that is what the president had a meeting here today. -- why the president had a meeting here today. we will continue to work through it as we get closer to reform. >> do you have anything on the unemployment benefit numbers that came out today? you touched on this on monday. what is going on behind the scene? how much work is being done? >> let me take the question separately. i think as you see a lot of the statistics that come out each and every week, you can see positive signs and you can see continued signs for concern. unemployment claims are down. -- are down, less than the
market expected. we look at some of the four weeks averages. at the same time, you continue to have a growing number receiving those long-term benefits. that brings us to your second question. over the course of between now and the end of the year, you are going to have different people based on the length of time on the receiving unemployment insurance -- you'll have people exhaust that benefit. we are very concerned about that. that was a big part of the recovery act and something that we want to see. there is bipartisan support to see this. at the same time, we are also looking at working to continue benefits that were extended as part of a recovery plan itself. two different issues are there
that the administration wants to work on that they are concerned about. we are definitely committed to that. >> you are making it a top priority. >> the president has said that he expected the unemployment rate will top 10%. does he still believed it? >> yes, but whether that happens tomorrow i do not know. for my friends in the council, i do not know anything on the specific numbers. i expect we will see several hundred thousand jobs lost. i expect we will see uptick in
the unemployment rate come tomorrow. >> york economic advisers -- your economic advisers say economic growth will be around 2.5% in order to see some of the jobs being billed back into the economy. is that the operating threshold? >> what they were talking about or from historical a mathematical conclusions. you have got to see a growth rate of certain levels. you have to seed job creation at a certain label -- level just to maintain the rate. you'd action have to be continuing to create jobs to see that month after month. that is what the president believes this will creep up and
soon hit and exceed 10%. we are working to do all that we can to create growth and laid the foundation for long-term job creation in order to see jobs created and the unemployment rate come down. >> i am new around here. i get confused. is the president opened to the possibility of putting processes in place to get 50 votes for the health care plan and said the 60? >> the president meeting with democrats and republicans mean he is interested in doing this through regular order. the option for reconciliation is contained in the budget agreement. we certainly will cross that bridge when we get there. >> [unintelligible] >> i am unclear of how it is
hanging. it is certainly out there. >> the president is open to a bill that would include a public otion? what he is interested in a bill that increases choice and competition. -- public option? >> he is interested in a bill that increases choice and competition. >> is he planning on weighing on his views on any of the issues that are on the bill? but i do not have a debrief on him or the team on what happened exactly. i know that i have no doubt that they discussed where everybody is on certain issues, including the president. i am sure they discussed continued discussions on how to bridge some of those different ideas.
what i'm trying to tell you is this is not -- there were not 3 on lows were reopened all 3 and decided how to get from one to three and that is solved. this is the president hoping to figure out and continue to monitor the progress that is being meet the route now and hoping to ask them to continue to work. >> it seemed a little passive. it is somewhere in between? >are they saying this is larry . and thanks for the update? -- this is where we are and things for the update? >> i hate to get ahead of the readout this week. i have not received one myself. i do not doubt that discussions
continued on many of those issues. >> looking ahead to the august recess, do you anticipate putting any new issues on the congressional agenda that are not there. we have financials, etc., will that do it for the remainder of the year? >> i've not talked to the affairs department specifically about that. that is a decent amount. we have appropriation bills that we have to finish to get through the next fiscal year. let me get a better of it from them. i think there are a number of issues, whether they make it to the floor or not, that continued to be monitored and a negotiated. i will take both the passive and active way to look at it.
>> just to clarify one thing. it is unusual for you to characterize someone other than your boss. you said this was based on his sister. do you have direct knowledge that he did urge the president of number three? >> -- north korea? >> if you simply look at where he has always been on this issue and on the agreements and the work that he did with kim jong-il's father on denuclearization, i am extrapolating from that. i have not been or heard the debrief on the specific conversation or what impressions the former president left. >> i have a follow-up question. is it fair to say the president would be getting is clinton briefing before you leave for mexico? >> you mean whether he will see
president clinton before then? >> it does have is briefing before. -- just have his briefing before. >> i do not know whether he will meet with president clinton prior. i have -- i do believe that extensive debriefing will happen very quickly and that president obama will be brought into the dialogue to learn what former president clinton has to say. >> of the intention is to have president obama and president clinton talk to each other. >> i think they want to see each other at some point. i seriously doubt that is going to happen between now and sunday. that is because of the ordination of their schedules.
>> and i call upon another thing? a couple of months ago, the white house reached a deal to cut the drug prices. there is a story this morning on it. how is these metrician going to handle the policy demand to -- the administration going to hand policy demand to lower the drug prices and not blow it? >> i'm going to go back to the passive way. i'm not going to get ahead in negotiating a conference committee. i hope to get a hopeful status update on negotiations. it will be a little brave and me. -- it would be a little brave of me. the goals of everyone is to see costs come down. i do not want to get ahead in
negotiating. >> what do you think of the hopeless demands for additional cuts? >> i think everybody shares the goal of cutting costs of health care. >> dr. romer left the door open for a second stimulus in 2010, saying the good doctor always monitors the situation. is that a good testament that you will wait until next year before making any concrete decisions about a second stimulus? >> i think the good doctor has said exactly what we have all said, witchich is our focus is n implementing the recovery act. we will continue to monitor the economic situation if there are ideas that the president or the economic team believe can and
should be taken in order to accelerate the recovery and to lay that foundation, we will certainly take a look at the. -- that. i did not anticipate anything new in the near term. >> dr. romer will not say whether not the president would raise taxes on the middle class's in the first term. her first reaction was, can i go now? then she said the first party was to lower costs on government for health care. at no point did she say the president would not raise taxes on middle-class in the first term. this and of the third economic adviser under the present who, given the opportunity, has not. i'm asking you to help us understand. three people who were with the president every day punt all
three times. >> in fairness to her and me, i'll be happy to look at the transfers. -- transcripts. a preachy the ability to lease look at what the good doctor -- i appreciate the ability to at least look at what the good doctor says. >> what would account for this what appears to be a repetitive disconnect between the president and his economic advisers to meet with him every day on this topic? >> i will have a better answer to that when i get a chance to look at it. would be were likely to assume that the white house would be worried about people will be mailing them in order to keep in touch of them on an ira with a
dialogue to keep in touch with them -- in order to keep in touch with them in a continuing dialogue? [unintelligible] >> i am not anti sure what that question was. -- entirely sure was that question was. ofa and the white house website are not in any way connected. i think he would eagerly vouch for the veracity of my statement in saying that was pretty clear that we are not collecting names from those e-mails. >> i heard that. [laughter] >> i like that you are the order here.
>> what i'm trying to figure out is why into them? what is the goal? -- why answer them? what is the goal? the staff is very capable of detecting all sorts of conversations in america about all sorts of issues and responding. >> we get e-mails of what is said on fox news all the time. >> i want to know what a particular goal is? >> it is to get misinformation and to clarify for everybody what misinformation is there. i hope that is not new. it doesn't seem to be. >> the white house is soliciting -- >> the white house is looking to correct misinformation. when he made a mistake in your report sometimes the million.
sometimes -- when you make a mistake in your report, sometimes they e-mail you. sometimes i just throw things at the wall. we have been discussing seniors having a misimpression of what is contained in the bill. we talked about or sorts of things that are misconceptions in here. >> what about the people eagling the white house? >> all we are asking people to do is that they are confused about health care reform. we are happy to help clear that up. nobody is keeping anybody's names. i do have your e-mail. >> and i have yours. >> nobody is collecting information.
everyone is trying to get people only the facts around what we all understand it a very complicated issue. >> you said you cannot talk to the present about the meetings with the finance members. do you have any consists is going oin about what it will be? >> i think we heard various reports that what you want to do was get an update on where they were on different aspects of the legislation. -- legislation and see how that dealt with the foul line he had. we have not received a to agree on that. >> is depressed and frustrated with the pace of these bipartisan negotiations -- is the president' frustrated with the pace of these bipartisan negotiations? >> this has been going on for
decades. the issues are the same. costs are skyrocketing. people are losing their health insurance. people fall prey to insurance companies that discriminate against pre-existing conditions, a kick you off your insurance when you become too sick -- all those things the president wishes to change. >> he is frustrated. >> he is frustrated with the fact that millions of people are watching their costs go up. they are watching their insurance addicted whether they will get medical treatment. i think that is a frustration to the president, members of congress, and members of the american people. >> how many e-mails have been sent to the flag whitehouse.gov. isn't the white house required by law to receive zero -- 2 logon e-mails? -- to log all emails?
>> for the life of me, i did not understand your question. the national archives corresponds with the white house. >> the people whose appeals have been afforded will not know? >> -- e-mails had been forwarded will not know? >> or the lighting, i cannot understand this. -- for the life of me, i cannot understand this. >> president obama did say in 2003 that i happen to be a proponent of single payer health care plans and has recently >> told the atook the ama that it s pretty well. is that the president's preference?
>> he had an opportunity to outline, debate, and discuss this. her you said you are waiting for to hit 10%. are you expecting the unemployment rate -- [unintelligible] >> i expect we have expected the unemployment rate will continue to rise. i do not have a specific number. there i>> do you expect it willy
double that? >> let me get some guidance from this. >> you need to call them anyway, do not you? >> what is the white house do now for the next possible obama pick for dead on the supreme court? >> i do not have any news to reports on what happenes next if there is a vacancy. i know the president -- you'll hear from him directly today. we expect her to become just stood much more today. -- judge sotomayor today. i thank democrats and
republicans for getting her confirmed in a very timely way in order for her to participate in the court's activities in september and in the work they will do before the session begins. we are enormously proud of the bipartisan support issues. >> i understand the work is happening in the transition. would it be -- >> the transition is pretty clear. >> even before you guys officially announced the transition. before you see the president. -- he was either president you are working impossibilities. but i will play along. >> is a continuation -- is is a
continuation of the work he did not? -- is it a continuation of the work he did now? >> i've not heard any discussion of work that has happened above and beyond work that happened prior to the president's announcement of judge short my sotomayor that showed a possibility of an additional kick. there were a number of names out there. >> has these ministration -- is ministration to reach settlements for one year to encourage the arab states for concessions of normalization? >> i think the president has been clear in outlining the states that they should take in order to achieve a lasting middle east peace.
that includes a freeze. >> ahead of tomorrow's unemployment report, i want to make sure i understood something. you are concerned about helping everyone find a job. when you describe the unemployment figure, you do not use the higher figure that reflect those workers you are talking about. isn't the real unemployment rate -- that is 16.5%. that is more accurate. >> i do not know what his question is. i think it is based on -- sent to is asking me on what it would go to 10%, i assumed the figure he was using mwould be that for. understand the unemployment figures only denote people that
continue to look for work and do not consider themselves so unlikely to find work that they have stopped looking. i do not know that one figure, whether it is those that have stopped, those that are underemployed, those that wish to be working full time and a working part-time, or those that simply say they are unemployed. i do not think the one never can tell the story of economic devastation that we have seen in the concern that the president has for getting the economy back on track and creating jobs. >> if you are out of work, it might be combined in 20 hours a week. that is not exactly a full-time job.
>> it is a part-time job. >> it is not for me to say or judge the efficacy of each or what each figure delineates. the president will be concerned about joblessness for as long as there are people that want to work and cannot find it, whether that number is unemployment rate, whether it is the number of people that can only find that 20 our job at starbucks and wish they could find a 40-hour a week job. the president will continue to be concerned about job loss. >> i want to take one more whack at the "times" article about the pharmaceutical company. what measures is the white house willing to take to ensure that this agreement remains in place? i no extra cost saving measures are put in place by the house. if the white house willing to do anything?
>> we have not laid down any sand and i have not drawn in it. the president has discussed throughout these times the importance of and we said we need to cut costs for seniors. farma in the senate finance committee entered an agreement that would cut the cost for seniors who millions of whom fall into the doughnut hole benefit. this will help fill that doughnut hole for millions of seniors and some of the money will be used for health care. that is the goal of that agreement. that is the goal of the white house. >> do they extract money from pharmaceutical companies beyond that? >> it to be comparable to the
amount of money that has been talked about. >> there is some unhappiness on the hill among democrats about the pace at which senator baucus is moving. does the president share the sentiments? >> can you be specific? >> that somehow in the and the republicans are not going to be there and he is being strung along by them. >> the president's main goal is to do all that we can to move forward. there is the goal of getting something done for families, small businesses, and people throughout this country this year. i do not believe the president thinks that -- i know he does not believe that