obviously this is the product of one-stop shopping which i suspect you were telling me you support or maybe you want to tell me now you don't support. >> we are trying to and the ability to shop for a regulator by having one entity write the rules no matter what kind of charter and what kind of provider. that is our position. >> well, i have to say i think somebody else wrote your statement, but i thank you for your presence and mr. chairman i think you for your courage and ability to bring this about. >> the chair thinks the chairman emeritus and thinks the witnesses. this is -- this hearing now stands adjourned. but before we adjourn i really want to let you know how grateful we are for you to extend your time with us and spend your time with us. by unanimous consent, i request

members submit all questions to be sent to the witnesses for the record within seven calendar days and witnesses will respond promptly to the questions that are submitted. thank you very much, and safe travel. [inaudible conversations]

no one knew until may 14th what truman what do. there was a press conference what he was going to do if the jews declared a state as they said they were when to do.

he said we don't know, we will have to see. but he already decided and only told weizman i am going to support a jewish state when they announce its creation. here are the remarks from arlen specter of pennsylvania on supreme court nominee judge sonia sotomayor. mr. specter, whose participated in confirmation hearings for every supreme court justice since 1981, voted in 1998 to confirm judge sotomayor to the new york federal appears court. his remarks on the senate floor or just under ten minutes. >> judge sotomayor comes to this nomination with impeccable credentials.

sumacumlade on the yale law journal, a distinguished career in private practice and assistant district attorney with morgan fall and manhattan, service on the united states district court and trial court and now serves on the court of appeals for the second circuit. the conventional wisdom is that judge sotomayor will be confirmed but notwithstanding the conventional wisdom under the constitution it is the responsibility of the senate on its debt fisa and consent function to question the nominee to determine how she would approach important issues. it also presents a good opportunity to shed some light on the operations of the supreme court of the united states in an

effort to improve those operations. it has been my practice recently to write letters to the nominees in advance as i discussed with judge sotomayor during the so-called courtesy visit i had with her and she graciously consented or to respond or received the letters and was appreciative of the opportunity to know in advance the issues that would be raised. sometimes if an issue comes up perhaps the nominee doesn't know the case or the issue and may be compelled to say let me consider that and i will get back to do. so this enables loss at the hearings to move ahead and to the substantive materials. the first letter i wrote involved congressional power and the adoption by the supreme court of a test on congruence

and proportionality which justice scalia called a flabby test that enables the court to in effect legislate. second letter in fault the prospect of televising the supreme court to grant greater access to the public to understand what the supreme court does. and the third letter which i said to judge sotomayor yesterday involves the issue of the court's backlog and opportunities for the court to take on more work. the chief justice roberts and his confirmation hearings noted that the court, quote, could contribute more to the clarity and uniformity of law by taking more cases. the number of cases the supreme court had in the 19th centuries shows it is possible to take up

more cases. 1870 the court had 636 cases on the docket decided to hundred 80, 1880, 1,200 cases on the docket decided 365. 1886, the court had 1,396 cases. decided 451. and notwithstanding what the chief justice roberts said at his confirmation hearing during his tenure, the number of cases has continued to decline. and 1985 durham there were 161 signed opinions and the 2007 term with chief justice roberts in charge, there were only 67 deciding the casings. a courthouse where seven of the

nine justices excluding only justice stevens and justice alito have their clerks do the work and suggesting the justices spend little time if any except to examine a memo in this sort of approval raising the question as to whether that is really adequate on individualized justice with the individual justices considering these issues. now, justices can consider the thousands of cases which are filed but there may be a better system as justice stevens and justice alito have with their taking their own individual responsibility. there is another major problem in the court, and that is its failure to take on cases where the courts of appeals for the circuits are split. there are many such cases in my letter to judge sotomayor i have

identified some illustrative of the case is more important issues like mandatory minimums for the use of a gun and drug trafficking or the propriety of a jury consulting the bible during its deliberations. justice scalia in descending on one of the refusals to take up a case with a circuit split dissenting on the denial justice wrote among the conflict in the circuits i would grant the petition all right and squarely promote the produced constitutionally saying it does seem to be quite irresponsible to let current chaos prevailed, end of quote. well, that's the kind of chaos which prevails when to circuits split, the case may come up in

another circuit or the president's divided and it seems to me that the court ought to take up the issues. that could be ameliorated by a change in the rules. now, four justices must agree to hear a case and i intend to ask judge sotomayor her views on the subject and her willingness perhaps interest in taking cases with only three justices or perhaps to justices. the refusal of the court to take out of these major cases is very serious and illustrated by its denial of consideration of perhaps the major or at least a major conflict between the power of congress under article 1 of the constitution to act before

and intelligence surveillance act which provides the exclusive way to have a wiretap warrants issue with president bush's warrantless wiretapping and to the terrorist surveillance program. indeed teach white district court found the terrorist surveillance programs unconstitutional. the sixth circuit that would not decide the case by finding a lack of standing and in the letter to judge sotomayor eyesight the reasoning of the dissent on the inflexibility of the standing doctrine, and then the supreme court of the united states decides not to decide the case, and it so happens with the court decides not to decide may well be more important than what the court actually does decide. so these are issues which i intend to take up with judge

sotomayor. >> no one knew until may 14th what truman would do. there was a press conference the day before, what. he said i don't know we have to see that he already decided and he told only weizmann i am going to support a jewish state when the announce its creation.

eliason c-span funded? >> the u.s. government. >> private benefactors. >> i don't know. i think some of this government raised. >> it's not public. >> public donations. >> i want to say from me, my tax dollars. >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private initiative no government mandate, no government money. >> now a hearing on regulating the bottled water industry. we will hear about the differences and regulation between all of water and tap water. bart stupak of michigan chairs the commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations. this is one hour and 50 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

>> this meeting will come to order the quarter. today we have a hearing intitled regulation of bottled water. the chairman and ranking member and chairman emeritus will be recognized for five minute opening statement. other members will be recognized for three minute opening statements. i will begin. food safety is extremely important issue this committee has held nearly a dozen hearings on the past two years. time and again we hear from individuals who want more information so they can make wise decisions about what they eat and drink. my constituents are no exception. today's hearing on bottled water gets close to home. my world district of northern michigan contains more than alaska and we have a keen awareness of water. michigan is also home to a large water facility that has not been without controversy over the years. in 2008 americans consume

8.6 million gallons of bottled water. bottled water is a billion dollars a year industry that sales up more than 83% this decade. many americans believe the water they drank from a bottle is held through the and the water that comes from their faucets. the water research foundation found nearly 56% of bald water drinkers cite health and safety as the primary reason they choose bottled water over tap water as a result americans are willing to pay top dollar for bottled water which costs up to 1900 times more than tap water and uses up to 2,000 times more energy to produce and deliver. over the past several years away for bottled water has been recalled due to contamination by queen compounds, mode and bacteria. in april it doesn't pay the college junior high school reportedly were sick after drinking bottled water from the vending machine. consumers may not realize but many of the regulators the

plight of the disabilities responsible for tap water do not apply to companies that produce bottled water. i would like to put up the charts that some of these differences. for taxable municipal tap water suppliers are required to tell consumers within 24 hours if they find dangerous contaminants that exceed federal levels but this requirement doesn't apply to bottled water companies. certified laboratories must be used to test the water if bottled water has no similar requirement. tap water suppliers allow customers with annual consumer confidence report a detailed source of their water, any contamination found, the likely cause of contamination potential health effects. bottled water dustin readers are not required to provide this report to consumers. instead, bottled water consumers rely on limited information fell on labels and some cases company

but sites. some companies exacerbate this problem by exaggerating claims about the health benefits of their products for example springs explains the history of its water by sitting when joseph bricker was revived from his deathbed reputedly by drinking the springs water and lived another 52 years the waters health benefits became legendary. multan valley water company provided similar accounts of water stating clinical tests of hospitals in new york st. louis and philadelphia demonstrated improvements into the health of patients offering from kidney and liver disorders and rheumatism as a result of drinking mountain valley water. aqua mantra spring water explains the labels such as i am healthy and volume loved permeate the liquid influencing taste and beneficial properties of water. the company also claims that all

quote schambra uses the design of its label to effect the molecular structure of the water. today the subcommittee will receive two reports that have raised questions why the regulations governing bottled water are weaker than those governing tap water as well as widespread public perception that bottled water is healthier than water from the tap. the first is by the government accountability office originally requested by the former colleagues. in this report gao examines whether federal and state authorities are adequately insuring the safety of bottled water and accuracy claims regarding its purity and health benefits. the second report is by the environmental working group which conducted in 18 months of the of bald water levels and websites and concluded just two of the 180 a bottled water companies surveyed provide consumers with information on

the source of their water, the manner in which it is treated and any contaminants present. given these findings by the gao and environmental working group the subcommittee is ending today to a dozen bottled water companies letters requesting information on the source of their water, treatment methods and results of their contaminant testing the past two years. even when water is treated at municipal facilities and in a vault there still may be questions about contaminants such as pharmaceuticals that may be present in the water. environmental working group reports an estimated 25% of bottled water brands rely on tidewater are drawing from supplies that collectively contain 260 pollutants. according to associated press drugs haven't felt in municipal water samples across the country officials in philadelphia discovered 56 pharmaceuticals or buy products and treated

drinking water, antiepileptic and antiand sidey occasions were detected into drinking water for 18.5 million people in southern california. in drinking water here in washington, d.c. and surrounding areas tested positive for six pharmaceuticals. for these reasons i the introduced h.r. 1359. this responsible durham disposable act of 2009 which will provide proper disposal through drug take back programs so individuals are not simply flushing medications down the toilet into the water systems. i'm also proud to be the original cosponsor of the food safety enhancement act 2009 which passed out of the committee last month and which is again ready for floor action in which provides fda with much needed authority to assess testing records of food and water suppliers. i look forward to these hearings and ask for unanimous consent reports issued today and other documents in the winder prepared by staff be entered into the

official record. without objection will be entered and used throughout the hearing. i would next like to turn to my friend from oregon for his opening statement place. >> thank you. my home state of oregon and second congressional district which i represent to a palm of bottled waters including those in the central oregon community of culver, earth 2.0 and which artesian blue and then the northern portion, h2 oregon. these businesses are in many cases providing much needed job opportunities in areas of oregon that have been hard hit by today's weak economy and our unemployment rate is second only to yours in michigan. today's hearing raises ballot questions regarding the differences and regulations and the food and drug administration and the epa regarding. however i should note concerned with all of the life-threatening health priorities facing the fda including numerous foodborne illness outbreaks, complications

and swine flu pandemic this issue does to me seem a little secondary. in terms of the fda overwhelming workload on other issues. we shall also put this hearing in context. the reports that are the focus of today's hearing point out a few noteworthy findings but do not assess the safety of the bottled water itself. neither the government accountability office, gao or environmental working group conducted any testing of the bottled water or the bottles themselves while completing their reports. the regulations for bottled water differ from those promulgated for tap water mostly because bottled water is considered a food product and is therefore regulated by the food and drug administration warehouse tap water is regulated by the environmental protection agency however fda does require the standards of quality for bottled water must be no less protective of public health than the epa standard.

under the fda regulations bottlers must follow current good manufacturing practices also known as gmp. fda requires more safeguards for water bottlers and other food processors. the gmp for bottled water are commodity specific. under these gmp bottler's lost among the other things test their source of water once a week for microbiological contaminants and test finished bottled water weekly for microbiological contaminants some of the water bottlers in my district follow a practice of testing their water every hour in order to meet requirements of purchasers of their product said they are doing our early water testing. i do have a question goods discrepancy is a chemical called dehp. this is a file late substance added to plastic to change their characteristic and i'm sure you are familiar. fda has yet to establish a

standard for this contaminant even epa did a decade ago. the task force is supposedly examining the information surrounding the ehp and i want to ask deputy commissioner when can we expect a ruling from your agency? >> the question is i will speak to an mnf recycled bottles themselves. i have had some tell me the use of recycled water produces for leaching or whatever it is that comes out of plastic and first-time use and that is the case. conducted inspections since one way the fda into was bottlers are falling gmp. concerns have been raised frequently the plants are expected and what access inspectors have to plant records regarding testing and other important information during the inspection and i would be curious to know the legislation passed unanimously out of the full committee the experience fda inspection process if that would apply in these cases and you would get new authority of

the house and senate act. i would like to hear from the deputy commissioner as well on how the agency can improve the process and if you do need any additional authority. congress needs to know rex ackley with the agency needs and why. currently bottlers are required to disclose the source of their water detection of contaminants. the question is should they and i look forward to your response on that. mr. chairman i would conclude by thanking you for this hearing but i would also like to raise the issue that july 8 has come and gone and a number of fossil this side of the i'll raise questions of the environmental protection regarding bald appliance and we expect epa to respond regarding alan karlan and his report that wasn't allowed to be considered in the indy 500 durham and finding process and if the epa is on bling to respond in a timely manner which may well be the case i do hope the request in this committee to have an

oversight hearing on what appears to be the bottling up of science and debate on the carvin issue will be granted for hearing in the full investigation so we will be coming back to you on that issue and i thank 24 your time. >> thank you. ms. blackburn, opening statement please. >> thank you mr. chairman and i do want to welcome the witnesses and thank them for being with us today. as you have heard we all are concerned about bottled water, the product that is there. we are also concerned about tap water and the work the epa does and i will submit a written statement. mr. chairman i want to take my time to say i would prefer that we be spending this time to look at other issues important to our constituents that the fda and epa deal with. there are other committee issues we can be looking at such as the

options for reducing health care costs for constituents and looking at how you do that through patient driven consumer driven patient centered health care. we should be looking at the medicare trust fund and pressures on that trust fund. the ballooning cost of medicaid if we move to a public auction as we move into health care reform or even from my state the lessons that should have been learned from care which was the test case for hillary clinton health care back in '94. my state still has this. it is the greatest public health failure in the country. that would be a great opportunity for us to look at what is affecting us with health care. certainly there are more pressing issues. we are appreciative of your time to be before us today and while we all are concerned with bleaching chemicals that come

from plastics to balk walter, we are indeed very concerned with what we see sequester in evidence from epa and we use. we are concerned with what we see of health care issues that are affecting all of our constituents and lack of willingness to address those in a patient center manner and i yield back my time. >> let me just respond we had a hearing before we broke on health insurance rescissions where they rescind insurance to people who have a and next week is scheduled all weekend committee for the health care market bill sali and sure we will have plenty of opportunities to speak of health care. mr. burgess for opening statement please. >> thank you, mr. chairman and maybe i should take a second response to your response and isn't it a shame we have a

subcommittee on health and on energy and commerce and we are to have no markup on what is the change in the delivery of health care in america since the and in institution of the care in 1965. certainly the people in congress in 1965 likely could have never foreseen what medicare would become at least as far as the price of the federal program and what and we all be in better shape if more care was taken back in 1965 and object lesson today is we need to take good care and exercise to caution as we structure this major fundamental change to american healthcare. we also could have had a hearing on medical devices and the subcommittee which i have asked for for some time and has yet been forthcoming so there are ways we could have made use of this time today mr. chairman but here we are and we are going to talk about all goldwater this morning and that's important. normally i have a bottle of

water here so that if i get parched in the hour i have to address the committee but now we are stuck with d.c. water which they're used to be a sign in my office in the longworth building that said to not drink the tap water. i don't know if that's changed but i'm a little reluctant on what's before us today. ..

or karzai higher threshold of municipal water, required to be tested every four years and bottled water every year. in fact, bottled water is truly one of the stand-alone industries with a sonic code of federal regulations writing good manufacturing processes. from the definitions and testing and sampling currently two years and how they should be available to the food and drug administration as well as the role of the environmental protection agency, state and local agencies and helping to edge of the safety and sanitation, this burgeoning industry has seemingly insisted that it complies oriented manufacturing system rarely if ever producing bad actors. what's in this industry is an

example of the ingenuity and innovation of the marketplace tikrit a project unquestionable -- on credible made for a convenient transportable water and as good idea has been met with significant market success. we must ensure the trust and faith of consumers as well as the government places bottled water are not misguided. more americans drink bottled water and then milk and beer covina so there is a step in this process to deliver this with a chest and face is misallocated is really an effort to having the science point to a solution. for the more inefficiencies in the regulation of bottled water and potential fraud in the process of producing bottled water and alleged environmental issues of drinking natural resources and the bird and some transportation costs moving the and products we will certainly look for to seen one is sure to be walled -- proof. thank you for your indulgence

and i yield back the dogs of my time. >> no problem, i didn't want you to get parched. as you know in the subcommittee you did hold a hearing on medical devices last month and the 510 kate approval process so those are being taken this hearing -- >> alan submit a thin respiratory part of that has not been in to my satisfaction and the subcommittee would be their purpose to have that in addition we have a question of probably rolled into this health care bill and we have not had the fda to talk about this so there is stuff we could be going. >> absolutely and this committee has been very active for the last two years and hold any hearings in this one with the two reports released today. it really dovetails what we have been doing for the last couple years in food safety and whether it is the pa or p.e.t. or as mr. walton brought up the dehp 15 years to put at regulation

for that, certify that lab test results, all of that is contained in this hearing so it is now strictly bottled water, false advertising -- that is what this whole thing is about and wraps up what we have been doing the last few years away thought it was appropriate to have a hearing today. very good. mr. burton, opening statement please. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me say before i get my prepared statement how much i personally appreciate your so don't take what i'm about to say to personally. but i think it does say something given the serious issues which you have traditionally tack: as your subcommittee chairmanship along with ranking member walden and today's hearing does rank at the top of that list. it shows when you look on your side how much support there is. they may all be here but they are disguised as anti-terrorist.

>> most of the committee is down and the consumer protection because we're putting in your administrator in and that is where we started late because i'm also on that. >> greg and i will take over if you want to go down there. >> do we have a vote on matt? [laughter] >> mr. chairman, today's hearing does examine several interesting questions and the differences between bottled water and tap water. these differences arise in regulatory approaches as well as in processing public perception. several other witnesses including the government accountability office of, fda will discuss and possibly debate ways in which bottled water regulations should be changed and possibly improve. other winners including the environmental working group, international bottled water association will discuss ways industry can be more chance parents and responsive to consumer inquiries. i don't have a prom with transparency and pushing it in the upcoming health care debate and as you well i've certainly pushing transparency at this epa

where mr. walden and i have asked them to release the documents concerning their suppression of the epa report within its own agency debating whether there really is an intention and binding with regards to co2. so those of us on the minority are concerned whether this particular hearing is a the best use of our limited oversight hearing times. we have confronted the issue of a swine flu pandemic, we have confronted safety of products like tylenol. as i said a minute ago mr. chairman, this one doesn't seem to be up to that standard of excellence which you have established for your oversight. and hope that after this hearing you will consider supporting mr. walden and myself on getting information about how the epa suppression of the document which recall carbon ingate regarding this co2 endangerment finding.

also hope this will work with us as i talk with you yesterday and formally about doing more hearings and there is some action items on the automobile dealer closure issue. i know that something important to you personally. if we await your response and mr. waxman's response so mr. chairman, we always appreciate and hold a hearing and we always participate and are looking for to going on to a little bit more intense issues in the future but again thank you for holding this hearing. >> thank you mr. darden, the one reason we're having this hearing because as we have seen on your side a little bit maybe we assume because it is in a bottle like this is healthy, it is clean, it is pure and that is an assumption i think we erroneously are making so we are doing a hearing to try to get to the issues here because i not think we have to wait for a deadly africa disease in bottled water as we have seen it with ping about our last.

can say there is zero riss care between 2002 and 2008 ever 23 recalls of bottled water. that is about one every quarter. most stem from an elevated level of contaminants such as arsenic and from it which cause cancer of the past six years of this fda issue three warning letters to bottled water companies violating safety regulations and that is in addition to dozens of other problems found in the epa inspections of bottled water and bottling facilities. in 2007 the fda issued a press release against ranking mineral water imported from armenia because the arsenic level was 50 times greater than the federal standard. like a said last month in southern california we have grown sick at a high-school for buying bottled water at of a vending machine so these are problems the fda has uncovered a narrowing have about two or three employees and devoted to it and i think i said earlier just because it becomes in a

bottle would assume in this health care for us and that is what most americans assume and refine its not the case and that is the reason for the hearing and all the hearings we have done this year on salmonella come institutional review boards, so we have a lot on -- going on here. >> mr. chairman, two points -- one i did not mention my testimony but i know that water is also an ingredient in many other drinks. i guess the question i have for our panel as well as this because it is clear and in those bottles how is that treated or monitored inverses it is colored and sugared? and perhaps carbonated, at the summit check the water that goes into that as well? are the different standards there and the second point i think santa clara junior high students, anderson is the fbi may be involved in investigation so it might be more of a tampering issue, is that correct? >> that are involved, but now

has reached a conclusion whether it is tampering. >> i was trying to jump to that, thank you mr. chairman. >> that's a good segue into our affairs panel, let me introduce our first panel. we have mr. john stephenson, director of natural resources and environment accountability office. we have dr. joshua sharfstein, principal that the commission at the fda. miss jane houlihan is senior vice president for research at the environmental working group and that mr. joseph doss who is the president of the international bottled water association. it's a policy of the subcommittee to take all testimony under oath. please be advised you have the right and the rules of the house to be advised by counsel during your testimony. you wish to be represented the by the council? >> now. >> i'm going to ask please rise and raise you're right hand and take the oath.

do you swear or affirm that as many is nothing but the truth in the matter pending before this committee? let the record reflect the witnesses have replied in the affirmative. you are now under oath and we will hear five minute opening salmon from our witnesses. use of it a lot persimmon for the record and would be included in today's hearing record. mr. stephenson, we will start with you can rack thank you mr. chairman and mr. walton, i am pleased to be here to discuss the quality and safety of bottled water and its environmental impact the per-capita consumption of bottled water in the u.s. has more than doubled from 13 pifer gao's person in 1997 to 29.3 gallons per person in 2007. that is over to her calls a year for every man, woman and child and 11 plus billion dollar market. with this increase of come several questions and concerns over bottled water quality and safety. my testimony is based on reports issuing to the committee today which is going to be publicly

released. in summary we found that fda safety and consumer protections are less stringent for bottled water acampo epa protections for tap water and law fda standards generally of the status for the nearly all of the 88 contaminants covered by the epa national primary drinking water regulations there is one notable exception, dehp which is a plasticizer is tucson and plastic which has been linked to reproductive and liver problems and increase cancer risk and it has been regulated by the epa in tap water since 1992 but that it be a deferred action on dehp and ethanol will publish in 1996 and has said together adopt the senate are published for not doing so even though the statutory deadline for acting was more than 50 years ago. a since dehp is used in food packaging as well as bottled water this is a broader issue of that fda is still studying, nevertheless our report

recommends that fda expeditiously promulgate dehp standard for bottled water. more broadly we found that fda i like epa does not have the statutory authority to require bottlers use certified laboratories for water quality tests or trooper test results even a violation of the centers are found. most tests are done by the bottlers themselves, several states have requirements to save our bottles that exceed those of fda but are still less comprehensive than for tap water. in addition was fda bottled water labeling requirements are similar to labeling for other foods in that provide consumers with far less information about the source and quality of water than what epa requires a public water systems under the save and drinking water act. for example, them essentially provide consumer confidence reports that summarize what our policy information about the water sources from undetected contaminants and complies with national primary drinking water regulations as well as information on the potential health of checks of certain

contaminants. fda does not require bottled water companies to provide similar information. in a study mandated by the 1996 amendments to the safe drinking water act fda concluded it was feasible for the bottom water industry to provide the same type of information to consumers that public water systems must provide however the agency was not required to act on its findings and as yet to do so. his survey of 50 states and the district of columbia show that consumers have misconceptions about bottled water leaving in a safer and healthier than tap water. we also found that information comparable to a public water systems are required to provide to consumers of tap water was available for only a small percentage of the 83 bottled water labels we examine, companies we contacted, company websites we reviewed. we believe that consumers would benefit from better information on the safety of bottled water and our report recommends that fda to implement results of the senate to accomplish this. the in examining the entire month of dexa bottled water we

found out only 25 percent of the water bottles are recycled and the remaining 70 percent are discarded to municipal landfills within everett to compose an essentially remain for ever. all this over 900 dozen towns a plastic annually represents less than 1 percent of municipal waste. another issue is an amount of energy used to manufacture and transport bottled water. another study as rise in energy use at 5.8 megajoules per liter. at the credit consumption this is the equivalent of the energy used by four points 7 million households for a year. and this 1,000 to 2,000 times the energy used for tap water. we also found that groundwater extraction for the bottled water facilities in selected areas and that michigan and other states have passed laws to minimize the impact of surging levels and wetlands. finally i would note that some of are bottled water of chinese are indicative of the fda of world food safety oversight problems that led to gao says

and ending it a high-risk area in january 2007 and again in 2009. when you call for a fundamental re-examination of the federal food safety system we believe that fda lack of authority and resources to effectively regulate bottled water should be part of the re-examination. mr. chairman, that includes a summary of my salmon and and be happy to answer questions at their proper time. >> thank you, dr. joshua sharfstein, opening statement? >> thank you very much. >> he might want to move that mike up a little bit more. >> thank you, we appreciated the gao report and he finished with exactly two seconds left. i was watching and have never seen that before good morning, members of the subcommittee, i am dr. joshua sharfstein, a deputy commissioner of the fda and health and human services. i want to thank the committee for your work on a wide range of health issues and to discuss regulation of bottled water

today. as has been mentioned that are regulated by two separate agencies, fda regulates bottle law was the epa regulates tap water and referred to as municipal water or public drinking water. epa has reticence on distribution and policy including source water protection, operation of drinking water systems, content levels and reporting requirements the cosmetic act provides authority over food and part of that bottled water here and introduced into interstate commerce. under the food and drug hazmat and we're responsible for producing state, wholesome and to the level for products in violation of the law introduced into industry, said alfred or a -- adulterated products. we established this of the regulations for bottled water in the code of regulations, these include a standard identity regulations that define different types of bottled water such as spring water versus no water and standard of quality regulations that establish

allowable levels for chemical microbial and radiological contaminants. fda has established a manufacturing practice regulations for the processing and bottling of the drinking water and labeling regulations for food in general also apply to bottled water. federal law requires fda to system is for a bottled water as exists for municipal water or a splinter the should not apply. fda has established standards for more than 19 contaminants and in some cases such as for a lead or copper the fda limits are stricter for bottled water them for municipal water and another point to make in this regard is the way the testing is done is different. for example of a municipal -- you take the lead standard, and a test of that as high as donna anna fda regulated bottled water for the municipal water is on a percentage of the sample above a certain level municipal water supply of failed at. mayor allowed to have certain

appel years and not have it at the failure for municipal water supply so illustrates there is a different approach taken in the two contexts. fda and specs bottled water products and processing plants as part of the program and inspections occur approximately once every one to three years. agency and in specs firms more really depended on this significant a recurrence of violations. feel the office of all of consumer and trade complaints and other potentially bottled water products parent as for other types of. fda apparently collects and analyzes samples of bottled water, samples of one bottle water may be collected and tested to determine compliance with the loss of regulations and the labs may test the water for microbial rinse a logical or contaminated. in recent years fda has promoted a number of quality status from bottled water in conjunction with epa and on may 29, 2009 fda published a final rule to

require that bottled water manufactures test stores water and test finished products for tote organisms and but haven't distribution of products containing and eight e. coli indicator of the contamination. fda is requiring the for the kenya source water from the source has some positive force began at the bottle by sector program measures to rectify or limit the cause of the problem. in the must keep records of such action. in general fda oversight of bottled water i think and described as successful, the agency is aware of new safety concerns associated with bottled water over the past decade. fda is aware of the gao report reduced the number of issues that the agency faces in regulating bottled water and we have worked with gao to provide information and assist with their investigation. let me address the issues gao has raised and lied to believe that the fda of risk has been generally successful i believe there is room for improvement.

first gao found that it has not yet set a standard for the -- the administration did not pursue this because of the legal issue which we can discuss further in the prior session. it very visiting this decision and intends to pursue a dehp standard as anticipated under the law. second gao found that fda labeling regulation for bottled water provided for less information about the services and quality of water than required for epa municipal systems, fda has found that would be feasible for manufacturers of bottled water to provide such information to consumers. however, the act is now providing a mechanism to require bottlers to make that impression available through congress to take additional action. third, gao consists expressed concern that fda cannot record results today it is and has conducted by bottled water manufacturers. this is a fair point and had been part of the oversight of

water and food and channel that should be strengthened. in fact, it would be strengthened by the food safety legislation that committee has shown so much leadership on. fourth, gao has pointed out that fda does not have authority to mandate certified laboratories. this is also one reasonable point and the fda does require the use of methods that are least as sensitive as be attended by this but that legislation passed would be extremely helpful here. i would also mentioned that that is changing legislation provides for a visit to plants, has an analysis and preventive controls that will complement fda good manufacturing practices for bottled water and facilities and strengthen the system of oversight for bottled water and food. and for foreign produce bottled water in the act would require importers to register with fda, comply with good importer practices and give it syndication for importation. though we will continue to work with the committee on

legislation that we think is important and i'm pleased to be here and the port tier questions. >> thank you, dr. karen jane houlihan, would you pull that my covert? >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, i'm jane houlihan, senior vice president for research of resourcing group. there are a nonprofit advocacy organization in washington d.c. thank you for holding this hearing. today we are releasing a 18 month survey of labels and web sites for 180 it bottled water's coming here is what we found that consumers spend about 9200 times more for bottled water than tap water that they often have no way to learn essential facts about what is actually in the bottle. only two of 188 bottled water made public the basic facts routinely disclosed by local tax on utilities, they said the specific name and location of the water source compare vacation than and chemical pollutants that remain in the water after chairman.

this iran's -- news of the only two of 180 to doing some parents bottled water companies are not required to make these basic facts public and here is the reason -- they enjoy a regulatory holiday on the the federal ocean through the cosmetic act with near complete latitude out of an information to share with consumers. in contrast every one of the nation's 52,000 municipal water suppliers produces an annual water quality report giving its water source wouldn't testing results as required under the same trading water act and the epa calls is the centerpiece of consumer's right to know about water quality. this double standard it is unfair to consumers who have a right to know what is and what they buy. service show that over half a bottle water drinkers choose a because they're worried about the safety of their tap water, they believe is free of contaminants, do it for their health, but intuit cases consumers have no to check the. they're looking for is what they're enjoying getting so

where does the water come from? are a servant cannot present the bottled water provide no information whatsoever about their water source on the label. but 37% fully deviled of an allocation of their water source and the remaining 33% in generic information like spring or did aquifer. if you could look at figure one in your packet place this is a brand that is doing the right thing, and is a great value, it is called in your figure is smaller brand not in the top 10 but is actually demanded by wal-mart. you'll see on the label that's was clearly indicated municipal supply fort worth, texas aryan know exactly where the water comes from an also said the chatman method on this level reverse osmosis. let's look at the next figure by way of contrast on the other end of the spectrum, dasani, you'll see that the product is pure and is crisp and has a fresh taste but nowhere on this level believe find the source of that water.

dasani is on a 30% not giving any impression on soars along with wholefoods, food lion, cbs, store brands and in the other brands. how is bottled water para fi? bottled water companies are not required to disclose what and methods they used to purify their water, municipal water suppliers time required to disclose information either but most of them do. we found that 44% of bottled water provide a two-minute informational levels, one-third of iran no informational labels or web sites. if you look at figure to in your packet you'll see a level for ozark, leslie brand that is actually doing the right thing, you'll see on this level the water comes from houston is of low water supply for the stock there, it is further treated by reverse osmosis and the current rotation, and ozone nation. for contrast let me read to you which you will see it on a fiji label. the purest water comes from the paris klaus, are rainfall is provided by trade winds as it travels across the pacific ocean

to the island of fiji. that is all the information you'll see on to win on that level and fiji is one of this is a percent of bottled water that are printing claims of tariff, among the waters the dollar mother to benefits. consumers have no way to know of the claims are true. what pollutants are and bottled water? every tap water utility publishes an annual water quality report listing on the results for the year but only 18 percent of bottled waters to the same. those said to include all the domestic leslie brand, those that don't include aquafina, a pepsi brand in figure three of the package. without data consumers are left with marketing claims these are expensive, you heard a man who lived 52 additional years after drinking the water, not valley springs became known as a remedy for the treatment of account, rheumatism and other diseases and abbey on clinton is a symbol of health, general well-being. water is extremely pure but they don't publish a test reports and finally aqua mantra has the

frequency of well-being. when you pay a premium price her bottled water you deserve more than just claims here and we recommend that water levels and websites disclose this affirmation that the law requires of municipal water utilities and that this disclosure be mandatory. consumers have a right to know whether bottled water comes from, how or if it is treated in the presence that contains. thank you for your time. >> thank you. joseph doss, your opening statement please our. >> [inaudible] i appreciate this opportunity about the regulation of bottled water. whether retail size or larger container is a state continues have prepared a comprehensive regulation of tests -- [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] we

support a risk based inspection system that would require inspections of food facilities, every six months to three years, requirement for all food manufacturers to conduct a hazard analysis and establish and maintain preventive controls which all ibwa members as a condition of membership. in granting fda authority to mandate recall under circumstances where for a product presents an imminent threat of serious adverse health consequences or death. dehp -- ibwa supports their accurate and conference of information about the bottled water process a purchase. as a mention of packaged food and beverages including bottled water are subject to extensive fda labeling requirements that provide consumers with a great deal upon the quality information. in addition virtually all bottled water products include phone number on the label that

consumers can use to contact the company. in fact, ibwa petition that fda into doesn't want to require all bottled water levels to include a phone number on the label. ibwa believes that the most visible way for consumers to obtain information not already on the label is through a request to the bottler. in addition consumers can go to the ibwa website texting contact information our water quality of permission for all ibwa member brands. consumers have many options when choosing which bottle water plan to shrink -- it is before a company does not provide them with information that they what he or she can choose another brand of bottled water. that is not the case with tap water. consumers cannot choose which public water system is piped into their homes and that is the fundamental issue -- consumer joyce. unfortunately many people want to make this out to be in bottled water vs. tampa are issued. we just don't see that we appear if people are drinking water wetter tap or bottled that is a good thing and consumers should be free to choose.

that the senate represent to drink bottled water also choose to trade tap water ibwa supports of us to improve the public safety system in order to maintain the highest quality of water for all citizens and with increasing diabetes, obesity and heart disease in the united states any actions that would discourage consumers from drinking. never not in the public interest. throughout the years before a company saveloys respond to jennifer clancy of drinking water after a natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods and forest fires an emergency situation such as terrorist attacks and alerts however, the bottled water industry cannot exist for only disaster response and the vast majority of bottled water companies in the u.s. are primarily family-owned and operated small businesses that depend on viable commercial market to provide the resources necessary to respond in emergency situations. in fact, that a percent of ibwa members have gross sales of less than $10 million a year. in summary of bottled water is this a hell that giving a food product as comprehensively

regulation at the federal and state level, ibwa stands ready to assist the subcommittee as it considers the support issue. thank you for considering our use. >> thanks, who will start with questions and thank you all for your comments. mr. doss, let me ask you this, is into that in a percent of the water bottlers are part reorganization? about 80%? >> i'm sorry to blackwater bottlers in this country -- they belong to the organization. >> i was a represent 75 percent of the actual facilities. >> is dasani, coca-cola -- >> not part of the association kim balckout leslie? >> they are remembered balckout as aquafina, that is pepsi can and they're not a member. >> are those the three biggest coke, pepsi? can i those of the largest companies can add to the other three are not part of your organization.

your standards which track made of the things we recommend in gao and the others, that is a voluntary standard you try to have your members comply with? >> ibwa has always tried to have the highest possible safety standard so we have a mandatory requirement for our members and if they don't meet those standards they cannot be a member of the ibwa. >> to use to -- do you do anything on advertising? >> obviously that is the case by case situation where there are set of federal laws that allow companies action brought against for deceptive and misleading advertising so we don't do anything in that regard. >> okay, so like aqua mantra about these mantra inherently penetrate the molecular structure of the water -- you guys don't condone any of that? >> it is not something that we deal with advertising issues coming in this letter to the state and federal authorities. >> the company went on to said

that it canceled the -- i used the word canceled because it is on the web site with a doctor who wrote a book called in messages and water and with the company said he served as the basic principles of quantum theory whereby the molecular structure of water was changed by is and buddhist monks thought. based on this premise aqua mention it uses the design of as levels to affect the molecular structures of california natural spring water to make it more refreshing and wholesome. is there any water steady that is an amount in take changed the molecular structure of watercress. >> i can speak to let that money has found, i can't speak to that. i don't know if there are a member of ibwa so i can't comment on what information they have about what they say on the label or other materials. >> dr. sharfstein, have you seen anything quite like this? to you think those should be part of the labeling of water?

>> i would be highly skeptical. >> but we have seen an dr. houlihan and others plan about fantastical claims, are the legal? can they do and underneath this misbranding or false advertising? >> we definitely look in this case in general misbranding pertains to other people are claiming to treat disease, that is the big one or put our priority and people saying you drink this water and it cures for cancer and people might not pursue cancer treatment. >> so like mr. record: this brings had ever miraculous recovery and live 22 years and it is good for the rich and kidney diseases -- is that? >> the one with the historical fable, i done of that is exactly

-- but the other one where you said use in clinical data that when i think we would like to see. that to mr. rice as pretty worth are evaluating. and often die with that but i think that definitely fall into something we would want to look closely at. >> how about the makers of age to zero m, claim that they play music and sounds after bottling facilities that charge of the water with special laboratory frequencies? with that famous advertising? >> and opposition but i would have skepticism about that one and i think that if the misbranding provision is really about things we focus on a we think are going to pose a public health threat, and clinic at an issue about whether to treat kidney or liver disease does

raise that issue. >> and tab 13, the chart, we might want to put back up on the board there, in the two reports by gao and the environmental working group talk about the regulations any mention a little interest, the bottlers discover dangerous contaminants the water, they don't have to alert the public. municipalities unlike they don't have to certify labs. water bottlers generally are not required to provide information on test results and a source other products. take dasani and i have this bottle that is put on the airplane when i fly back and forth so i grabbed it with me as i was reading my testimony and i go through and read it to their plans on to read this. is enhanced with minerals for appear fresh taste and that can't be beat in the new have it make your water math.com. that is a little out there a

little bit, but it says bottles of like cc da waters llc. miller's third, pennsylvania. but then underneath that they have a ct and a symbol for number 992 and have in the 07354, ny s hd certificate, one herges 73 and another one but ct, with the bacon and the kids and envy, nevada, new york state health a permanent thing could be new york? it doesn't say anything about sources. so you don't know where this water really came from? nevada, connecticut, new york or pennsylvania? >> i could not decipher that for you. >> mr. doss, can you help on these markings? >> i can say for sure because of not familiar with the brand but maybe all the states require the product to be registered like other food products to within the state. if you're going to suppress the

venice.edu think all the protestants to have the registration information on the bottles can answer you would have to figure out where the probably the last one you'd have to go to a lot number to figure out where it came from whether nevada or connecticut or new york or pennsylvania? or coca-cola in atlanta, georgia because that addresses on here too. the consumer has no way of knowing and this is one of the big bottlers. >> again, i think that is what that is referring to. >> mr. walden can i thank you very much mr. chairman. it is like in a food product regulated by the fda is a dangerous contaminants are in the bottled water is considered adulterated by the fda, correct? >> that's, correct. >> and its pilots the law if it is sold to consumers can buy people can go to jail if they do a. >> and if we are worried about some of the claims on the label isn't that really also under the

jurisdiction and, the ftc, federal trade commission on false advertising and labeling? >> i will have to get back to you, i done of i can answer. we do have certain jurisdiction there and i'm not sure it about the ftc. >> i would assume that they would but i don't know that for the fact is something we ought to the cap because would be helpful if they are here and the epa today and perhaps somebody from coca-cola as well since they are not represented on this panel but we're saying that not. >> one thing and what two mention it as a couple months fda will -- >> is your mike von? >> in a couple months fda al-awja the report of a registry that was part of legislation congress passed and when that happens we are anticipating september companies will have to notify fda and there is a product for least that could pose a risk to how of so some of the gap will be filled by that

but we really think the passage of the food safety legislation is going to close that. >> we are hopeful that can be brought up. mr. chairman, has that been scheduled for house for consideration? >> not yet. we are still working on trying to get the final touches. >> in your testimony, dr. come ehud discuss testing requirements for bottled water to include testing a source father for a total coliform says that was zero tolerance for e. coli. does the epa required testing for coliform in tap water and as it establishes zero tolerance level four e. coli? can i give me one second, i have a good -- i have some information on that right here. i'm curious about that also appear in. >> i think in the case of lead the coming zero tolerance for unleaded and bottled water by the epa. it allows a certain -- >> i think it illustrates the point isn't just a little

different, the systems. my understanding is public water systems are required to collect monthly total coliform samples throughout the distribution system and that if they're positive it must be tested for e. coli and if for it is system collecting more than 40 samples peron if more than 5 percent are positive that triggers a violation. if it is less than 40 samples per month and one possible triggers a violation so for fda bottled water if there is any violation and that kicks in for municipal, if it is a lot of tests it has to be a certain percentage teacher in violation so the standards are slightly different. i hope they will explain that clearly enough. they do a whole bunch of tests. >> are the more stringent under your regulations of the epa regulations? or is it just different? >> there are different. >> i know.

that district of columbia i think i am correct in saying we all went many years drinking tap water believing it to be saved only to discover that they haven't really fully disclose the amount of lead coming into the one of the pipes. and so i don't know if you ran into that in baltimore when your health commissioner there, but as i recall you advocated to people to buy it and be safe to drink bottled water. >> well, not for the population of baltimore because the minister of water supply fell for a comfortable with the public school children and that is right, in fact, we advise the the school to turn off all the drinking fountains and that this city schools because of problems they're having with led. >> and to go to bottled water. >> across the system it turned out to be cheaper also given the expense of them had of testing the municipal water because of the old buildings and the problems of the pipes in the school.

i certainly as a health commissioner i think there are certain scenarios where for example after certain times of a disruption the water can be unsafe for a time and recommend people switched to bottled water, or boil it can i think he. in mr. doss, a question about this notion that consumers are wanting to know what is in the their bottled water. i want to know that it is safe and i trinket. on not sure i'm going to chase down what spring and came out of war well. as long as i know it is safe. how many inquiries to get to your association people who say i want to know the ingredients. when i take water out of my place here there is a label on the tap that tells now the stuff, i wouldn't know where to go in the d.c. system to even find that as long as to save medicare. how much of this is the case? how many people are rushing to

you and tell your folks saying i demand to know where the water came from? >> this decision has hardly gone any comments or questions from consumers. i have talked to some of my members including our large members of our small and midsize members and get very few requests. >> how they handle those requests? >> is to divide with information can i today disclose? >> if they once were disinformation, whenever they ask for in our opinion that is what they should provide and that is our bottom line is if a consumer has a question of a believe they have the right to have that information. of the real issue is how to best provide that information and i think that is the decision here, that was related just a minute ago. these are two different systems. bottled water is a packaged food products in a very different distribution system than tap water so there are necessarily some differences in the may you want to provide information and

press and the overall safety is concerned again that they both have to be safe because they're different ways to get to that goal. >> i don't think it is soft drink bottle the disclose for the liquid source coming from, right? they put a water and a cola beverage, right? is that right, dr.? is in that the number one ingredient is a water? in these beverages we all drank in the last image that nobody is saying to tell me where the water came from that is in there, not required to be on those levels, is it? >> and that is why -- >> you are being singled out. >> bottled water is a food products so we follow the rules. >> isn't cola a food product. >> it is not subject to the manufacturing practices that exist typically for bottled water so there is within the realm -- >> so is there less oversight on our a soda drinks? >> i wouldn't necessarily use

the board oversight but i would say there is definitely more regulation. >> on which? >> bottled water then on: product. >> i am not picking up columbuses non: verses and a polo whenever, i am talking soft drinks so there is less oversight but in terms of food safety. >> there are good manufacturing practices and applied to foods generally that apply to: and someone will get the if i'm getting a totally wrong but i understand the bottled water has a whole set of regulations that are just for bottled water. that relates to the fact that. >> regulations which thomas's for soft drinks. >> can also say that one difference between bottled water and soda is also that people choose bottled water because they think it is healthier and safer. >> but that is -- can i that is not the reason they're choosing

cola. >> but whether they choose and are not to the question is either too rich getting act as consumers have the right to know the source of the ingredients in the bottle, labeling and all that. i want to know, i may think a soda product is better than bottled water. blackwater is very different from other kinds of food products, in mesa more than half of our body and we are advised to drink it every day. >> because it helps remove toxins. >> exactly and people are choosing bottled water in particular not colas because there is a perception in his favor and healthier than tap water and i think that is why it is basing allowed over other foods because of a special place that holds some people's minds. also because it is almost a thousand times more expensive than top honor can at how much more expensive it is this soda drinks over tap water? >> maybe a small amount of people making tough choices about their budget so bottled water is part of that. >> i have almost doubled over my

time. >> that is all, right, i want to get to ms. christensen for questions can i thank you mr. chairman. i just want to go over the contaminant disclosure issue again with so i am clear. according to new reports it appears that consumers have access to a lot more information about contaminants in tap water then about contaminants and bottled water and an answer to some of the questions previously asked, mr. stephenson, and of the municipal authorities within 24 hours with contaminants such as e. coli above prescribed level in tap water, is that correct? >> that is correct can i have o spend notice over broadcast medium or in worn next in conspicuous locations? >> yes, there are very specific requirements on how you report those. >> but it is bottled water company ran the same test on water and on the same level of e. coli and both epa and fda say

it is dangerous to human health, they don't have to tell the fda or epa or other public? >> for the state. >> of use is required by generally no? generally they don't have to can i generally they don't. >> it also requested to hainaut consumer confidence reports to disclose any contamination problems the likely source of that contamination of potential health effects of that contamination and information about the system's stability to future contamination of parent. but of the water companies do not require to make similar disclosures to the public can i that is true, we don't have the authority to make that requirement. >> dr. sharfstein, this is a striking disparities in the information available to consumers. we learned about dangerous contaminants in our top honor,

but we may never learn about the dangerous contaminants in the bottled water. two to say you support a requirement to have the bottled water companies disclose test results showing contamination above the the federal levels? >> actually starting in sept. we think that requirement will take effect for contamination that poses a risk to the public. >> is it enough to have the companies have a the same question of food, is it enough to have the company's report the lab reports or should they be certified labs into the labs be required to tell fda when a positive result is don? >> i think that is a very important question. i think there are two questions, the certified them and what the lab should be required to report so for certified labs i think fda would like to have authority to require labs because we think that is the barn for a particular product and i think that because of a broad

preventive authority is that this new legislation been moving to the house would give a we would be able to do that. the second question of requiring labs to report to fda is a little more complex because there are some a tests that are done can i just the positive ones. >> and sustanon. the concern that is expressed there is whether or not it inhibits private-sector from testing and all. if i have a good testing program in place other identifying in keeping things out of the system should they be reporting every single positive which it wants to get reported, those are questions i think is a little more complex because you could be drowning, not just for water but all the different foods and tests. we don't to inhibit companies together on testing with good primitive plants in place a lien on to the missing information

coming to us so that question of how much to acquire or they get from this sort of a more complex issue that we would probably look at in a particular industry or particular situation like certain types we would want to know because they would be so serious. >> earlier this year the subcommittee held to oversight hearings on salmonella poisoning and promise that causes multiple dallas -- multiple deaths and illnesses ellen and that the pinette corporation of america receive positive test for salmonella and was not required to disclose them to anyone. and fda didn't have a the access to those results and couldn't access them until people felt ill by invoking another loss of about his and law. so the same legal loophole applies to bottled water companies although the municipal water authorities are required to disclose test results fda cannot compel the bottled water

companies to disclose theirs. the dr. houlihan, of a bottled water company tested and was dangerous also e. coli as far as you understand is that required to disclose those results to the public? >> as far as i understand that is the case. we found a lot of the bottled water brands there posting 18% of the brands that are posting full of water quality test reports online and we think 100% of companies should be doing that. and letting people know right away about contamination issues. >> even though i made a reference to be a better i am not suggesting that the water issue is similar, but one important lesson that we learned is that sometimes the companies have warning signs long before major problems arise because of the systems are faulty and that a state officials have access to that testing data, they might be able to fly small problems

before they become big ones. mr. doss, your organization represents 75% of the bottled water industry. do you support a requirement that bottled water companies made their test records available to the fda during a routine inspections? >> we do. >> and i am sure dr. sharfstein, he our dance to that question. of -- i guess i am out of time and i will just hold for a second round. >> thank you. mr. burgess for questions, five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman derrin i apologize for being gone during part of your testimony and the earlier questing now. in can anyone tell me bottled water has a certain standard, what about our college ranks? of those held the same standard as bottled water? >> : drinks are considered food and and and their food to the manufacturing practices that

they're held to, but cola drinks are not held to the bottle of water manufacturing products which is in addition to the general good manufacturing practices gimmicks of the best tenuous knowledge there is no difference of any of these was a tad of the plastic into liquid phase whether it be water laura: drink, is that correct? >> i don't know if i could know enough to answer that question. and do think the point that is there this from a food safety perspective of. from infancy to prospective a water has a hold additional set of regulations compared to coli. it really depends on public health your sink compared to what. compare balart to: it has a whole additional set of regulations and to compare bottled water to municipal water then there are certain disclosure requirements that municipal water don't apply to bottled water so it is sort of your vantage point of from if

it's a two prospective there is a hold additional set of regulations that apply to bottled water compared to khalaf. >> what about the water that is manufactured and sold with caffeine and added to the water? it does that fall into the foodstuff for is that a water? >> that is not a water. summit is going to tell me if i get this wrong but i'm pretty sure is not a water. >> we will probably both here. >> it depends, some of those people may be attempting to market them as dietary supplements and other things but what they're marketed as a separate discussion but i don't think it is considered a water if you put extra caffeine in eds. gñgñgñgñgñgñgñgñgñgñgñgñgñgñgñgñ

we now have a precise number that these overall responsibilities for guliyev students designating food safety and high risk area that the resources are inadequate to do just the job right now and we pointed out from a broader standpoint that food safety is spread over a number of different agencies and of those agencies fda seems to get the smallest proportion of the budget yet it has 80% of the

responsibility, so i don't know whether to is right or four is right or six is right for bottled water. we are gestating effect that that is how many fda are dedicated to inspecting bottled water facilities. >> that does not seem to be a sufficient number? >> it does not seem to be a sufficient number given the number of bottled water facilities. >> also, your testimony we note that three-quarters of the water bottles produced in the u.s. in the year 2006 were recycle for could do we know about the rates recycle for other beverages? >> i think it is probably similar for all plastic bottles. bottle water being a growing share of the market there are more bottles dedicated to water so the percentage wise. >> isomerically there are more in the environment? >> this is not a volume problem. is less than 1% of what is going

into the landfill and nevertheless they stay there forever and recycling is a good thing in general. >> i would agree with that. dr. sharfstein in the gao report, it states that the fda currently assigns to people and yet four years ago the food and drug the administration change the risk assessment from low to high risk so again i would ask the question how many inspectors should now be assigned to oversee the code of federal regulations as it relates to bottled water? >> i am not sure that is right that we change it to high risk. i think in general compared to other foods we consider bottled water on the lower side. i think that there is, there are two issues burgoine is the frequency of inspections and the other is all the things that go with the inspections and one of the key things we talked about is just knowing who is making bottled water and we have a hard

time and good food and safety laws understanding that because by law people can register in the category is called-- so everyone is thrown in together so we don't have a very good idea. we don't have a good idea as we should have exactly who is making it. that is the first up to have a solid system and then we would like the ability to require plants and all the key basic steps and there and then you put inspections as part of that strategy, but just thinking of inspections alone with the rest of the way it is, it is probably going to be, still going to leave opportunities for strengthening the system off the table if he were thinking of it as an inspection level. we like the parts of a law giving us access to records, giving fda the ability to require prevented plants. other things like that to sort of surrounded. >> let me ask you a question with the time i don't have

remaining. is not fair to ask this but i will do it any way. we are going to vote on the agriculture appropriations bill today or tomorrow. is the number we have in the bill for the food and drug administration, do we have the right number there? >> the presence-- present but he they came out of committee, i think there's no question the committee responded this would be the high risk in putting more resources into food safety and if we get that combined with additional authority it think we will be able to strengthen the system considerably. speeches for the record mr. president the beautiful campus they occupy as part of the gsa budget so none of your food safety dollars are going to that lovely campus which were also proud of. i will yield back. >> thanks mr. burgess. dr. sharfstein if we do testing and if you have to report the positive results, after a while

if you see a continued positive results for e. coli from a plant, it indicates two of a problem and we have to get there were these increase inspections, like a peanut butter one and the salmonella where we had report after report of problems but no one received a report, no one ever knew what was going on. >> i agree with you. the fda has got to respond to problems very aggressively and has got to be able to follow up with manufacturers that aren't meeting standards and if necessary shut them down, and in recent weeks we have taken action against some firms. >> but you would know unless he received positive results, unless you receive the results. some one receive results then looked at them, right? >> could be that we get a complaint and investigate it. it could be the testing that fda doesn't i'm sure it does do some testing in the samples. we can find out the problem. we can get somebody call on us

say there's a problem with this company so that leads us to investigate but once we find a problem it is important to follow up until the problem is clearly result. >> how about for those bottlers who use municipal water as their source? would make sense to require them to post a link to the required epa testing results because they have to do once a year? would that make sense to require-- 25% was in your report, 25% of the bottlers use tap water so why when we require them to posted on the web site? >> i can totally understand why that would make sense that consumers would be interested in that. the thing for fda is the standard that we have for putting something on the label is that it would have to be misleading without it. and so we use that to say something has got to be there or it is misleading without it and that is a hard thing to put come to kind of filed that in that

category so that is not to say we wouldn't support it but whether we could do it under our misleading authority that we think is questionable in that it might require a different look from congress. >> ms. brandon authority? >> if we were to do it, what standard would we have to meet? picc could be it is misleading without it and we don't require it for other types of foods. what it really be misleading consumers not to have that and that is a hard standard for us to reach. there may be a better way for congress to achieve that. >> mr. stephenson on page 22 of your report the poll conducted by the water research foundation at 56% of bottled water drinkers site safety and health is the primary reason they sought an alternative to tap water. is it fair to say the number one reason people are buying bottled water is because they think it is safer and healthier than tap water? >> there is the pole and several

other research studies that have concluded that although convenience is a top reason as well. >> okay. what bothers me is about the perception of bottled water is healthy and tap water in many instances bottled water is nothing more than tap water. the natural resources defense council estimated as a said 25% of the bottled water is just tap water and sometimes it is treated and sometimes it is not so my question is, and maybe i think you cited in your report, is that accurate? 25% of bottled water is just tap water in a bottle? >> those of the numbers that are publicly available and i think it is a big question as to whether it is even more than that because in some in the cases we just don't have the information on what the source actually is and we found almost a third of all bottled waters have no information on their label. >> if they take it from tap water into something like reverse osmosis then they don't

have to claim it is tap water. >> there is a provision that requires bottled waters the label from the assessable supplied they have not undergone treatment but any treatment according to fda that is suitable allows the bottled water manufacturer not to use that label and call it a purified water without giving people information and what the treatment processes were. >> like i said i got this on the airplane yesterday. this coca-colas huismann nusseibah water for its dasani bottled water? >> you can't tell from the label. there's no information on the water source. >> how about the pepsi that dr. burgess is redrinking? does that come from a municipal source? >> aquafina, we have that label and one of the examples that you could pull that up. >> aquafina. >> on the label it is labeled as

from a municipal supply. aquafina does not name the municipal supply which is what some of the other bottled waters are choosing to do. >> did we know, did they do for their treatment or anything? would it have to be on their? >> it does not have to be labeled at all and 44% of all labels don't provide any information. >> mr. doss, aquafina was part of your and for-- with a further have treated it gorgeous put down a municipal source? >> now the witton and i think the issue here is maybe misunderstanding. purified bottled water which is what dasani is an aquafina is, is not just tap water and a bottle. >> something else happens to it. >> when no water comes from the mixable source it goes through reverse osmosis, it goes through uv light and in the sanitary conditions is placed in a bottle. now, those purified waters must

meet the u.s. standard for purified or sterile water. if it does not, than that label must disclose in the bottle that comes from a municipal source. so, in that case that water, because the doesn't listed as the municipal source, meets the u.s. standard for purified or sterile water and that is the big difference here. that goes to the sourcing of the water. it would be not come to list the source was dayton county municipal water, that water is quite different than what once again to not bottle then when it started at end that is the distinction here. >> let's go back to dasani then and i am reading the label right here. sesnon carbonated, crisp, fresh taste. dasani is filtered through a system and enhanced with

minerals corey fear peer fresh taste that can be beat. and then on the other side of the label, it says, let me find it here. purified water, sulfate, potassium chloride, salt and then it has an as a negligible amount of sodium and then it has a cross on it and it says minerals added four taste pier applied by reverse osmosis. so, to get that clean, crisp taste are the chemical added potassium chloride, salt and sodium or is it the other chemicals? >> i can't speak to dasani specifically but it is sometimes, what happens is the water comes from a new cipel sword and is purified with reverse osmosis treatments and the minerals are added back for taze. so that is what they are disclosing. i can't speak to that level, a label but in general that is

oftentimes what happens. >> okay. i guess my time is up. mr. walden for questions. >> first of all with the chairman cited, are those chemicals or minerals? >> i believe there minerals that are added for taste and that is why they disclose the on the label. they meet the labeling requirements, they are making sure that they are in forming those who buy it that this is a purified water with minerals added back. if they added other things into the water with they have to disclose that? >> i believe they would, if it then as the question of a standard of identity for bottled water which specifically says your spring water you have to do this and if you are purified water and you have to do that. >> there already rules that say that? >> there are rules that say exactly what he must do if you say you are a purified water come artesian water or well water. if you had something else of the

water then for liebling purposes he would probably in this is where fda i am a little, to make sure we can get back to you on the specifically but in that case fda would say you need to then make sure you are saying this is purified water with minerals added back and that is why they do it. >> dr. sharfstein, do you know or do your folks know if that is correct? >> that question, the question is what you are allowed to put back in? >> not what you are left to put back in but that that which you put back in do you have to disclose it on the label? the envelope, the answer is. >> yes, it is required. >> so it is already acquired. if imad bottle of water and i go through reverse osmosis in the upm all of that and then i add things that can i have to put

that on the label? >> that is my understanding. >> okay. i want to ask about the dhp issue, dehp burgoine your testimony state the fda has decided to move forward to making a decision on dehp. can you tell us we can expect it? that is what i hear if i hear anything about bottled water it is about this new discussion about what is in the plastic. >> this is where it gets a little bit confusing but basically, 19-- the mid 90s when this was originally done in this particular chemical was deferred the reason that was deferred is because it had been marketed prior to 1958 and had a special grandfather like provision as a food additive for code was thought that it was in the plastic and therefore this provision of the law that we are talking about conflicted with another provision of the law.

our understanding has changed since that time. in fact we don't believe it is being used in water bottles or water cats right now and as a result of that, the concern that existed and i am a pediatrician and not a lawyer but basically the legal conflict that was of concern in the mid 90s is not of concern now and that we can move forward and basically assessing whether or not there is a reason, there has to be an affirmative reason not to have the same standard as municipal water, so my presumption would be we will move forward with the standard like we have with all the contaminants but what held it up before with his grandfather legal issue and i think that may not apply any more. we can move forward. >> but i want to get to the heart of the matter, the people i represent. you are telling me the plastic in the cap here don't have the

phthalate? >> in our communications industry, i understand we do not believe that this is a regularly used-- >> mr. duskin use the to this issue? >> this my understanding that none of the plastic containers used for bottled water contain dehp, not that polycarbonate, so none of the bottle water containers used contain any dehp however bottled water, the international bottled water association for purposes of parity several years ago, 1999 and this goes to the historic reasons dr. sharfstein was talking about. we have a substandard in our code that is exactly the same as epa swore for parity reasons but bunn of the plastic containers used for bottled waters contain dehp. >> this is the outside of your association, does that come to

your knowledge does that apply to dr. burgess' pepsi bottle and other bottles used? >> they are using p.e.t. rick they are using polycarbonate or dehp which are the three primary uses for all beverage products then there's no dehp in the burkas the dehp issue is is it in the water separately just because the decennium parliament? >> is there a number that you use for dehp like p.e.t. is number one and that is what this one is here but there is usually a symbol for goes there assembled that if you use dehp in a plastic-- >> i will get back to you on that. >> i actually have another question. >> the food contact notification that epa proved show 100 different kinds of plastic additives that can reach into the waters of this is a problem that is much bigger than dehp. >> i just want to get to another

point because we are so focused and i realize that is the focus of the hearing, bottled water and where that water comes from but i am thinking, the fight by orange juice and a cartoon that is made from concentrate what percent of that is water? that has to be huge percent, right? because you are adding water to the concentrate and if the issue is here the quality of the water and the source of the water going into what we can consume it seems to me we are myopic in looking at bottled water because somebody doesn't like bottled water are presented as the higher threshold in the purity. i would suggest that a lot of this drink orange juice thinking that is better than perhaps bottled water because you get other things with it, and yet i'm thinking 80%, 90% of what i am getting in a carton of orange juice unless it is fresh squeezed, not from concentrate,

is probably water. so, from the fda's standpoint you look at the water? that goes into that? >> that is part of what makes food safe is the water and meets the safety requirements. >> that is the same thing you've applied to bottled water? >> it is more than we apply to bottled water so as i was saying before lot of this is compared to, if you compare bottled water to other foods or foods that contain water is there additional regulations that apply? i.t. you are comparing them to municipal water there's more disclosure by municipal water them bottled water. >> i guess the question, where is that disclosure? i never even, at least there is something on this level. i know where to go. in my hometown we have a spring and i don't get a notice on my tap or on my water bill or here in the district of columbia for heaven's sakes, where friends of my tap the scary.

that is why put a filter in the ended refill tritt in another deal and all of that. anyway, i am done. >> you don't get a notice every year? seriously? >> probably. i mean, and the. [speaking russian] >> you don't read it? >> it is like this aware notice i get here. tells me when it rains the inflate these completable things to keep the sewage from running into the atomic unless it rains to much in the nato phillippe it come up that is a whole nother issue. >> we don't want to release treated sewage in the water, that's for sure. ms. christenson. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. stephenson, i know in your report the surveys were done in the 50 states of the district of columbia. any reason why the territories are not included or they generally not included in

surveys? >> no particular reason, just the methodology we chose. >> they are not generally excluded? >> no. >> just in this particular-- >> lemon to the amount of time and a limited amount of resources dictated 50 states in the district of columbia. >> dr. sharfstein in your testimony, you said that you have come fda has broad authority over food delivered into interstate commerce, as though if it is just within a state or within the territory, fda doesn't have any jurisdiction, or do you work with the states then and the territories? >> that actually is a pretty broad statement because if the bottle comes from outside of the state or the cap comes from outside the state even if it is sold within the stated counts is under state and there is a presumptions understand that it would be interstates, but in

theory there may be products that would, could be challenged or authority over them although i am not aware of a problem that we have not been able to get to directly. >> okay. did you want to add something? mr. stephenson, you have talked a lot about whether bottled water is safe for healthy or there is disagreement on that but there's no disagreement on the fact that bottled water uses more energy to produce and deliver and on page 26 of the ep report, there is quite an amazing statistic the way he referred to a study by the pacific institute which examined how much energy it takes to bring bottled water from different locations throughout the world to l.a., and in your report this is what it says. it is estimated the total image you require to bring a typical 1 liter bottle of water weighing 38 grams to the consumer in los angeles with typically range from about 1,100 to 2,000 times

the energy costs in producing tap water. >> that is true. >> at fae janke single bottle of fiji or some bottled water which i may not ever drank again, but from overseas i could be using up to 2,000 times more energy than if i just walked over to my sink and filled up? >> that is true. >> i see, okay. that is really astonishing and the studies cited in the gao report also describes the transporting these bottles can be the single biggest cost. according to the study transportation energy costs could be as high as 50% of the total energy costs for spring water bottled in france, transported overseas by cargo ship and transported by rail to the eastern united states into los angeles. >> that is correct. >> the report also has some findings related, for example you concluded most plastic bottles are discarded wedded

then recycle? >> we estimate 25%. 75% are discarded. >> so, ms. houlihan how do we get there? why did consumers pay so much, 100 times more for bottled water that takes thousands of times more energy to produce? >> we heard some of the-- and i think a lot of people are under a misperception that bottled water must be safer than tap water. a lot of people believe that it is free of contaminants. in fact i love this that required to be any safer than tap water. when we tested ten major brands we found 38 different pollutants. everything from disinfection byproducts to radioactive isotopes to even traces of tylenol and fertilizer residues. so, one thing that we need when it comes to the bottled water industry is more daylight. information for consumers on

where the water comes from, where it is treated in what is and it. >> i think it is important for the information to be there so people can make ineligible judgment. i certainly understand bottles are convenient but if we are going to use them isn't there a better way, going back to not recycling but going into the landfill, this bottled water can get in there cafeteria downstairs is bottled in virginia and transported a few miles from here to the capital and it is biodegradable. mr. doss to represent the bottled water companies. , many of them are using biodegradable bottles? >> i am not sure exactly how many are using bioto grab a ball bottles but as a general statement bottled water companies like other food industry companies are trying to do whatever they can to reduce their foot brent. is the going to bottles such as those is one way of doing it. we have made significant efforts

to live with the bottled water containers. they are much lighter weight which uses less plastic. we also set some of our companies using recycled content to use less virgin materials so bottled water is trying to do what it can to reduce the environmental footprint but i think it is important to recognize bottled water is one of thousands of food products on the market in plastic, and in fact, we are only one-third of 1%, as reported in the gao report of the entire united states so many efforts to reducing environmental impact has to focus more broadly on all consumer goods. >> absolutely. thank you for your answers. >> thank you ms. burgess. let's get five minutes in before we have to go to votes. >> mr. sharfstein to follow-up on what mr. walden was talking about on the lawsuit with the phthalate, dehp that is them

held up. you are now prepared to issue a ruling in september, dui understand correctly on dehp? the fda is prepared to go ahead with their ruling now? >> so, there questions whether we set a standard for bottled water and our intent is to proceed with setting a standard for bottled water, so that is just a matter of preparing this standard, getting it going lithicum across some reason why does not apply to bottled water at all we are permitted to make a statement that it does not apply to bottled water but it is not obvious to us there is such a compelling reason at this point and we would anticipate then setting a standard, so at that point is just as long as it takes to do but what is in the lot and this gets, there is 180 days standard in the law which if epa sets the standard, fda needs to set a standard

corporate at least 180 days before so it can take effect at the same time as the epa standard but this one where they waited so long because of this legal thing, it does not really apply because epa standard went into effect so long ago so really we would just like to do it any reasonable timeframe. >> at this point in the pre-u.s. to look ahead as to what that standard may be? >> if we were to do it would be the same standard that epa has unless there is another good reason otherwise the that would be the assumption for coaches like we have done for all of the other contaminants, for a couple of them will set them lower like letting copper, but that would anticipate that it would be the same because that is the law. most, if there was something unique which is at this point not apparent. >> mr. chairman, on the issue of the high-risk, low risk, apparently there was a ruling issued by the fda in 2005 of a risk assessment and we will get

a copy of that with your permission and we will make that available to the committee for its consideration of getting into the record. finally, let me just ask a question. mr. walden as the rhetorical question about recycling and really this is for anyone on the panel, but plastic, the compounds leaching out of a plastic in greater amounts and recycle materials and then native or first run materials, so is that the real concern for us to have? are there going to be different standards for the recycled bottles are should there be different standards? will consumers, do consumers need to be well aware that the difference between a recycle bottle in a first run bottle? ..

they have made the determination their safety use.

there has got to be a standard of safety rather is recycled are not recycle there has got to be a standard of safety and so that is what fda enforces. understanding in light of new evidence that comes out about particular substances in the latest science and the concerns people have that is fda's job to a that but at the end of the day it's bad to be a standard of safety and got to apply what ever is in the package. >> so where are we with the issue of recycling? and should consumers big concern about buying bottled water and recycled products? are you testing this product is currently or are there any available? >> we test the water when we test water and could be from recycled bottles or not, but i'm not aware of any special concerns for recycled plastic. but i think if there are

concerns people have they should share with the agency. >> i don't even know enough to know whether these recycled materials are then broken down reconstituted or do we simply wash up the bottle and putting a cap on that? obviously we're going to recycle so we will see more of these products on shelves and in our stores in america think your illustrating why the job is so challenging because products change different and the fda has gone to be up on them so that we can force the same basic safety standards so food is protected the. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. burgess. one last question and will close the hearing. mr. stephenson, in your gao report retire to about the consumer confidence reports and in 1996 congress directed the fda to assess these provide and bottled water consumers with a function equivalent of a consumer confidence report.

according to your gao report released today, on august 25th , fda concluded it would be feasible to provide consumers with some of the information contained in the consumer confidence report directly on a bottle label and access to the remaining information to an address or phone number. that is two have never three in the document -- is that correct? >> that is, right. >> any reason why would your organization object toward you think we should have a consumer confidence report for bottled water? >> as i think was reported in their study they did say it was visible, it in exactly say what was visible to put on the label. i think there were quite skeptical of putting some of the contaminants in center on the label because it was clever of the label and as i said before i think the bottom line for us as consumers sought to be able to information and rethink that a telephone number to call the company and request that information is the best way to do it and almost all bottled

waters curly as well as other food products 71 number a least a consumer can call the company as i could you send in information and that information should be sent and isn't i say go find another product to buy. >> so you do my phone number but you want -- i don't want any other information. >> the fbi should require phone-number so we support that as a way of getting consumers in touch with the company's. >> mr. chairman, i think it is to be some specificity and will be required in this confidence report when we were checking levels and what size it was devil to the canada information. >> you're report did not say put the whole report on the bottle, some information should be on and they say phone number for information. that includes all of our questioning and i want to thank all those witnesses for your testimony. the committee rules provide that members have 10 days to submit additional questions, that concludes our hearing on the meaning of the subcommittee is adjourn apparent [inaudible

conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

talking about stimulus oversight with governor rendell of pennsylvania, welcome to the program. what systems are in place to try to use of stimulus funds in pennsylvania? >> guest: and areas of systems. we've adopted most of the letter of tracking of things in detail one of us to do but we developed

on tracking and website which is pennsylvania recovery.com. we believe in total transparency. i will give one example -- let's say you receive a billion or 25 million in transportation infrastructure funds for roads and bridges and the like. well, we have on our website every single contract we have lent 242 contracts which encompass all of that money. you can go on the web site and find out what contracts have been led in york county, in your town, with the contractors were, rewarded the bids, who this up front churches were, how much money is being spent in york county and spent statewide and spending your region, how many people have been hired in the project underway, to other vendors and contractors that rewarded the work of the project so there is as close to little transparency as a cannon in some other programs that we needed to

develop modality to get the money out, we actually had discussions with our citizens. have asked them for ideas and input here for example, our weatherization program, pennsylvania basically spends about $30 million a year on whether rescission. thanks to the stimulus we get to under $53 million to spend, roughly eight times what we spend in a. we don't have enough mostly 30 billion our nonprofit so we have to develop its own method of doing and we solicited input from groups, advocacy groups, nonprofits, business groups and individual citizens so we have conversations on the web source transparency is good. for oversight we are very well regarded, a former business ceo who is our accountability officer and we have an oversight committee that is made up of four members chosen by our congressional delegation, for members chosen by our

legislative delegation, head of the afl cio head of timber, head of the united way and those 11 people to oversight over every dollar we spend in every program we find the. >> host: we are talking less stimulus oversight with pennsylvania governor governor rendell if you want to involve the conversation give us a call, (202)737-0022, democrats, and for republicans, independents to (026)280-0405, you can send asimo or send us a twitter. if you i'm living inside it the commonwealth of pennsylvania would definitely like to hear from you this morning. how is need determine in deciding which committees or provinces to the most assistance where the money goes first? >> guest: that depends on the formula developed by the federal agency administering the stimulus program and we applaud their formula for the transportation money it lent out over the regular formula that

federal and state dollars mix to get spent and that meant that the planning organizations, the metropolitan planning organization several organizations, never told how much money they would have to spend it is on our normal formula. this led to the projects, rent the projects in their area so the two headed for the two projects for allecte locally and at all franked. that ishe it was in a different mix in some things like we million for energy projects, that is the criteria developed by the department of environmental protection and they make the selection after competitive process so there is for its money. >> host: our first call for the governor comes from michigan, janice on our line for democrats. >> caller: that is correct, thank you. good morning, governor rendell. yesterday i was looking and summit news articles and i saw

for the gao, the general accountability office recently published a report that the way to track stimulus money to the states is if let's say not as good as it should pay. that there is really no way to track and that a lot of the state's and my state michigan was mentioned as an example. that concerns me that as far as how is this money going to be tracked. the previous guest was talking about the race had a kind of built-in, there is a 7% rates built into all of these funds. so have you heard about the gao report person of and if not if you to make yourself aware of it? >> again he may have heard in my

opening discussion pennsylvania has received high marks from the gao for the rear tracking and making transparent a stimulus spending and various state-by-state and the gao gives us rules and how we are supposed to do it. it does ferris by the states by state and you got 15 different entities looking at something, but i think the key to it is transparency, the public in each state and across the nation has the right to see how the money was spent so on earth do to go on pennsylvania recovery.com, you can see how bentsen and is spending the money, where it are and how much progress we have made and how many jobs created. comecon tracks led, who is ken them, i the pennsylvania contractor said cetera? so i think and again i can always be for us, i think we're doing a pretty good job and i think the gao has rules and guidelines and is an ongoing

process remember. the first charge of stimulus money that came to the states came in an authorization to spend it was march 12th, that as i reckon a little less than four months ago. i've loved reading these articles. when the washington post and politico. people complain best thing -- stimulus spending that coming prickliness. well, our transportation contracts we have led the two-thirds in less than three and half months. we have sped up that process paranormal in pennsylvania to that of transportation contract would be six months. if we did it in a faster way to think the critics would be saying? they did it too fast, they didn't take enough care. it was sloppy, it was haphazard, there's going to be raised so there has to be a balance. no one wants to create jobs in my statement and i do but i also want to make sure it's done right and to cut out waste and i don't think there has to be

7 percent raise in the obama administration and congress only give us less than half a percent on administrative costs, that is all of the stimulus dollars we got so that billion dollar plus for transportation we are only allowed to spend one-half of 1 percent of administration and everything else has to go to the project's. >> host: let's take a call from henderson, nevada, on our line for republicans. >> caller: the morning, my question is this cap and trade which would pretty much crapo the economy, crippled the government. we are in a recession already in and to compound that they want to him in a medical program to us as well, that is going to overtax us. what is the point of all of this when it is not going to do is a good? why is the congress pursuing this? >> guest: that's not why i am

here but i'm happy to take a brick shot at it as a health care. look, health care is killing all of us right now. in a domain that literally obviously been financially it's killing us. businesses, state governments, inflation has been roughly 3 percent of the last time six years. health care costs have risen like 10 or 11 or 12% during that time. we can't keep up, businesses can't keep up here it is adjusting to know that the chamber of commerce not a democrat or liberal leaning organization has said it will need to do something about health care, they have told president obama do something about health care costs and with that to find a way to do two things -- one, give access to the 45 million americans who don't have health care and it, too, to the americans who have health care but it doesn't really provide adequate benefits of that to find a way to do that but also got to find a way to ratchet health care costs down. there's a lot of the president's

plan that will do that, just electronic record-keeping will save us hundreds of billions of dollars a year just one example. competition can read to cost down and that is why the president wants to do this public auction and i know it is controversial but his there is competition will cause of a private vantage care organizations to reduce their prices. so don't be so quick to think that all the healthcare plan's going to do is add to our financial burden. if it is done by announcing it will be but if it is downright civil to radically reduce the financial burden on americans, american businesses and at the same time give everyone health care. i hope you have health care, john, but there are a lot of good hard working people who don't respond lange, frightened. >> host: you are in washington to testify at house oversight reform committee hearing later on this morning about stimulus spending, you're on a panel with a maryland state governor martin o'malley and pennsylvania -- i'm

sorry, massachusetts governor patrick. what is that the three of you are going to tell the committee about the stimulus oocyte? >> guest: two things, i think we're going to tell them is a work in progress but i think the gao has done some good things in their report is the states aren't there yet, but that many of us have received high marks and we're going to explain the level of oversight we have. obviously they're going to read republicans and democrats. i went out of my way state oversight committee to make sure that we have a republican impact. we have got to add the four federal post chosen by the republicans in the pennsylvania delegation, to add the four states to some other republicans in the pennsylvania legislature. i want to be bipartisan, led them to raise questions and again i wanted to be as transparent as possible and a thing massachusetts and maryland also have a good job and summarize that is why the chairman and i think invited us.

there are other states a little behind the curve but they are getting there in the second thing i'm going to try to do is to debunk the idea that the stimulus hasn't worked because not enough of the money has been spent yet. one for the reason i explain to you who want to do with some level of care obviously in and because the three short run goals the administration had they have met one was to provide relief to people in trouble here with an unemployment compensation already have 50,000 pennsylvanians are getting benefits, more benefits for a long time and almost a million pennsylvania families are getting food stamp benefits and that leaves a huge difference. over 3.7 million pennsylvania families have gotten making work pay tax cut already. cobra, a couple of the 30 or 40,000 tons of it is up on the cover health benefits in stimulus. the second thing they want to do was give aid to hardheads states and without we have a budget deficit and are arguing over in

harrisburg been without the federal stimulus program it would be almost unworkable, we would almost be in a california like situation appears to third, we could get things that are schaivo ready and create jobs and orders for factors immediately and as i said right now at a tune of 42 projects when hundred 31 the work has begun in pennsylvania. >> host: let's go back to the phones, cathy is on are live for independence from orlando, florida. >> caller: good morning, happy belated fourth of july. i just wanted to comment governor rendell, and my wonderful governor, our governor and most of the state are doing an awful job, they are not interrogated were terrified by transparency. they open with open arms, and embrace the whole new clean-air,

stimulating the stimulus package, trickling in every single job to the american families and people, and that is what i've wanted to differentiate the facts because canada, the other countries, the u.n., they are commendable and it can disrespect because they make stimulus packages to paris to my question is, fortunately governors like to know where are her is really went out for the kitchen in a contest of a in louisiana, is it because it is transparent? why there aren't helping their people? >> guest: well, there are some philosophical differences and parts of the stimulus package. i don't mean to criticize every governor has to make their own decisions, but this is a time when the people of pennsylvania, louisiana need help, there is a lot of suffering out there.

i think it is the most uncommon upon us to reach out and take the hope that we can take because people say, governor, you want to take federal money and it's fine to cost the state to have to put in more money into and a planet compensation part of the federal money in and said it sure is but what do i tell the person right now who can get the unemployment benefits and is having trouble feeding his children? and tell them that i am worried about what is good to happen down the road three years to the same budget and that is why from stopping him from getting unemployment compensation. i think right now with a to do everything we can to help the american people struggling. >> host: indianapolis, jeffrey on a line for democrats, go ahead, think for taking my call and thank you governor rendell, i have collins -- up followed your career. >> guest: i've been around a long year, cure during a good job for the commonwealth of pennsylvania. it is amazing how you see all

this right wingers attacking stimulus plan. they said the same right wingers to have in front of rank and remember this, of reagan's tax plan was passed august of 1981. by june of 1983 the unemployment rate was still 10.3%. what we need to do is give the stimulus plan sometime to work. instead of people running about attacking the plan already demand the plan if hillyer we need to give the plan sometime to work. ronald reagan was given time with his test plan was passed in 1981. by the way back then the democrats were thrown at them right now we don't see any real share across the avenue republican side or even try to help obama because they feel if it is not their way, if it is not a supply-side tax cut way

then and they're not going to even try to participate. >> guest: jeffrey, i think he meant a great point and i think president obama invest in the stimulus actually try to reach out to the other side. the $780 billion there are $375 billion of tax cuts which is a republican mantra. i actually think that he should have put more money into infrastructure that we know creates jobs for american factories than all the money into tax cuts but he was trying to reach out and the point that every minute is a terrific one -- ronald reagan's recovery plan took a long time to burke. in fact, his recall in the midterm elections ronald reagan's party got killed because we were still in recession. but it wasn't until the latter part of a 03 right before his reelection year that the economy started showing signs and interestingly when ronald reagan and his campaign for election proclaimed morning in america

the economic times or bad but they weren't all that good interestingly and it jeff respond about president of thomas plan is absolutely right. the first amount of money that pennsylvania got from the federal government and i want people to listen carefully was marched off. that is less than four months ago. for us to have a competitive bidding, rank the bids, or the bids come and give companies time to startup, and three jobs, get orders and two pennsylvania by trees, the fact that we have been able to do so well we are doing work, hajj 31 out of 202 projects. that is a testament to the way the same as project was put together, but gosh folks, give it a little time to work. jeffrey is absolutely right. >> host: is there enough money in the pipeline right now to perhaps save face hundred jobs layoffs that has been a bit about in the philadelphia inquirer this morning? >> guest: no, but let's be

clear here and without the money that went to the states and into our budget to defray mccain, some of its use for corrections and education, that 800 of look like a job in the bucket. we would lay off thousands of police both state and local police, but have to lay off teachers and other school personnel, said workers, municipal workers, county workers, the laos a just and government agencies is that iraq would have been in the thousands. i think we're going to keep them to probably under a thousand so again i had to lay off anybody, but it is comparatively good news thanks to the stimulus. >> host: back to the phones, on our line for republicans for virginia. >> caller: thank you for your service. i'm from the of philadelphia and you did a heckuva job. >> guest: thanks. >> caller: i was wondering what on of the stimulus plan we

have so many problems with infrastructure throughout the state's then only in pennsylvania but rest of america of and a lot of the time planners and professional architects and engineers are not included in the discussion and have a policy of an overview of the situation. i think looking at the rebuilding a of a levee is i think in indianapolis a bridge collapsed last night and really have a serious problem that we have to look at these issues from bipartisan standpoint and really dig in and plan and the wpa style approach. >> guest: the distance an excellent point. i commend president obama for having the guts to go out and do the stimulus plan. if i could have changed it i would have put a little bit more

money into infrastructure as a the caller suggested and a little less than the tax cuts and if there is a second stimulus is the big issue,. down to under $50 billion, all into infrastructure because every billion dollars spent on infrastructure spending produces at least 2,225,000 jobs. construction jobs, jobs back in manufacturing, factories to produce contract still an asphalt and the caller is right. we should be doing in m. dedona to do wpa because the private sector can do this just fine. but the two biggest areas of job loss in pennsylvania were construction and manufacturing. stimulus infrastructure gao's adds construction and manufacturing. >> host: our next call comes from valerie in erie, pennsylvania honor line for independence. >> caller: the morning, i would like for you to talk to me about the stimulus having to rappaport, the recovery

accountability internet for the that canada override independent inspector general's reports and if the inspector general chooses to make a report about waste and fraud in the government then can make them jump to political loupes and, of course, mr. obama just fired the inspector general who made a report on fraud and. >> guest: on fraud and the stimulus program? >> caller: yes. >> guest: again i have to plead ignorance of what you're saying although generally i agree with you, i think the inspector general should have the freedom to make the reports and if an agency or a state give a bad report they should have the right to rebut it. i know we have a general in pennsylvania just like every virtually every state in the auditor general will often come out with a report criticizing let's say the department of labor combusted to permit of labor. we have a chance to do a

response and often at the end of attorney-general, we have a good general but in boston he doesn't totally under sali the issues are. he has gotten some preliminary reports thatinaly of the project but at leahancst to sees course. i'm always in favor of the public getting to see inspector general said this federal agency can rebut it and let the public decide. >> host: if you go to www.recovery pa.com, you'll find this number is related to the federal stimulus money being used in pennsylvania for health care, $4 billion education, to buy 6 billion, a transportation infrastructure won by 5 billion, job-training and relief $1 billion, energy independence one of 55 million, other infrastructure and housing $353 million this maxim of that,

the $4 billion from medicaid relief, that is spread over three years and some of those things are all front loaded like his petition but some of them are spread out over three years. >> host: back to the phones, louis from delaware, live for democrats. >> caller: hello, i am on. can you hear me? governor rendell, i am a former philadelphia and and i know you so well. he reminded of my brother sam and that game -- that name has come to ring a bell. and my brother sammy and is rated end by this to c-span for giving me this opportunity but i have a question about the health care. my question is the fact that we have a medicare and also have a supplemental insurance. medicare and i have written letters to everybody in washington i think, medicare

pays 80 percent of the medical bills that i in turn, has been incurred, and there are supplemental bank 20%. they pick up 20%. now we pay the government more money to pay that 80 percent, we don't pay the government -- i'm sorry, i am too nervous. >> guest: that's alright relax. >> caller: we pay the government and they pick up the 80% as i said and we don't pay them as much as they appear with a 20% in some of the supplemental and that is crazy. this has been going on -- why do we have to pay on supplemental insurance so much more than we reimbursed the government? >> guest: it's an interesting question and i think the problem is that the medicare program is not bankrupt but is facing financial challenges. there has to be some level of

code that even in the medicaid program which does much better. there's still some level of kobe that these individual has to come up with. i think the theory was and i say that terry was correct is that that 80 percent is older americans basic health care coverage and the 20% supplement called is if you want to take it up a notch if you want to expand your coverage and want to get certain procedures covered that aren't covered by basic medicare. if you raise medicare to take care of 100 percent, people would have to pay more taxes. we are a tax favors country, there is no question about that and sometimes i think we're taxa fess to our detriment, not all spending is bad and we need to invest in our future and our infrastructure company to invest in education and human capital infrastructure, job training and we need to invest in health care. but the interesting thing is investing in health care.

>> to reduce costs over not just the long run, over the hilly short run as well. so let's hear the president's health care plans those. >> host: our last call for governor rendell comes from illinois, tom on are live for republicans. >> caller: good morning. i am glad to talk to you, governor, but to send tax saver store on becerra and pierre juneau, i figured it up. i have almost paid 70 percent of what ever i make a different kind of taxes and fees. >> guest: where you live? >> caller: illinois, we are just awash in all kinds of taxes and fees but my question is a man commented about reagan's program in his program was based upon tax cuts and so was jfk.

his program was based upon tax cuts. it empowers the people. i think that the democrats want to make everybody dependent upon the government and when you make people depend they do not know what to do. you know, it just boggles my mind that you can't get enough money why does everybody from the governors, senators and everybody take a salary cut? >> host: we're running out of time. >> guest: in pennsylvania for a sample every one who first directly for me to 10,000 people and myself, we have forgone 23% increase last. 3% this year so essentially we have taken a 6 percent salary cut. about the 7 percent of taxes i can speak to that because i don't know about illinois taxes but you'd be surprised to find out that americans pay far less of our prisoners of their income than most countries of the world.

in fact, the gas tax in most european countries is well over a dollar or a dollar $0.50 in the federal gas tax we pay a rash of that so number one, we are not as overtaxed as people think. and i don't want the government, people to be dependent on the government, i sure as heck don't want to do that. i went to enable the private sector to do the things that and is to do, but there some responsibilities that are still basic responsibilities of government like public safety. like education, like providing health care to those who can afford to have health care on their honor and we need to be able to do that. we are responsible for building the infrastructure, a transportation infrastructure, waste water systems. i read the people in cedar rapids would have hoped that there was a tax increase to build a better level is so they're all sitting and have been destroyed. sometimes spending and raising revenue is important and

necessary. we should do it as a last resort but we should be willing to do it when it is for a good purpose and when you as a taxpayer have the right to demand the is that there is no waste and there is no fraud and the programs are carried out effectively and efficiently. >> host: governor rendell, thank you for being on the program this morning. >> guest: my pleasure, i am a good c-span watcher

this is a permit official said only voluntary simmons from guantanmo bay detainees it would be used in military trials proposed by the obama administration. that testimony came during the senate armed services committee hearing. carl levin of michigan is the chairman. this is about two and half hours. >> been morning everybody, the committee meets today to consider the important issue of military commissions and to try leavitt detainees for violations of the law of war. on june 25th the committee unanimously voted to include a provision and military commissions. the national defense authorization act briscoe year 2010. this bill has now been sent to the full senate for its consideration. i think our ranking member senator mccain as well as senator gramm of the members of

the committee for their work on this important matter. in its 2006 decision in the hamdan case the supreme court held that, article three of the geneva conventions prohibits of the trauma of detainees for violations of the law of war and thus the trial is conducted quote, by air regularly constituted court affording all of the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. the court concluded that the rank of their military courts in our system are the courts martial status by congressional statutes, but that a military commission can be regularly constituted by the standards of our military justice system if some practical needed exclaims deviations from court-martial practice. similarly the court added that

the provision for judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples requires that a minimum of any deviation from the procedures governing courts martial be justified by evident practical need. the supreme court found that the military commissions established pursuant to president bush's military order of november 13th, 2001 and failed to meet that test. the military commissions subsequently authorized by congress in the military commissions act of 2006 also clearly failed to meet that test as well because they deviate from court-martial practice by permitting the routine use of coerced testimony, by authorizing reliance on hearsay evidence even try to evidences' reasonably available, and by establishing a presumption that the procedures and presidents applicable entrails by

court-martials will not apply to military commissions. the double failure that i justice crime to establish a system that provides basic guarantees of various identified by our supreme court to has placed a cloud over a military commissions and has led some to conclude that the use of military commissions can never be fair, credible or consistent with our basic principles of justice. while the previous congress effort failed to meet the standards established by the supreme court in the hamdan case, i believe that military commissions can be designed to meet those standards and that if they do they can play a legitimate role in prosecuting violations of the law. president obama has said that he believes this as well. in his may 21st, 2009 speech and to the national archives, the president said it quote, military commissions have a history in the u.s. dating back

to george washington and the revolutionary war, there are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war, they allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence gathering, they allow for the safety and security and participants, and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts. now, instead of using the commissions of the last seven years, now i am continuing the quota president obama -- instead of using the flood conditions of the last seven years might administration is bringing our commissions in line with the rule of law. we will longer permit the use of evidence as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel and inhuman or degrading interrogation methods, lover place the burden to prove that

hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the here's a, and we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel and more protections if they refuse to testify. of these reforms he said among others will make our military commissions a more credible and effective means of a minister and justice and i will work with congress and members of both parties as well as legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these commissions are fair, legitimate and effective. the procedures for military commissions have varied over the years as of the procedures followed in the military justice system to vary. the supreme court noted in the hamdan case that what procedures in governing trials by military commission are typically those governing courts martial, the quote uniformity principle is not an inflexible one. it does not preclude all departures from the procedures dictated for use by court

martial, but in a departure of the supreme court said must be tailored to the resuscitation of it that is the standard that we have tried to apply in adopting the procedure is for military commissions that we have included in the bill that we referred to the full senate. this new language addresses a long series of problems with military commission procedures currently in law. for example, relative to the admissibility of culver's testimony, the provision in our bill will eliminate the double standard in insisting lauck. under which the west statements are admissible if they were obtained prior to december 30, 2005. the relative to the use of hearsay evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate the extra in their language in the existing law which places the burden on detainee's to prove that hearsay evidence introduced against them is not reliable. relative to the issue of access

to classified evidence and exculpatory evidence, the provision in our bill would eliminate the nea procedures and requirements which have hampered the ability of the defense teams to obtain information and have led to so much litigation. we would substitute the more established procedures based on the uniform code of military justice with a modest changes to ensure that the government cannot be required to disclose classified information to unauthorized persons appear in and of great importance to the provision in our bill would reverse the existing production in the military commissions act of 2006 that rules and procedures applicable to trial by court-martial would not apply. our new language says by contrast that quotes, except as otherwise provided the procedures and rules of evidence applicable in trials by general court-martials of the united states shall apply in trials by

military commission and of this chapter. of the exceptions to this rule are as suggested by the supreme court to come a carefully tailored to the unique circumstances of the conduct of military intelligence operations during hostilities. three years ago with the committee considered a similar legislation on military commissions i urged that we apply to test -- first we be able to live with the procedures that reestablished when the tables are turned in our own troops are subject to similar procedures. second, is to the bill consistent with our american system of justice and will it stand up to scrutiny on judicial review? i believe those remain the right questions for us to consider and that the language that we have included in the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010 meets both tests. over the last three years we have seen the the legal adviser

to the convening authority for military commissions forced to step aside after a military judge found that he had compromised his objectivity by aligning himself with the prosecution. we have had prosecutors resign after making allegations of improper command influences and serious deficiencies in the military commission process. had the chief defense counsel raise serious concerns about the adequacy of resources made available to defense and military commission cases, writing that regardless of its other procedures no trail system will be fair and was the serious deficiencies in the current system's approach to defense resources are rectified. so even if we were able to enact what decision that successfully addresses the shortcomings in existing law, we still have a long way to go to restore public confidence in military commissions and the justice that they produce. however, it will not be able to

restore confidence in military commissions at all unless we've first substitute new procedures and language to address the problems of existing statutes. again i want to thank senator mccain, senator gramm and the other members of the committee for all over if they put into this bill and this issue into the senate will be considering the entire bill including these provisions hopefully starting next monday are tuesday. senator mccain. >> of mr. chairman, senator inhofe has asked to make a brief comment. >> of a chorus of. >> i think the ranking member for his courtesy unfortunately i and the ranking member on environment and we have a hearing that is going on the same time so i do have a list of non lawyer questions i will be submitted for the record in with the impact of facing detainees in the u.s. prisons system pretrial and poster child, the security risks of escape, or

these detainees will be tried and would risk, the advantages of using a complex we have all seen down there at the expeditionary legal complex designed for tribunals the other rules of evidence that are between the tribunal and the federal court system, and lastly the discussion has questioned about the advisability of a reading miranda rights to captured terrorists. so i thank you and i will be submitting these and i appreciate the opportunity to make the statement. >> thank you, senator mccain. >> mr. chairman, i want to join you in welcoming their witnesses on both panels, i appreciate your scheduling the hearings and appreciate the expert and vice the inexperienced in this matter is that our witnesses bring to our discussions on military commissions and detainee policy. this committee has led the way dealing with detainee issues in developing legislation on

detainee matters sometimes in cooperation with the white house and sometimes over strong objections. the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010 which is reported out of this committee unanimously on june 25th again takes a leading role by including changes to the military commission act of 2006. i am pleased to have worked with you and senator gramm and others on this legislation and we haven't result of a thorny issues in military commissions and other aspects of a detainee policy present. i believe we have made substantial progress in strengthening the military commissions systems during appellate review provided careful balance between protection of national security and american values and allow the tiles to move toward with greater efficiency toward a just and fair results. first panel is composed of experts and national security

legal matters within the government's including senior officials of the defense apartment, just as different and our uniform judge advocate general. witnesses on our second panel have similar practical man academic experience who are now outside the government. i'm particularly interested in hearing the views of witnesses on both panels on problems that have been encountered implementing the current military commissions system. including this be done bring cases to trial and what should be done to make the system work more smoothly. ways in which two deal with him for an issue of protection of classified information. with the current military commissions system is adequately addressing alleged terrorist acts by al qaeda and its operatives and that occurred before the attacks on september september 11th, 2001, such as the bombing of the uss coal and our east african embassies. whether the rules on use of here say testimony of trowels strike the right balance between the

conditions of an ongoing war whether improvements should be made, with the definition of quote unlawful enemy combatants or quote and privileged belligerent, should be modified. whether changes should be made in the appellate review of military commissions. well are hearing today is focused on military commissions and the town of detainees for violations of the lot at work, there are a number of enormously difficult issues related to detainee policy that we must also come to grips with in a comprehensive fashion. before we can close a detention facility at guantanmo bay, as president obama has pledged to do. mr. chairman, the issues presented by the detainees eds guantanmo bay and overseas in afghanistan are among the most difficult policy decisions this administration faces. at the core to hearing the news from our witnesses and working with you on these matters as the

dod bill moves forward to it toward more consideration in conference from the house of representatives. >> thank you so much, senator mccain. we will now hear from our inside panel and a first the general counsel for the department of defense, jay johnson. >> thank you very much mr. chairman, senator mccain, marissa this committee. you have my prepared statement. i will dispense with the full rating of its back and just make some abbreviated opening comments here. of all the statements be made part of the record in fall. >> i went to think this committee for taking the initiative on a bipartisan basis to seek reform of military commissions. as you know, his speech as the chairman remarked that at the national archives on may 21, president obama called for the reform and military commissions and pledge to work with the congress demanded the military commissions act of 2006 so

speaking of a half of the administration will welcome the opportunity to be here today and to work with you on this important initiative. military commissions can and should contribute to our national security by the coming viable forum for to find those who violate the laws of war. by working to improve its military commissions, to make the process more fair and credible, we enhance our national security by providing the government with effective alternatives for bringing to justice those international terrorists who violate laws of war. those of the remarks i wanted to make initially. an accord to your questions. >> thank you very much. mr. johnson. in next is the assistant attorney general of the national security division at the department of justice, mr. kris at. >> thank you mr. chairman, senator mccain and members of the committee, i come from the justice apartment and this is my wrist appearance before this committee. i thought i might begin to us by

briefly explaining how i think my work relates to that of the committee with respect to military commissions. at the national security division which i lead combines all of doj major national security personnel and functions. and our basic mission is to protect national security consistent with the rule of law and civil liberties and in keeping with that we support all lawful methods for achieving that protection. including but not limited to a prosecution in article three court over for military commissions. in the last administration and as these assembled a team of spears federal prosecutors from across the country to assist the dod i was a military commissions and litigate cases at gitmo. and can assure you that the systems will continue. a man and then let that team for the national security division is not my deputy and a member of

that team has since been recalled to active duty and is now the lead prosecutor at zero and see. as of the president explained when prosecution is feasible and otherwise appropriate we will prosecute terrorists in federal court were in military commissions. in the 1990's i prosecuted a group of islands extremists and the like their modern counterparts they engaged in extensive law fair which made this trial stanching, but the prosecution succeeded not only because we incarcerate dissidents some for a very long time, indeed but also because it has deprived them of any shred of legitimacy the. of military commissions can hope to the same for those who violate the law of war, not only detaining for longer than otherwise would be possible on of the law of war but also brand them as a legitimate war criminals. to do this effectively however,

the commission's themselves must first be reformed and the committee's bill did a tremendous step in that direction. as you know from my written testimony and that of mr. johnson and admiral macdonald in the administration appreciates the bill very much and supports much of it. you have made an incredibly valuable contribution with the bill and so i want to thank you again for inviting me here and i live for to answering your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. kris. admiral macdonald. >> thank you mr. chairman, senator mccain and members of the committee. thank you very much for providing me the opportunity to present my personal views of section 1031 of the national defense authorization act. in 2006 when this committee was working to establish a permanent framework for military commissions to the military commissions act, i have the opportunity to share my views with the senate judiciary committee and house armed services committee. t