until they get everything they want. .. >> this is becoming a very disturbing pattern. a small group, a small

uncompromising group feeling their cause for tens of thousands of innocent people and take them hostage until they get their complete way. these debates should not be determined by which side is willing to take the most casualties. we will not submit to a government by extortion. we must pass a clean extension and do it quickly. to not do so would put the livelihoods of tens of thousands at risk for no purpose. >> senator? if i can direct a question to senator rockefeller, we heard directly from senator reid yesterday "sometimes you have to step back and find out what's best for the country and not be bound by your own personal issues." he said he was willing to accept the house bill.

you blocked it. are you willing to partially shut down the faa? >> i'm not answering that question because you quoted me. there's unanimous consent requests signed back and forth. i said i was willing to eliminate nevada. that's what i was talking about. the majority leader over here, a number of democratic senators, i was willing to give up. that was still not good enough for me. that's what that was about. >> there are no labor issues -- [inaudible] >> you know, johnathan, here's the issue, and i say this respectfully. the way that we have america going today, there is no penalty for outrageous conduct. what they have down is outrageous. and what you have done is do he

said, she said. that's not the way it is. everyone knows as senator rockefeller said, the issue behind it is the labor issue. >> it's part of the issue. >> of course it's part of the short term issue. they said many times, representative and other leaders over there, you understand the only thing we're concerned about central air service, if they were, they would not have held hostage four democrats. the issue is labor issue. the one airline, delta airline. that's what this is about and that what the republicans in the house said. it can't be covered up. if i can defend central air service. central air service is something important for this country. it allows rural america to be in touch with the rest of america, so nice to focus on central air service, but focus on the

outrageousness of what they are doing. what's that you should be doing. >> at the same time, you all talked about how painful this shut down for the faa will be. help the american people understand, it's going to be so painful to shut down the faa, which it is, why not just accept this agenda? >> live to fight another day in september? what other hostages is it then? next, it's something else. they refuse to go to conference unless there's a prearrangement and they issued legally, it's in confines of the law. we're not willing to do that. that's what this is all about. the sooner you folks focus on it, the better off you are and the american people are. this issue has nothing to do with central air services, but everything to do with the labor dispute between airlines and the american worker. >> so this is your line in the

sand? you're -- no more, you're saying? >> we -- >> [inaudible] >> that's why we reach out. that's why we are telling speaker boehner, stop this foolishness. we will not be held hostage like we were with the debt ceiling crisis on this issue. look, we understand. we've been around a few times, and we had long conversations yesterday, but we always wound up at the same spot. they are going to give us something else come september, and september they've already eliminated loss of the central air service which is important, but they will have other hostages then. >> [inaudible] >> obviously. >> there's a certain naivety with your question. they are not talking about, you know, resolving faa in a few weeks. this is not really what they're about. now, 20 times we had clean -- one time of the 20, that was an

issue attached to it that both sides agreed to. that's why the story here today is the fact that our leader is reaches out to boehner to say, you know, if we want to resolve the particular issue, whatever it might be, let's talk about it, but not have one side say take it or leave it or people are going to be out of work, and the essence of your question doesn't understand that. that's the key. i've been here a long time. you've been here a long time. pretty long time for a young guy, and the fact is you got to dig a little bit behind the surface here of what this is really about, and, again, i would reiterate whatever the issue is, this is about government by one side making their demands, and our leader is saying, okay, let's sit down and negotiate something on whatever the set of issues might be. >> [inaudible] >> yeah. >> and these folks are calling for it.

>> i'd like to say something here to johnathan. it's not a central air service or even a labor issue. it's the issue of hostage taking. it is as if someone put a gun to your head and said give me your money. you leave out the context there's a gun to your head. that is not fair, and that is not right, and yet -- harry is right -- we keep getting that situation. well, the issue that we are here today about is you cannot run government because the other side, our side can do it too. we can each say we will hurt innocent people to get our complete way instead of sitting down and negotiating as the founding fathers intended to government to be. for the media to say that, oh, we're ignoring the gun held to your head. give into them and let the thing go. it's not fair and not right and not even-handed.

>> we would have had our temporary extension; right? >> no. >> you objected yesterday, everybody -- >> they octobered to the clean ex-- octobered to the clean extension. >> let me say something. i do not understand why your anger and angst is not directed at one individual, mr. macah, who says he's doing this to save america's taxpayers' money. he already cost american taxpayers more than the entire eas will cost for an entire year. why? because he has taken us hostage. they are absolutely right. why are you not angry? why is the american public not properly directing their anger at somebody who wants to save

$210 million and cost over a billion dollars -- just over a month of this kind of hostage taking. again, the house of representatives has a bill. jerry introduced it. they can pass it within the hour and put 75,000 people back to work. why won't they do it? because we won't do what they tell us to do. we cannot run america or a democracy that way. that's the issue. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you. >> senator rockefeller? >> i'm going to continue. [laughter] johnathan, can we have order in the house? no, of course i care, but the fight is, and they said publicly they did it for this reason,

they picked up chairman of the senate finance committee and the leader of the senate, and took away things that were necessary for them, but they are taking away in our bill and their bill is the fastest growing airport in the most prosperous part of the state. of course i care about that, but that isn't the point. i mean, the point is that isn't their point because john -- micah has said time and time again publicly we tried that to try to force them to deal with the bill. if i can be critical for a moment, we have all been tremendously caught up in the debt ceiling crisis. the faa and the tens of thousands of parts which make up the faa is extremely complicated. we have been negotiating. we've gone from 210 points of

disagreement in staff negotiations down to 12, all which can be subtle, but it has nothing to do with morgantown. actually, we have a better central air service that costs less money and applies a better way of doing it, but it isn't about central air service because if i agreed to that, then they would say, okay, well, we got that one, and then they'd come back and refuse an extension until you have the national mediation point. you have to understand, johnathan, that speaker boehner sent a direct message to me that he would only consider discussing or doing the cleaning bill -- a clean extension -- if i would agree previous to the institution on these --

discussion on certifications and judicial review which is all about nmb. what i'm saying gently, kindly, and lovingly to you, this is a very complicated issue with huge cascading issues. it is complex. there is history to what i'm saying, and there's clarity in what i'm trying to say. it's so easy to do it. it's so easy to do it. the question is, why won't they? >> senator, almost four years since democrats controlled about the house and the senate, and there was no permanent reauthorization -- [inaudible] >> yeah, i mean, what do you want me to say in we didn't do it. no, we didn't. >> why not. >> do you think it was because we didn't care? i don't know why we didn't do it, but we didn't do it. we are dealing now with the present, and we have gone from 210 issues of con sense town --

contention down to -- thanks to others and staff work, down to only 12 issues. twelve issues mean the huge federal aviation system can work if we resolve them. there's little things like lithium batteries. do a hallmark on lithium batteries if you're going to ask these questions. it's very complicated, but it can easily be done. clean bill of extension, then we both sit down. >> okay. >> boehner conversation, did that take place yesterday, and did he -- >> three or four days ago. >> three or four days ago. and he -- >> not directly -- >> between your aids or whatever. he indicated he would accept a clean extension if the senate agrees to their nmb language or a deal on nmb?

>> i don't know how to phrase it. he said you'd have to have -- our position on desertification, certification, a complex issue itself, and judicial review -- >> uh-huh -- >> and is that terribly important? no, not to the average person out there, but in terms of getting this bill solved, it is important. that's the point i make. we are not talking about fluff here or posture. we are talking about the most basic way that you do government. you -- as history has shown us, a clean bill of extension, willing to sit down and negotiate the issues. they have not appointed -- i have appointed mine 100 days ago. >> but they want -- >> we'll get you details after. thanks, everyone. >> the house talked on the issue and getting up and running would be a game point -- >> what we're trying to do is what they said they're trying to

do which is to ratchet up pressure. you know, the airlines were all silent, the american businesses, the chamber of commerce, all silent, the big ata, the big things that represents all the major airlines. they sent a letter saying, oh, yes, we'd like a clean bill of extension about two or three days ago, but did they work it? no. phone calls? no. any pressure? no. that why i think wall hear from the white house today. >> three weeks, six weeks whatever, pass this, and then -- >> no, i want to work out the problem. the lithium bat ray is -- battery is a very important factor. >> okay. >> the things holding hostage on issues i'm confused because some of those same senators you're referencing, their airports were also removed from the senate bill. >> that was simply as was said

12 times publicly and to me personally, that was a leveraging technique to get you to talk about the national mediation which is in conscious i'll talk about it, but can't do anything about it because it has nothing to do with the faa bill. >> okay, thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we're leaving this briefing at -- actually, we are leaving the regular tv gallery now to transition to the white house briefing. ray lahood focusing on the controversy with the faa. >> believing in the words they are saying about jobs creating jobs, putting people back to work -- step your vacation, come back to washington, pass a clean bill. people get this because it's hurting their friends and

neighbors. that -- to me, people understand this. they really do, and it's easily fixable. it's been fixed 20 times. it's easily fixable. >> the president gave a lot of grounds in these debt talks backing off major major players. do you think democrats should give up on rural airport subsidies? >> i think congress should pass a clean bill. >> i'll take issue with the premise in a minute. [laughter] >> yes, sir? >> i mean, with how republicans have been from your perspective, unwilling to compromise, why not give the president the authority to move funds around on your own? they say -- does that make sense and so forth if >> all of my efforts are to persuade congress to pass a clean bill, and to keep the morale at the faa

high. when i went to florida, i met with unemployed workers. these people are hurting. they really are. they can't apply for unemployment yet, and they are without paychecks. they don't know if they can make their next payments. their kids in about 30 days are starting school. there's costs incurred by people with their children starting school. this is -- this is why people shake their heads when they think about congress. >> if congress is willing to lead as they did, doesn't that speak more than their words in sense of that they're not willing to compromise, whichever side is right or wrong? >> well, there is a way for congress to pass a bill today. >> [inaudible] >> i know they did. that's why i'm here. i'm calling them back. come back to washington. leave your vacations. [laughter] just for a couple hours. come back, congress.

help your friends and neighbors get back do work. yes, ma'am? >> if your message here is that whatever action is necessary should be taken to bring those people back, and if congress -- if congress is not going to do this, then would you accept the authority or did you accept an order by the president, the presidential authority to say this action, executive action? >> i'm thinking 24/7 of how to get the people back to work,24/7 how to get congress back here and the people who are without paychecks for two weeks. that's where my time and energy is. sam? >> you urgedded the senate to pass the house. is that still your position? >> my position today is since both houses are in pro forma session is congress come back, and in pro forma, they could

pass a clean bill. that's the message today. yesterday it was different, sam, because the senate was still in, and i was trying to persuade them to do something different. today, both houses are in pro forma. come back, pass a clean bill. bill? >> have you talked to the leaders and asked them to come back? >> absolutely, bill. i talked to senator reid at probably half a dozen times yesterday. now, i talked to barry jackson, the speakers' chief of staff more than half dozen times. >> what is their response? >> call their offices and ask them about that. yes? >> calling on the safety question saying safety won't be compromised. can you continue to guarantee that? >> i guarantee safety will never be compromised. we have the safest aviation system in the world. we would never compromise

safety. the people that are involved in safety inspections at airports that work for the faa, many of them are using some of their own money to do their job, to pay their expenses. you know why? because they are dedicated, federal employees who believe in their mission of safety. i can say without equivocation safety will never be compromised, flying is safe, and passenger schedules should not be compromised by this issue. let's see, mike -- yes, sir, we'll get the end of your question. [laughter] >> many of the -- there's many congressmen who are back in their districts. you said you cannot compromise safety and such. are you hearing anything from

around the globe of what drama, the feeling of what's going on in washington? >> primarily we're hearing from our employees, and -- but i have not had any calls from any other transportation ministers around the country. let me take the second one here, and then you, mike. >> okay. >> on the question of compromise we saw during the date there's quite tremendous -- [inaudible] republicans not willing to compromise. what makes you think they would be willing to compromise over this? >> well, hopefully the cloud of debt and deficit has been lifted. hopefully, they are hearing from their constituents with construction workers. many of these members of congress have these projects going on in their states, and

we're going to keep up our drum beat and hopefully constituents keep up their drum beat, and hopefully constituents hold people's feet to the fire that love to give great speeches bout creating jobs, and then send people home off the job sites. mike? >> you can realistically ask to take the inspectors to work through labor day without pay? >> well, we have a core of dedicateed people. i'm proud of them. they do their jobs making sure airports are safe, making sure the safety inspections they do are done by the book, and i hope the american people are proud of these people. >> payroll? >> yes, sir. look, they are doing this, spending their own money to

travel to airports and do their safety inspections out of their own pockets. >> wait i minute, i don't understand, mr. secretary. they are on payroll, central employees like the traffic controllers? >> it's essential? >> yeah. >> why wouldn't they be reimbursed by the federal government for their travel? >> they will be, but they are not right now. what they are doing is taking their credit card, taking a flight somewhere, inspecting an airport with the hope they will get reimbursed. we're going to reimburse them. ordinarily they'd use a government credit card to do these things. they use their personal credit cards. how many of us could do that for long? these are dedicated federal employees. >> thank you. >> could i ask if you see the difficulty mainly on the house side or the senate side? are you focusing -- >> the drifty is with -- difficulty is with congress. >> are you focusing -- >> congress. >> but are you --

>> focusing like a laser beam on congress. we need both houses. end your vacation, off the beach, out of your mobile homes, whatever you travel in, come back to washington, pass a bill -- [laughter] maybe i should have said rv. [laughter] come back, pass a bill. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> is that it? appreciate it. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> before i take additional questions, i have a readout of the president's call with the president of russia. called to wish him a happy birthday and discuss russia's wto succession. they noted the progress made since they spoke a few weeks ago.

president obama stressed the need for russia to work with other wto members to close out the remaining issues and bring it to a conclusion by the end of this year. with that, i'll take your questions. ben? >> what do you think about employing secretary lahood in the negotiations? [laughter] >> he does have a full-time job. he feels passionately about the issue and i think going to the questions about other issues the president may or not be able to take, and i trust your reporter is highly qualified and knowledgeable, i'll leave it to the experts to decide what other actions could be taken. all this could be necessary if not for a political dispute that's been inserted into this process that has normally gone off without a hitch 20 times since 2005 i believe, and it has created this stalemate which is the result of which over an ideological political dispute

that 74,000 americans are out of work, and at a time when we need every possible person who could be working to be working. it's really inexcuse l. as the secretary made clear, if you want to fight about union measures and have that kind of fight later, that would be fine, but it is wholly within and was wholly within the capacity of congress to pass a clean measure as it's done many times in the past and allow these people to continue working. you don't get august back in the construction season. you never get the paychecks back or the month back in the construction season. it's very important that congress take action and do what it has done in the past and what americans expect them to do which is, my goodness, they want washington to be figuring out ways to help the economy create jobs, not figuring out ways to fire people or lay them off which is what they've done in this case. >> understanding clearly you think it's congress' job that

the house and senate do stay away from office right now, is there anything the president can do? >> well, we'll address that. they've decided to do these pro forma recesses that allow them to come back on a moment's notice and the mechanics of this -- i was -- i'm not all that familiar with it, but it is quite easy for members to come back, vote on this, and leave again, so we would anticipate if they did have interest in ensuring that the 74,000 americans had work, they would come back and do it. >> what about the funds, you could do it today. >> we can talk about that issue or you can talk about it with secretary of transportation further, but i don't know about that. it was not acceptable for congress to say it's not my business to take care of my business. you know, this is a process that congress has done in the past, should do, and because of the

decisions they made, there's 74,000 people out of work. yeah? >> anything you can tell us about -- [inaudible] the president, where he's going and why? >> august 15-17th is through the midwest. further details are forthcoming later. that's all i have for you now. >> in terms of the house -- >> he'll be out, you know, very happily getting out in the country again after a sustained period here in washington, and looks forward to talking to folks about growing the economy, creating jobs, and we'll have more details about the specifics of the trip later on. >> out in the country? >> the midwest. yeah? >> [inaudible] >> negative. >> taxpayers and -- >> the president of the united states, yes. >> the bus tour is certainly a

visual, but what are the tangibles? >> we'll have more specifics about this trip itself. the air of cynicism is quite thick. the idea that the president of the united states should not venture forth into the country is ridiculous. >> [inaudible] >> no, but you implyied it in your question. it's absolutely important for the president, whoever that person is in the past and future, to get out and hear from people and different communities, and this is a trip we've had in our books for a long time, and he looks forward to taking it. >> is it more of a listening tour? >> i know people want specifics about what he may be announcing or proposals he might have, it will be very focused on the economy and jobs. beyond that, you know, you'll

have to wait until we're ready to provide more specifics. he'll be listening and addressing these very important issues. >> you've spoken to this a little bit, but there's some people who just wonder what kind of options he has, really what kind of realist options. some of the things he laid out is foregone conclusions. >> if anything is a foregone conclusion today in washington, for example this would be extended and 74,000 people would maintain their jobs. you are right to assume most things are now difficult. it is obviously collectively congress and the president that can take different actions to enhance growth and create jobs, and the president has already identified a number of things that have bipartisan support that are already in congress' lap that congress can act on quite quickly, and there are other measures that he's

identified he feels strongly about that we should support like extension of the payroll tax credit, a tax cut rather, a tax cut for everyone who works pay the payroll tax, and this is a substantial amount of money in the pocket of every american family that helped him this year and needs to be extended to have that help next year. that money is important because unlike a lot of things you can do, this is money that will likely be spent, and therefore, help the families spending it, and then have add-on positive effects on the economy because that money has been introduced into the economy. it helps create and sustain jobs. it helps businesses, so this is a very important measure that he supports. yes? sorry, i get confused, yes? >> i want to ask about the large series of cyberattacks uncovered by the security companies. governments around the world, including the united states, can you tell us which u.s. agencies were affected and how seriously

the white house sees this? >> well, let me start at the top. the -- we are aware of this report, and its contents while we do not comment on outside reports detecting and blocking cyberintrusion is a key goal for this administration working across governments and with the private sector. private threats to information and communications infrastructure pose an economic and national security challenge for the united states and our partners which is why the president has made cybersecurity one of his top priorities. with all intrusions we employ "an all-government approach" and we refer now to fdi for more information. with respect to agencies affected, we are working with all departments and agencies to deploy defensive tools like the einstein intrusion and protection systems. i refer you to others for more specifics. >> can you say when you became

aware? >> i can only tell you that we are aware of it. i don't have a date for you. yes? >> the president has repeatedly pivoted back to jobs and again yesterday. why is this time different? why should americans have any confidence? >> let's be clear -- the president has been focusing on jobs in the economy since the day he was sworn into office during the month where there was the loss of nearly 800,000 jobs in one month. that was the situation that he encountered when he took the oath, and that has been his focus since he became president. there is no question that as president, you have to deal with other problems, and in this case, the debt ceiling crisis, if you will -- with the manufacturing crisis, it was a

self-inflicting wound, the linkage of something united states congress has to do to specific legislation that one-half of one body of congressmented passed -- congress wanted passed. we avoided catastrophe, and that was a good thing. it was not a crisis that needed ever to present itself, but we did, through compromise, achieve important things for the economy, for jobs which is a package that lists the cloud of uncertainty whether we will extend borrowing authority for a significant period of time and significantly has significant initial deficit reduction attached to it creating a process for more significant deficit reduction. deficit reduction is an element of an economic strategy we think is broadly agreed upon by democrats and republicans. there are other things that we need to do, and i just addressed this earlier in the answer to

rianna's question. there are issues right away whether congress is interested in growing the economy and gaining jobs, there's things to do right away in addition to employing the 74,000 people out of work, they can move quickly to pass free trade agreements, the three up there that creates or supports 70,000 additional jobs. they can get patent reform done and move forward on other issues. the president will put forward ideas for things we can do to create and grow the economy, but there are certainly a number of things we can do working together already. yes? >> at the risk of appearing cynical -- >> bill, that's not you, surely not after all these years. >> if the president is moving so interested in getting those 74,000 people back to work, stop bashing congress and help them get back to work. >> bill, this is a fascinating

process where the party with the responsibility, the party that created this problem is out of town and the reporters here are blaming the party that wants the problem fixed. the fact of the matter is -- >> [inaudible] >> look, we are obviously looking at the different options that we have, that the president has. the simple reality is that because of a political dispute -- this is exactly what americans loathe about the process here justifiably and understandably because of an ideological driven decision made, there is a stalemate over a measure that has never been a problem in the past. they can resolve -- we need to and we can have fights over these issues that divide us, but we should not have these fights in a way that throw 74,000 people -- in ways that throw

74,000 people out of work who innocently -- this is not their fight, and so as secretary lahood made clear, it is wholly inappropriate for members of congress to go on recess, go on vacation and leave this issue hanging and take away from these horde working -- hard working americans, their paychecks for at least at five or six weeks when they can resolve the issue right away. >> sure, but the issue is getting back to work, get them back to work. >> i think i've answered -- >> with the president's power apparently. >> apparently, based on your hearing from some reporter who heard from another, some reporting on other's parts is efficacious, and we are looking at things that the president may be able to do. this is a matter that congress created unnecessarily that cob resolved instantly by congress. yes, mr. henry, are you going to

ask this question again? because i think i answered it. >> i wanted to ask you why the president can't call harry reid who he gets along with well and democrats yesterday i'm told blocked the unanimous concept agreement in the senate to push the bill forward. >> i know that's been said. here's the thing. the house has a provision that is politically motivated, and we can have that fight. what the -- the way to not -- in the name of achieving that, you know, getting that scout, we are preventing the -- these 74,000 americans from working. >> [inaudible] >> the way to do it is -- right -- >> [inaudible] >> the house refused to pay the bill which the senate would pass. no, no, no, that is the issue, ed. >> you want to put the people back to work. come back in a month -- >> oh, that's how it works?

>> no, you said the top priority -- >> we get what we want and then we come back and fight. that's not how it works. if there's a dispute creating a log jam not allowing this extension to pass because of dispute and preventing 74,000 people from working, you remove the problem, take the splinter out, and you pass the clean bill and have the fight if you want the fight on the other issue. that's what we believe. >> following on jobs issue. if the president, you know, saying yesterday focusing on jobs, he has said that over and over again. you know, number of quotes in january of 2010, jobs are the focus for the year 2010. a year later, unemployment is over 9%. why should the american people have confidence this pivot creates jobs? >> look, i believe i just answered this question, but the -- >> talk about patent reform and the trade deals that have been

sitting there for a couple years, and nobody thinks the trade deals -- >> good point. they have before congress. i never suggested that. i said 74,000 jobs would be created or supported. there is no magic bullet that lowers the unemployment rate to where it would be ideally, and it's certainly not, you know, dismantling medicare. is that going to put people back to work? is, you know, slashing clean energy investments put people back to work? i don't hear a lot of jobs plans coming from other quarters. what i do know this president from the day he was sworn into office has focused aggressively on the need to first prevent a great depression, the second in our history. second, stabilize our economy, begin to see it grow again as it has been, begin to see it create private sector jobs again as it has been, 2.1 million jobs, more private sector jobs created in that period than were creteed in

the net, the eight years of the previous presidency, and then keep pressing forward to do that. everything we do related to the economy is related to economic growth and job creation. what the president is saying now and what he will be saying is that you, the american citizen, have heard a lot of talk in washington about debt ceilings and deficits, and while those are important issues, very important, and they have -- they are important in relation to our economy and are important in our relation to jobs if addressed appropriately, there are other things we can do directly that affect jobs and economic growth. that's what he is saying. pivot is not an appropriate word. it's refocusing, it's continuing to focus on what we have and not allowing to focus more intently now that we reached the compromise that was reached with congress a couple days ago.

>> announced giving the united states a negative outlook. what's the white house's reaction to that? >> again, we focus on the things we are control which is why we work so hard with congress to reach this compromise to avert a crisis that would have unquestionably resulted in bad news from the ratings agencies, so we believe that the measures we have taken to lift that cloud, to avert that crisis, to ensure that we have borrowing authority through 2012 should send a reassuring message around the world, and we believe deficit reduction that is embedded up front within the compromise reach of congress should send a positive message that washington is beginning to get serious about this issue, and the way that we approach further deficit reduction should do the same as well. we have to focus on the things

we can control and assume if we do our work and we do it well, that the rest, if you will, will take care of itself. >> and yet, wall street is not reassured because stocks dipped this week. what's the level of concern that maybe this compromise bill didn't go far enough or isn't having the impact that you want it to have? >> well, we certainly believe that we could have done more, and the president worked very hard to dry to get a grand bargain, a significant $3-$4 trillion pack camming over 10 -- package over ten years dealing with things that drive our debt dealing with entitlements and revenues. he will continue to work for a balanced package that raises that number higher, at least the additional $1.5 trillion, a target for the committee, the special committee when it's set up, and then beyond that.

again, we focus on the things we can control. we believe that if we make the right decisions about dealing with our debt, dealing with our deficits, taking measures that are responsible and effective to help create jobs and grow the economy that other nings like markets -- other things like markets will take care of themselves. >> there's been a lot of discussion that indicates there's signing of the economy that is starting to stagnate and dipping back into a recession. do you see it that way? >> we do not believe there's a threat of a double-dip recession. we believe that the economy will continue to grow. the -- there's no question that growth has slowed over the past two quarters. there's no question that job creation has slowed, but there are reasons for thatment again, some of them beyond our control, but things are beginning to --

the head winds created by then like the earthquake in japan have subsided with. there are other issues to contend with like high energy prices and europe. we have to ensure our economy is strong, continues to grow and create jobs, and i, you know, we don't have any prosections to make -- projections to make from here, but i note the outside consensus among forecasters is that the u.s. economy will continue to grow in the third and fourth quarters yes? >> larry summers said there was a one in three chance that the u.s. dips back into a recession if some things are not swiftly done. >> is that a question? >> what is your response? do you agree? >> same response as the previous. >> he also talked about in terms the super committee is going to use as a baseline. i know the white house made

clear the committee has the flexibility to change the baseline, but does the white house have a preference on which baseline the committee should use? >> i don't know the answer to that question. i think that what's important is that that committee address seriously the need to achieve further significant deficit reduction in a balanced way, and that's the only -- i mean, because this will be an important and clarifying process because to achieve -- we have now, if you will, identified and removed from the table the roughly $1 trillion in discretionary cuts that we agree on, and to get bigger, we now have to deal with these difficult issues, entitlements for example and tax reform because otherwise to get bigger, you have to make very specific choices about on whose backs these issues will be resolved. will it be only the middle class

and seniors that have to ensure our deficits and debts come down? that's the choice you have to make if you say no to revenues, and you say no to cuts in our pentagon spending. you really have to focus -- this will be a very clarifying process because in some ways that led up to the compromise, there was some understandable confusion about what deficit reduction could be achieved and where there was agreement and disagreement and the fact that this president wanted to reduce deficits to cut spending, identified through his negotiations with the speaker of the house, vice president of the group, led with house majority leader, roughly that trillion dollars in the agreement are representing cuts that we all agree on. beyond that, you have to make some really hard choices, and this will be a clarifying and we think edifying debate in the

fall. yes? >> jay, i just want to make sure i understand you on the faa thing. did you mean to leave the impression that the president is not considering taking any action? >> no, in fact, i think i said three or four or five times we'll look at the issues the president may be able to take. i'm simply not saying one way or the other whether i agree with, you know, the colleague in terms of what actions may be available to him. we are intently interested on ensuring these 74,000 americans who had jobs get them back, and that the simplest path to that since they were thrown out of work by failure of congress to act is to bring congress back, pass a clean extension which they have done 20 times in the recent past, and put them back to work and then have the political fight later, not at the expense of 74,000

americans. >> you look at the issues -- >> correct. >> you want congress to take care of it. >> we are looking at the measures and congress has within its capacity to fix the problem is created. harry, you have a lot? >> not on the faa. >> all right. >> sort of related to kristin's question. the -- >> since you're a business reporter, where was it when he took office? march of 2009 in >> last time i wrote about it, it was a lot more than 50%. >> okay. close to 100%, just saying. >> major bloomberg too, but it's been down for eight days now. what message does the administration take? a lot of the market come men at a timers take it to be there's

less optimism about economic growth and debate whether we'll go into a double-dip recession. you don't see that, but what method do you take from eight days going down in the stock market? >> we don't spend a lot of time focusing on things we can't control, but focus on things we can do to have a positive effect on people's lives and specifically on their economic lives so, you know, markets go up, markets go down, it's not for me to judge why. the fact broadly speaking is that there are have been a number of head winds this year that have been affected, and economists believe affected growth and job creation in america. they include the arab spring in that parts of the world and the earthquake and tsunami and the global supply chains, and other

issues including the situation in europe, so we are taking -- and then, obviously, most recently, the uncertainty of the debate in washington whether the united states would for the first time in history default on its obligations. having resolved that fortunately, we move on to other issues and deal with what we think we can deal with, and if we get our part of it right, working with congress, the economy will grow, and we will create jobs and the markets will appreciate it. yes? >> the president decided against public signing until yesterday in >> you know, i think he came out, he wanted to speak immediately after the passage. that was the moment, if you will. there was no reason except it's a matter of signing a piece of paper, and it needed to be signed quickly to be sure we didn't inadd inadvertently

fault. he took of that right away. >> who gets the pen? >> i think there's a number of people including the leaders of both houses who will get pens. >> [inaudible] ultimately passed -- >> the president believes that this was an important compromise, but make no mistake, the bigness of it in terms of the attention that was paid to it was because of a crisis that was wholly manufactured so, you know, he does not believe we should be popping, you know, champaigne bottles or celebrating the fact we averted a crisis that was never necessary in the first place. he does think it's important that congress came together and compromised to avert the crisis and achieve some measure of deficit reduction, but he does not believe it's enough. he does not, to say the least is impressed with the process, just

like every american who watched it who was appalled by the three-ring circus created down here that caused some of the uncertainty out there and the doubt about whether or not the greatest nation in the world could get it back together, but he believed it was significant, and that we have a lot more work to do. sam? >> obviously, well, not obviously, but i guess the white house is not making recommendation z about the lawmakers who serve on this committee of 12, but what would the president like to see in terms of those selections? commissioner mcconnell is not employing anyone who wants tax cuts and talked about something similar. what was the president's guidance to the people who are chosen to be? >> that they take it seriously and that they understand serious choices have to be made as we figure out ways to accomplish further deficit reduction. i would note in terms of the

comments he said, attributed to the senate minority leader, that contributes troubles since a significant number supported the ideas behind the gang of six proposal which takes a very balanced approach to deficit reduction that could ins $2 trillion in revenues, so it is simply -- as we saw after the passage of the house republican budget, you know, there is explaning that has to be done by the leaders in washington if they want those members who believe we should achieve deficit reduction on the on the backs of seenon citizens, vulnerable americans and they will be stark if they believe that's the right approach as the supercommittee gets started because as i said earlier the

initial discretion nail -- discretionary cuts are off the table. it's a choice they're going to make, dramatic cuts, further cuts in the budget? is it going to be ending medicare as we know it? will it be a balanced approach that includes modest reforms to strengthen entitlement programs, changes in the tax code, tax reform that simplifies it, and ends preferences for the oil and gas industries for example or corporate jet makers or hedge fund managers who -- billionaires who pay lower rate of taxes than their secretaries. i think that is the debate we look forward to having. we believe the per pond rains of the americans support us in that and to accomplish something there needs to be membership that realizes the appreciation of that. >> what's involve in the

legislative process? >> we obviously -- none of us here starting with the president is an elected member of congress and therefore will not be on the committee. we are not shy about making our opinion known about the kind of seriousness that we think the members of this committee should approach the task, and i'm sure we'll continue to express that opinion. steve? it's been a long time. >> yeah. >> i was waiting on the debt deficit thing. >> god bless. >> [inaudible] >> i believe they discussed the wto process. not that i'm aware of. >> the administration's had increasing pressure on the hill and from the distance to do more to punish syria related to escalation of the crack down. is the white house considering further sanctions, perhaps measures to punish bond firms in syria and that kind of thing? >> i can tell you we are looking at ways to increase the

pressure. the images coming out of syria, of the government's brutality against its own people are appalling and demonstrates the true character of the regime. president hasad showed he's uncapable of caring of the grievances of the people. it puts him on the wrong side of his people. he is not indispensable, and the u.s. has nothing up vested in hasad remaining in power. we do not want him in syria for stable's sake and view him as the cause of instability in syria. he is assuring he and his regime will be left in the past and the coray gas people demonstrating in the street will have a serious future. we want to see their desire for democratic transformation carried out and will call on the

campaign to halt violence, arrests, and release detainees and respect and act on the demands of the people for a peaceful transition to democracy. yes? >> why hasn't the president delivered his message like he did with mubarak before? >> all i can say is we take this matter very seriously. you heard what i said about our attitude towards what's happening in syria and the regime's actions. we will certainly continue to look at ways to take further steps to put pressure on the regime to end its violence, and we think frankly it's safe to say syria would be a better place without president hasad. >> pictures -- >> not that i'm aware of. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> a senate banking subcommittee looks at the overall soundness of the american financial industry this afternoon.

>> throughout america, there is not a name that stirs more love, more admiration, more respect, more wishing for our daughters to be like here than the name of congresswoman gabby giffords. thank you, gabby. >> watch her return to the house online at the c-span video library. it's washington your way. >> a national oceanianic and atmosphere administration official says the oil pollution act needs to be changed after the gulf oil spill. a senate commerce subcommittee looked into lessons learned from the deepwater horizon disaster. the oil pollution agent of 1990 governs the federal's response to oil spills. in this portion of the hearing, the subcommittee hears from government agency officials. the hearing is about two hours.

>> just reviewing my family's in alaska right now fishing, and my brother-in-law just caught a 40-pound king salmon. he said sorry you're in washington. [laughter] oh, by the way, look at this king salmon i just caught. thank you, all, very much. give me one second here. >> good afternoon, i want to welcome the witnesses and for taking the time to testify before the committee today. on july 15th, 2010, just over a year ago, bp finally succeeded in stemming the never-ending

flow of oil of the deepwater horizon spill. when the well was plugged, the people of the gulf coast and people across the country were amazed by the video of the gusher and were able to breathe a collective sigh of relief, yet the macondo well was not the end of the tragedy. we are still accounting the costs, the cost to the environment, the cost to the people in the gulf communities, and the costs to their economies. over 2 # 00 million -- 200 million gallons of oil spewed into the gulf for three months becoming the largest accidental marine oil spill in history. the long term impacts to the wildlife and ecosystems of the gulf are sure to be long lasting. 11 men lost their lives in the explosion. many lives and livelihoods where they were and continue to be

offended by the spill. alaskans sympathize with the gulf coast and its plight. we lived through this before. in 1989, alaska sufficiented the exxon-valdez spill. more than 20 years later, alaskans are still dealing with the gaff math and impacts are still monitored, assessed in the waters of the prions william sound. -- prince william sound. many who who waited kids before seeing justice in the courts still feel impacts that the spill caused in their communities. while the effects are tragic, these could and should have been avoided. the parties cut corners taking unnecessary risks for the promise of greater profits. while the mistakes made leading up to the deadly deepwater

horizon disaster, the responses must be measuredded. the united states needs to be put firmly on the path to energy security and cannot do that without increasing our domestic supply of oil. it must be a part of any plan whether the ocs or the arctic waters of my state. we need to rededicate ourselves to take the steps are taken. we need to better implement better standards and practices and regulators must keep them accountable while they may trust, they must also verify. in event of a future spill industry we need the capabilities to act swiftly and decisively and have front line responders like the coast guard and noaa have the expertise needed to mitt kate impacts and get the job done.

we need a strong voice in the process. it's their way of life and prosperity on the line, and we must make sure we have the best scientists available to guide the response efforts to understand the impacts and restore the damage that was brought by the spill. these are the reasons we're here today. i look forward from hearing from our witnesses who come from varied perspectives and i hope their insights put us on the path of improved spill and restoration. before i introduce the first panel, i'll ask senator wicker here to make his opening. >> thank you, chairman begich. i'm standing in for ranking member snowe. she will possibly join us for a few moments, but will not be able to be here for the entirety of the hearing because of scheduling conflicts. i appreciate you holding this

hearing to investigate lessons learned from the gulf oil spill, the tragic explosion claimed the lives of four mississippians and seven others, took 77 days to contain the spill and longer to seal the well permanently. this caused extensive damage to the gulf ecosystem and significant harm to the gulf coast economy still not fully recovered. i hope to hear from the witnesses on both panels today how we can prevent spills of this magnitude in the future in a responsible and sensible manner. just as importantly, i want to hear how to mitigate damages that resulted from the deepwater horizon spill. the administration's moratorium on offshore drilling added significantly to the well's negative economic effects. three rigs forced it suspend operation the in the gulf affecting thousands of american jobs. at least eight rigs have left or

plan to leave the gulf in order to pursue operations elsewhere. it is highly unlikely they will ever return. at a time of record unemployment and soaring debt, we should be implementing policies that increase american jobs and income instead of ones that restrict them. it was clear at the on set that the administration and bp were not prepared to handle a spill of this magnitude. although i praise the efforts of the coast guard and noaa, the initial shortcomings and coordination was disheartening. bp lacked the proper planning and response capabilities for such an event. i'm pleased the oil and gas industry has sense responded by establishing the marine well containment company, a non-for-profit organization to provide containment response should another significant blowout occur in the gulf. as the coast continues to recover, it is my hope that responsible parties who work

with state and federal officials to restore the ecosystem and economy. for mississippi, the long term environmental impacts are not yet fully known, but it is clear the immediate economic damages have been significant. many regular visitors to our beaches and coastal towns have stopped coming, and our fishing industry steeped in tradition and a way of life on the coast has not recovered from the misperception that gulf seafood is tainted with oil. the truth is gulf seafood is safe to eat, and it continues to be tested for oil and other toxins more than any other seafood in the world. a significant piece of the recovery will be directing fines directed under the clean water act directly to impacted states. i supported this effort from the on set, and i want to thank my colleagues for their hard work. i'm confident we will soon have a proposal supported by every

gulf delegation to delegate clean water act finds to the environmental and economic recovery of the gulf coast. thank you again, mr. chairman, and i look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses. >> thank you, senator wicker. senator nelson? >> mr. chairman, when you see oil floating on the surface and you see it approaching a pass like pensacola pass, and then because the on rushing tide, you see that oil come on in to pensacola bay or whatever bay, pedido bay, some of it we wanted to chalk it out to another bay, i can't tell you what an awful sight it is, like some of the sights that you don't like to

look at, that's what it looks like, and then once it reaches a destination either on the ocean floor or on the beach or all gathered up around the marsh grasses, then is just makes it even look all the worse, and it wrecks havoc. it wrecks havoc on the environment and on the economy. i'll never forget with all the problems we've had in the gulf claims facility of getting them to try to help out people, what about the little lady that had the advertising business in destin? now, her business was a little advertisement, single owner, small business, but she was

advertising to go to this restaurant, that restaurant, this tourist destination. well, when the tourists stopped coming, she didn't have any business, and so she had no income, and so she couldn't pay her mortgage, and it went on and on and on, and sometimes the banks cooperated and sometimes the banks didn't cooperate. i looked at local government, and they are doing everything they can. it's like being the little boy sticking his fininger in the dike -- finger in the dike and the water breaks out over here and they stick their finger there and so it happens over and over. now, i don't want this to happen again, and there are a lot of lessons learned that we learned from your state that we didn't pay any attention, and it

happened again, and if we don't pay attention to the lessoned learn from the gulf oil spill, it's going to happen again, and when it does, let me just give you a little preview. ..

>> and then the gulf stream comes to within one mile of the beaches of miami beach, all the way up to palm beach. that is a part of a state that has an extraordinary amount of tourism. a lot of our florida beaches all did not get to but the scare of oil there, when they saw the pictures of the oil on pensacola beach, and you remember that newspaper photograph that had the entire beach, that white, sugary sand beach was covered in black oil. and the tourists stopped coming, and they stop coming to the entire gulf coast of florida. so this is what we are facing. i am pleased, at my request, and you and the ranking member were kind enough to invite the chairman of our county

commission from pensacola, who was at the frontline of this. they were having to do a lot of it themselves, making it up as they went, because in many cases the united states government did not have its act together. and a lot of, and i'll just close with this, mr. chairman, i will never forget when i went to one of the centers, the command centers, and it was explained to me that the coast guard was in control 51%, ndp was in control 49%. that doesn't work. and we saw that didn't work. you've got a military chain of command, and who's at the top of that chain has got to have their orders carried out. so that's one of the significant

lessons that we learned from this spill. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator nelson. senator lautenberg, did you have any quick openings? >> if i could trade for an earlier position in questioning, i'd like to do that, but just to say -- >> negotiations? >> mr. chairman, thanks very much. we were not, we know how expedient you'd like to try to make the hearing. it's important, but i will relinquish in my treasured position here, and plead for mercy in the questioning. with that i surrender to the chair. thank you. >> senator cantwell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i commend you for holding this important hearing today, and i thank the witnesses for being here. oil spill prevention and response capability was amid your focus of mind when i was the chair of the subcommittee so

i'm pleasure continuing to focus on such a vital issue. we did manage to signify strengthen our nation's oil spill safety net in last year's coast guard bill, the biggest and prove it improvement act opa 90 but there's much more to be done. particularly in light of what we learned from a devastating wider horizons bill. so i have many questions for the witnesses today on issues like steering restoration funds to the gulf cleanup, which i support, and possibly air market offshore drilling revenues two states for coastal restoration. i'm going to submit those for the record. today i was hoping to get some answers from our hearing today, mr. chairman, from the administration, witness on the emerging threat on the northwestern united states. as many of my colleagues probably know, canada plan to double production for the alberta massive tar sand fields over the next decade, and much of that oil will come to the u.s. but someone also likely to go to

places like china. indexes with this hearing is that much of that oil will be shipped by supertankers from vancouver through the fragile waters of the san juan islands and the strait of juan de fuca. this is a major threat to our region, and with already accommodated oil tankers and barges carrying 15 billion gallons of oil, much coming from alaska to washington state's five refineries. in fact, we refined twice as much gasoline as we need in our state for consumption. so there's always a risk there, but we have tried to do our utmost to minimize that. the tanker transitioning huge it sound means tug escorts, steered pilots, and people that know our waters, just like what happened with prince william sound. we need to people on the ground to know what's happening. so we have a very robust oil spill response network in place, including bessel traffic control systems. unfortunately, these systems

seem to have led to a free ride for canada. it seems the canadian oil spill response plan in the pacific northwest used to call the americans. and internal audit last year revealed that quote, the canadian guard, coast guard lacks the training, equipment and management systems to fulfill its duties in response to the offshore solution incident such as an oil spill. that is a scary situation for us in washington state, particularly when plans by one oil company unknown would increase oil tanker traffic by 45%. the supertankers we're talking about can hold up to a million barrels of oil. that's about four times what was spilled in the exxon valdez, and cover 1300 miles, of what very pristine coastline. obviously, such as bill in the near and heavily waters of the strait of juan de fuca with

cause tens of prince of darkness damage and have a significant impact. so with that, i would, mr. chairman, if i could, show a chart that shows you where this vessel traffic goes. and while it can go along the coast of vancouver island, and out to the strait of juan de fuca, you are talking about a very busy traffic area, a very pristine parts of both can and the united states, and i think it deserves a very robust oil spill response plan. so thank you for money to make his opening statement. islandport having a chance of asking our panels today questions. thank you. >> that you very much and again thank you talk to witnesses. the first witness on our panel is rear admiral zukunft, and honestly, they're impressed with your federal onside coordination you did on deepwater horizon. a lot of kudos to the work you

did. we also have mr. kennedy, david kennedy from noaa national ocean service is. thank you again for noaa, doing what you do. not only in the gulf but around the country in the sense of protecting our natural resources and bp. so let me first open, asthma, if you like to make your opening statement, and mr. kindy, then we will open for questions. >> good afternoon, i'm honored to appear before you today to speak about the status of lessons learned for the deepwater horizon response and efforts the coast guard is undertaking. as you know on april 20, 2010, an explosion aboard the mobile offshore drilling unit, or modu, deepwater horizon, resulted in the sinking of this motive and the tragic loss of 11 lives in the worst spill in u.s. history. the spill was designated as a first ever spill of national significance and the first time we've designated a national incident commander under the

framework of the oil pollution act 1990 and the national contingency plan, a monumental response was undertaken to the unified efforts of over 47,000 federal, state and local responders, including 7000 active and reserve coast guard members. i served as a federal on-scene coordinator for over six months. today 50 months later after the explosion occurred we continue our response efforts while concurrently yet distinct from the response, the natural resource damage assessment is occurring as well. following the deepwater horizon incident have been numerous reports generated and investigations conducted not only to determine the cause of the casualty, but also to reevaluate the effectiveness of the spill response. these reports include the president national commission on the dp oil spill, and offshore drilling, the national incident commanders report and incident specific preparedness review. the coast guard hazard to this report in addition to conducting

our own internal review to determine whether coast guard needs to take corrective action. two more reports are forthcoming. the coast guard into the cost of the casualty and a federal on-scene coordinator's report that will contain observations and perspectives of a federal on-scene coordinator regarding the response effort. both reports are concurrently undergoing final agency review and should be released within the next month. as we continue to inventory and analyze the lessons from these reports in our own internal review, i'd like to highlight several actions we've already taken to address areas where response planning and preparedness should be improved, including directing captains of the port to review oil spill response plans for offshore facilities. this is already an ongoing effort. requiring area committees to include was? discharge centers for offshore facilities and their respective areas contingency plans,

developing subsea dispersant application guidelines, increasing state and local outreach and participating in area committee meetings and activities, and participating in a coast guard a coast guard federal emergency management agency and environmental protection agency workgroup to develop recommendations to harmonize the national contingency plan and natural response framework, governance constructs. while there are several areas for improvement that we're pursuing over all, we have concluded the framework provided for opa 90 in the national contingency plan for oil spill response served us extremely well and at the national contingency plan provides the necessary discretion and freedom of action to address the very unique circumstances of the deepwater horizon response. the coast guard is also committed to ensuring the safety of activities on the outer continental shelf. the coast guard is primarily responsible for vessel shaky and drilling systems and well safety. this division of responsibilities is captured in

a memorandum of understanding between our two agencies. the coast guard are working together to ensure there are no safety seems whatsoever in oversight responsibility in the offshore drilling coming. for that and we've established a coast guard boema prevention workgroup charter to improve coordination and communication between the two agencies. in light of the deepwater horizon incident we give renewed focus to the expansion of natural resource exploration in the arctic. the remote and harsh environment presents unique prevention and response challenges for the industries operating in the region and the government agencies providing oversight of the increasing activities in the arctic to me. we asked for congresses continued support as we work to address the challenges posed i the arctic region. in a similar vein as cuba prepares to begin offshore oil exploration we have been updating a contingency plans and engaging federal, state and private entities including others to ensure we are ready to

address a potential discharge impacting u.s. waters. finally, i want to thank congress for the time action and passing public law 111, 191 which allowed significant advancements from the principal fund within the oil spill liability trust fund in the midst of this unprecedented response. this was critical to me to ensure that sufficient funds were available to support this federal response. into for the opportunity to testify today, and i'm pleased to take any questions that you may have. thank you. >> thank you very much, admiral. mr. kennedy. [inaudible] >> ongoing response to lessons learned in deepwater horizon oil spill. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss know his response to an lessons learned from the deepwater horizon oil spill. know has been working tirelessly from the first day of the bp deepwater horizon still and we will continue in our efforts and to clean up of residual oil

assessment of the spill ecological and human use impacts and restoration are complete. my testimony today will discuss the continuing challenges noaa faces in the wake of the spill, the progress of ongoing and long-term removal and restoration activities and the emerging needs for improved oil spill prevention response and restoration. the deepwater horizon oil spill was a great reminder that spills of national significance and occur despite the many improvements in place in the past of the oil pollution act of 1990. although our best option is still to prevent spills from occurring, the risk of spills remains a concern given the limitation an age of offshore and onshore oil infrastructure and frequency of oil transport to our waterways. if he still does occur, responders must be equipped with the appropriate tools and information. and effective response pay zones

all the signs smart decision-making does not just reduce cleanup costs. it ultimately decreases environmental and socioeconomic impacts which can be more costly in the long term. to ensure that appropriate tools and information are available to respond and decision-makers facing finesse bill of national significance, they must continue to invest time and resources in this spill responds in the aftermath of this disaster. while existing research is result in advance but some response technologies, more must be done to strengthen our nation's response and restoration capability critical needs are amplified when we examine challenges realized during deepwater horizon spill. and when we consider the emerging prospect of the offshore exploration production in remote and ecological sensitive areas. examples of these well documented things include better understand oil behavior from deepwater releases,

technological innovation for oil protection and modeling at the surface, and in deepwater. increase information of the long-term effects to species and habitat, and great perspective in particular on social dimensions of this spill, including community fx, risk mitigation methods i think a very important. and a violation of natural resources. in addition many of today's standard approaches to oil spill response, cleanup and restoration have not been extensively evaluated in remote areas like the arctic, and there are utilities and such if i was know to be less effected. the need to better understand oil on ice, weathering and transport effectiveness of countermeasures in arctic conditions and ecosystem impacts to that unique area in order to make responsible decisions. this issue exemplifies the need for focused purely you research, and development of new strategies and recommendations in the event of emergency. along with our co-trustees also

charged with assessing and restoring natural resources injured by an oil spill, the goal of this as a process is to become the type and amount of frustration needed to compensate the public for injury to set resources. trustees also assess the public lost use of the resource which includes losses of recreational fishing, loading hunting and fishing to the ultimate goal is to intimate a packet of registration projects a competent but for all ecological injuries and she would recreational loss. in print with the deepwater horizon entry assessment, the co-trustees are beginning to intimate restoration. today the trustees and bp had agreed to abdomen several projects designed to curtail further entry to resources. in particular the trustees will intimate a project created caused by response equipment, made under mainly boat propellers in florida.

otherwise might gather in oil impacted very. the trustees are also preparing environment impact statement which will identify a range of restoration alternatives and trustees will consider to compensate above for loss of natural resources of services in the future. on april 21 of the issue the trustees announced an agreement under which bp committed to make $1 billion available to find appropriate early restoration projects, public input on early restoration project has already begun and will continue through the summer. the deepwater horizon oil spill present a unique challenge to noaa and who of all work. noaa is a underlying capacity and expertise to coordinate and deliver essential science-based services under oil, during oil and have -- as a result of deepwater horizon, noaa examined critically evaluated our capacity and ability respond to such large-scale events. for noaa to continue to be

scientifically or for response as was other coastal, it is critical to adequate capacity and resources to conduct, lead and courting scientific research to develop decision support tools to inform effective response to thank you for allowing me to provide the update on the deepwater horizon oil spill. i will assure you that we will not relent in our efforts to protect the livelihoods of gulf coast residence and mitigate if i'm an impacts of this spill. i'm happy of course to into any questions you might have. thanks. >> i will ask senator wicker to go first, and then i will hold to the end that will give mr. lautenberg, senator lautenberg, five minutes. we will move quicker to you. boom, boom, boom. so senator wicker first. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's kind of you to do that. first of all, admiral and mr. kennedy, thank you for your service and thank you for your testimony. let me ask you first, admiral,

during the height of the oil spill there was a lot of discussion about how international assistance might have been hampered by the jones act. tell us what your investigation has found. did, in fact, the jones act impacts, and other response equipment availability during the spill? >> yes, i would be pleased to enter the. as a federal on-scene coordinator, i approved every pollution response funding authorization. thousands of these authorizations, this is everything from domestic to international. and when i approved those i hand them to bp, an and in bp writese check. the responsible party pays. and that's when we talk about the addition of labor, it is driven from the federal down, and holding the responsible parties accountable.

and if the responsible party fails to fund that then we would fund that out of the oil spill liability trust fund. so that was the mechanism in place. and so when i look at what my most critical gaps were, it was offshore skinning capability. and so we reached out to norway and a skimming system that they use in the north sea to get the skinny equipment to the gulf coast. to get it on a heavy lift and get it onto an osd into the gulf of mexico. but we invoked over 60 foreign office of assistance where there were critical gaps that need to be closed. there is a waiver procedure under the jones act, and at no time to the jones act impede the resourcing that we needed to respond to this unprecedented spill. >> so it's your testimony that the jones act was not a problem in getting international scammers in? >> that is exactly correct. it was in no way an impediment. >> let me ask you then about whether or not in testing for

cleanups, we need to try technologies right there in the marine environment. to federal regulations restrict the coast guard's ability to test cleanup technologies and conduct response drills of controlled oil spill's? for example, are the environmental protection agency rules that prohibit you or others from testing the effectiveness of new technologies in answering this type of the spill? >> we work very closely with our national response team that is co-chaired, and with the environmental protection agency to consider controls bills in the environment. and as a rule, we do not, and

it's just primarily due to environmental concerns. however, we do use a facility in new jersey where we do on a daily basis, i was just there six weeks ago, it's a very large area. we can introduce speedy so you spill the oil in new jersey and that's just fine with me. [laughter] >> this is a closed facility, but a very large body of water, and now that does get into the environment. >> okay. thank you very much for that. i have to ask you, mr. kennedy, recently there's been a high number of sea turtle deaths in the gulf of mexico. some people are going to shrimpers. i don't know what the shrimpers have done differently this year and they had done in previous years. have you ruled out, scientifically, the oil spill as

a cause of these sea turtle deaths? >> no, we have not. we though are looking very, very carefully at the mortalities, try and collect as many of those turtles as we can, conduct necropsies, and look very carefully at what we think the cause of death might be. the studies are ongoing spent what are your initial finding? >> the initial funds are that the majority of the necropsies that we've conducted, these are on the nearshore, shallow areas where the turtles have been found, that the turtles are quite healthy. that they are feeding normally, and that their mortality is a cute. all of those things are not normally associated with some sort of exposure and longer-term mortality.

so, what we are finding at least a number of necropsies is that this appears to be somehow associated with white kitchen spent with some sort of trauma. and not toxicity? >> right. >> in the water. >> having said that we have actually not continue to rollout, continue to investigate what is going on there. and are some examples that do not fit into that category i just described, so i think the answer to question is will not rule out come and we are aggressively continue to look. >> thank you, you both. >> that you very much. senator nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your public service. we had a failed decision-making apparatus. unified command to begin with did not react as hard as people

were working. and as individually as they were just giving it their all. the decision-making apparatus was not quick enough, and there was too much leeway for bp. i don't want to take the time, but i may as well just remind everybody that it started out, oh, it was only going to be a thousand of barrels a day, and that was revised upwards, and it was revised upwards and upwards. and into being somewhere in excess of 26,000 barrels a day. what would you to recommend as an approved decision-making apparatus in a command structure that the next oil spill that we have in place?

why do i ask the civilian first, and didn't you, admiral. >> -- and then to you, admiral spent i would start by saying i've been doing oil spill response one kind or another for 25 years. i know i look like i'm 35, but i'm actually a little older. i have never come and i was involved in the exxon valdez spill deeply as well. i've never seen anything that even approach the complexity of the issues that we had to deal with. and i think it's not, i think you have to start there. i think it to start with the fact that none of us could have anticipated even with the spill of national significance how complex the issues were and how they continue to kind of expand into complexity. and all of this under very, very strong, strong public spotlight

scrutiny. having said that i think there's a number of things that we potentially could do better. but to stand up and organization of this magnitude where you had from every agency parts of it brought and that had never been in a response mode before, you pr the entities within, just speaking for noaa, for more of the entities within your organization to get them better equipped to know what to do in a response. of response mode is kind of a special mode and it takes a lot of training and kind of the mindset as we brought more and more and more of noaa, for instance, all of our ships which are not normally involved in oil spills, the satellites, the aircraft, and all of our experts from every discipline into this event. it took little time to spend about. and i think so communication

training, and -- >> all right, let me just stipulate with you there that it was complex, and it was extraordinary. but you all let bp basically direct a lot of the stuff. it wasn't until some of us. no, including senator boxer, forced the availability of that live streaming video that scientists could then see how much oil was coming out 5000 feet below the surface. and do the calculations. this was anywhere close to 1000 barrels. so what would you do in the command structure so that bp is not running the show? and i take nothing away from all the people that gave their heart and soul in doing this. what we are trying to do here is lessons learned so that we don't

repeat the mistakes of the past. >> the contingency plan as the admiral mentioned, i think do lay out what we're supposed to do. i think when you have something this complex you maybe have some learning curves on how that structure works, but there is a very specific structure in place and i'm going to turn to the admiral and let him handle this. this is his business. >> okay, so what you're saying there's a specific structure in place. does that mean we need to amend the law so that we don't fall back? because if you're saying the statute required the way it was operated in the past, then that's one of the lessons learned. >> i think we're all sing we should look at the oil pollution act and see if there are amendments that are needed. but i think a better understanding across the board of what the current active and how it is executed would help us as well.

>> leading up to this, you know, we have a very major area of contingency plan process where we were with all the stakeholders and we work with a regional response teams, identifier environment sensitive areas. and that's leading up to and exercised this in our spills of national significance. those spills of national exercises do not get fully exercised at the local level. we are working in the gulf of mexico, for example, the state of louisiana had five ongoing federally declared disasters under the stafford act. this was the first time that the construct under the oil pollution act have seen the light of day since the exxon valdez. working committees that were very used to state driven stafford act responses which is a kosher expense process to now under the national contingency plan which is federally driven where the federal government holds the responsible party

accountable for paying every bill associated with that response, taking every measure necessary. the challenge we had was in critical resources. because of the challenges, with the planning process and full ownership from local up to state, when that first drop of oil came ashore, it may not have been on an environment sensitive area, but there was a mandate that includes the entire gulf of mexico where we had 4 million feet of, another 10 million feet strong across the gulf of mexico. that did not exist in our nation's inventory. >> but boom doesn't work off a beach. so right there you have to jibe your. >> yes, sir spoke well, i don't want to take any more time. i want others to have a chance. but in all of this conversation i've been seeking a recommendation from you all on how we can make that command

structure better. and i have not heard a recommendation. so my recommendation, mr. chairman, would be if they would like to respond in writing with a specific recommendation, if we need to change the statute, then that's what we're here for. but the next time around we show want something crisp, chain of command. the order is given, and you don't have somebody trying to bungle it up. regardless of how complicated it is. >> let me -- thank. thank you very much, senator nelson. i will take that as a former request to the committee that you can respond to the. that was one of my questions for one of you all. so if you could give recommendations that you might think in the law could be changed, and i will use the words of senator nelson, a more crisp and efficient response. we will make it as one of the questions for the record. senator lautenberg. >> thanks mr. chairman.

we are at this hearing and request for learning what to do as result of the attention that was paid to several serious oil spill's in the past. and most recently in the gulf of mexico, a lot of chemical disbursements to break down large amounts of subsurface oil were used. and despite concerns about disbursement safety, that actually predates the exxon valdez oil spill. we are still not sure about what the effects are for increasing concentration of these disbursements. they were never made available to the public. when we look and see that we are

still reeling from the oil spill that took place years ago, in the exxon valdez, we still have many species that haven't yet returned to their quantity for their quality of their existence. now, i've introduced legislation require testing of disbursements including the long-term effects before they're used and their required disclosure of the ingredients in these disbursements. now, with more information about disbursements do you think affect your oil spill response efforts, might there be an influence there, admiral? >> thank you, senator. when we made the decision to use correct 9500, we worked off epa approved product list. the region response team had

preapproval to apply dispersan dispersants. obviously, we're in uncharted territory when we reached a magnitude of 1.8 million gallons of dispersants both on the surface and subsurface. i will say as the federal on-scene coordinator there were periods of up to 16 consecutive days where, because of the wednesday, the sea state, to draw down the response on two occasions because of potential approaching hurricanes and we are still streaming live video of oil spill. and watching the oil company to the day, and other locations. where we are trying to knock this down as far offshore as possible. so you really, at the time, it would be great to have that information, you know, at my disposal rather than waiting three months for a study. but i had to make a decision within 24 hours eric asked that 24 hour when it expires the dispersants is no longer effective. those are the decisions i had to make.

how to mitigate the effectiveness of this spill, apply dispersants as far offshore as possible, and then after the well was permanently plugged and abandoned, we did, working with noaa, undertook the most aggressive undersea monitoring effort ever conducted in the gulf of mexico, looking for oxygen depletion, concentrations of oil and oil debris on the sea floor at depths of 5000 feet. in the preliminary findings, this was determined if any further response, oil removal was necessary. and as a result of that study, no further findings were necessary. that report was made public in the late december time frame. >> so, do you think we have appropriately now analyzed the material and the dangers that they could represent? are you satisfied that because you didn't find for the damage at the time that we are fully familiar with what the dispersants might bring,

continuing fouling up of the accident? >> i'm not because we don't have a whole of science your review. and so the challenge i would do with on a daily basis is getting whole of science concurrence -- >> and speed it needs to be fully reviewed and concurred with. so for the work is needed. >> and let it not be thought for a moment that we didn't appreciate the work and the bravery of the coast guard and their people. there was no task that was asked that they didn't fulfill, and we're very proud of them and your people, and want you to keep up the courage and the response that you give to things in your belly wake -- bailiwick. even in the best of times, these

agencies are called on to do more with less. now, as the budget for noaa and coast guard are cut even further, as some are proposing, would you agency be able, both agencies, to respond to two major spills at the same time? >> first of all, we are very thankful for the proposed budget, in fiscal year 12. that does address some of our resource shortcomings for incident management response. but in reflecting on deepwater horizon, this was 87 major spills. and i say that because we had one day we recovered 30,000 barrels of oil. most of this well offshore. this is not oily water. this is oil. these are in situ burning or recovering 1.1., and about 20% of the exxon valdez. the next day we had the same amount of oil. the same amount of a with the same out of what gets everyday the oil duplicated it's a. it almost became exponential.

so the fact that we were able to respond to 87 skills with the augmentation of personnel, that is in the 12 budget, with the cooperation of inner agencies, this is a tremendous learning experience at the local federal tribal, international level. and shame on us if we don't take these lessons and apply those to future challenges, especially in the arctic, in the northwest, and to cuba as well. >> admiral, are you saying -- this will be it -- that 87 spills, and response suggests that maybe you could be doing with less funding in response to my question? >> we were sorely stressed. this was a campaign.

we had exhausted our reserve call up capability, and so we were thankful that this well was capped when it was. if we were still responded today, again, most bills aren't instantaneous release, like exxon valdez, but when you have this spill in deepwater even with hydrates, the complexities, great depths and access, that is the new frontier we are living in. and where is that oil and gas? it's in that new frontier. it's either in deepwater or it may be in the arctic, or it may be in a country where we don't have a dramatic relations. spent thanks very much, mr. chairman. i have other questions which we will submit for the record. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again thank you for this hearing. looking to the future lessons and prevention response restoration are very important issues. as outlined in my opening statement. i'm very concerned about the

future as it relates to the pacific northwest. so admiral i appreciate your testimony today. and want to ask you, we put into the coast guard reauthorization bill language pushing coast guard to new analysis of the u.s.-canadian auto response agreement. can you tell me whether some analysis has been done and what you think the agreements are in oil response between the united states and canada? >> i can on the record producer, but certainly i would be pleased to do so. i will say that we have regular at least on a quarterly basis in action with canadian partners on everything from oil spill to security among our common border. but i would be glad to provide you an update. >> thank you. so you'll give me an analysis of those, what you think the existing agreements are and how they work? >> yes, senator. >> thank you. do you think, god forbid that such an oil spill would happen

in canadian waters, do you think according to this, whatever it is, verbal agreements or things that you have now, do you think the united states can into those waters without the oil spill entering the united states? >> we have shipped wider agreements where we to law enforcement in canadian waters, just as we invite rcmp officers onto our vessels. so we eliminate that scene between the united states and canada. and i'm quite satisfied that we can do that in an environmental capacity. and i would just follow with, i'm also as part of our arctic council for search and rescue and the next part of that is looking at carbon emissions and maritime environment in the arctic domain, canada's signatory to that and they are very committed to living up to that commitment as well. >> well, so you think the answer is yes, you can respond to an

oil spill in canadian waters? >> i am confident that we will be able to do so. >> okay. and do you think that you can require supertankers to have a tug escort when they are a few miles with in american waters? >> we traditionally will work with the international maritime organization to ensure that, you know, these are global oftentimes global issues that may affect shipped routing, that could have unintended consequences. so we look for those best practices. they certainly exist when i was the commander of the 11th district in california where we had the exxon -- i mean the cosco. art areas for tankers as the coming to richmond where we do require tug escorts. so certainly that governance structure is in place in select ports based on a given risk. >> do you think we should look at that policy as it relates to this increase in traffic, given the fragile nature of puget

sound? i become its a tricky waterway, as i think our chart is still here shows and designates in a very pristine area of the country. do you think we should be redoing this increase in tanker traffic? .. >> that would be a challenge for us. >> what is your assessment for the canadian's ability to

respond to a major spill in this area? >> i'll just go back to the spill of national significance exercise we conducted last year, and it was a scenario where it was up in new england, and that oil would have then impacted canadian waters as well. we invited canada to participate in aid, they participated at the executive level, not observer status, but certainly recognized that we cannot allow seems to exist because oil is agnostic to borders, and that we need to be able to bridge that gap with appropriate response measures on both sides of that border. >> i feel you're being very diplomatic, so if i ask you to grade them you would probably hesitate, but do you think you have the same preparedness we do in responding to oil spills in the northwest? >> any comment i make, senator, would be speculative, but certainly their earnestness in being a partner with the u.s.

coast guard and with our regional response team process for under the plan, i see them as committed partners. >> so you think they have the same capacity that we do? >> i could not answer that question. >> will you in your analysis of the u.s. agreement give us a sense of what you think their capacity is? this is a very big issue, the amount of traffic increase going into this waterway, tricky system, where again, most of the traffic we're talking about from pugot sound requires local pie loots and a -- pilots and a variety of things. they are important issues and we look forward to hearing your vies on the record. >> i'll supply that. >> thank you. mr. chairman? >> i'll emphasize the last point with alaska along the border of washington and canada. if there are issues that you identify that may be gaps or

you're unaware because the information is not there, we need to know that because of the work. i know my state does. i know your state does with canada on a regular basis. they visit offices fairly regular because of issues of trade and fish and many other things that i think it would be very important for us to know, and i think part of our role should be to assist to make sure their standards equal, obviously, we would love them to exceed, but equal that we are requiring at this point. as you do that analysis, can you step to the next level and say here's areas we were unable to analyze, but it's clearer we need current review of? i think that's what senator cantwell is trying to get to. we need to know you should be in a room like this and say they are fill in the blank because that's the relationship we need with the oil spill capacity. i think that's where you were going. >> yes, thanks, mr. chairman, absolutely. thank you. >> i look forward to providing

that information. >> okay. i have a couple questions for you, but let me hold for a second. i know the environmental response management was a tool used quite a bit in the gulf and there's one in the arctic being developed. >> yes. >> give me what's happening with that at this point and the status of that development. >> so, this is a product that we have developed just as a tool to help with the management of spill response that's more or less been launched in the months prior to deepwater horizon and turned out to be extremely successful tool. basically, a product with data layers in the ability to process and receive data in the event of a spill so you have kind of a central location where all the information that's required by all the responders is available in a variety of different forms, and so we have started that process.

it's somewhat geography specific, and so you need to have it set up so it can specifically respond to the uniqueness of the region that you're trying to develop it for. we have begun the arctic. i will have to get back to you to give you a specific date, but it's underway, and we expect to have a product i think by the end of the year, but let me get back to you for specifics on that. >> you bet. thank you. another question. i know you have developed an mou, an understanding -- mutual understanding agreement -- between yourself and boemer. can you tell me how that coordination is going? this is in regards to offshore energy decision making, and can you give me a sense -- i will tell you from industry folks are a little nervous what that means in times, whether it creates delay. i want a sense from you on that, and then do you have the resources and expertise to

really do that work? >> so, yes, we do have an mou. we worked with the old boemer, mms over the years, had a partnership with them over the years. always felt there's more we could do to partner so this mou we feel is the next best good step to have us at the table as we have these discussions. i think it'll do two things. it'll bring a level of expeers tease, and -- expertise and efficiency to the process that we haven't had because we haven't been at the table as appropriately as we would have liked to have been. to date, i think that relationship is blossoming, and we are now engaging much more quickly and often with them as we discuss leasing and drilling issues, and we look forward -- it's a new enough relationship

and organization that we want to watch and see how it goes, but we look forward to having the ability and we think it will prove to be more efficient and effective. >> do you have the resources for the expertise? >> i was hoping i'd have the opportunity to answer senator lotten berg's question as well because i thought it was a very good question for us. we, for a long time, tried to look at our ability to respond to spills as the basis are we at a point that we think nationally we can do our job? the answer for noaa is no. we don't have the resources to respond to two spills, and over the last several years, the resources for the specific group that does most of our core response has had to be right-sized because of a lack of resources, and during the course of this event, everybody that still wasn't in a walker that had retired and was still somewhere around, we brought

back to try and just have enough resources to respond to this one spill, so given the budgets that we're looking at, we're very concernedded about our ability -- concerned about our ability to respond. >> one is on the decision making process, the new mou with boemer, what resources you think you need to accomplish that, and the second part is more global on the oil spill capacity itself, what you think the response or resources' need is for that. can you do that, if possible, for the rod? >> yes. >> real numbers and expertise. >> we'd be happy to do that. >> great. let me ask the admiral quick questions and i'll have questions to submit for the record for more detail. i know the oil spill commission recommended that the coast guard work, and you imagine to work with state and local entities. in alaska, we have successful

regional advisory councils, one in prince william sound and advocating one for the arctic as well. can you tell me is that the kind of increase local participation that makes sense for the coast guard? those kinds of regional advisory councils to help do your work better and also respond to the commissioner's recommendation? >> certainly, chairman, and we have a lead role in that process as well, and that was one of the key lessons learned is that at the local level, there was not full awareness of the oil spill contingency plans, the environmental sensitive areas in just the government structure that's in place, and certainly that's going to be especially critical looking at the arctic and its understanding the culture of the arctic, the tribal entities that reside there as well, and so we've been doing a lot of outreach, you

know, in those communities as we look at increased human activity, and then the impact of that activity in that precious environment. >> and if i can just emphasize the point earlier that, again, regarding opa-90 and other processes that we have put into place over the years, your recommendations and thoughts on that will be clear. we followed up on that with senator nelson's comments. please, do what you can there. i can't remember if your agencies are doing it or who is doing it, i don't know why this is in my mind, but is there a competition right now for oil spill technology that's undergoing literally as we speak, there's an also company involved with ten companies -- i don't know if it's noaa or coast guard -- does this ring a bell? okay. you shook your head yes, you're the target here. am i right on this there's ten

companies competing for the best oil spill skimming technology? >> i can only highlight the issue because i haven't been directly involved. i have one of individuals who work for me specifically involved, but in the course of the event with the idea of what else should we and could we be thinking about that would be the silver bullet somehow and come up with a prize through a competition. there was a team put together, and admiral, i don't know if you recall the specifics of it, but, yes, there is an effort underway, a call for proposals. there are finalists, and there is a competition that is being -- i don't know whether it's been completely evaluated yet, but in the process of being evaluated with the winner or winners that would be awarded some funds to move forward. >> yeah. i would be very interested and i'm sure the committee too.

i know there's an alaska company and that's why it's in my mind. i think they are starting this month, but i'd be very interested to see what that is. i have to commend you it's a great idea to challenge the private sector for innovation around this because the spill technology or spill cleanup has not changed much in the last 20-plus years, and so challenging industry i think is great and also innovators. i think it would be very interesting as you develop the response to that or how it comes about. you can share that with the committee and that would be great. >> okay. >> i'll end there and thank you both for being the first panel and being here to help us understand what more we can do and future steps for oil spill technology. i'll present additional questions for you in the record, and we thank you both for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the next panel, give a couple seconds here to have some adjustment.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we continue now with the senate commerce subcommittee on ocean and fisheries on the coast guard. they held a hearing on the lessons learn the from the deepwater horizon oil spill in the gulf coast. speakers include representatives from the oil and gas industry, local officials, and the environmental advocacy. it's about 45 minutes. >> we appreciate you being here, four additional witnesses, and, again, some members here already submitted questions for you that you'll see after the hearing. be prepared for that. several can thed that. the first one is the honorable

grover cleveland, research master and distinguished fault, louisiana. eric, group director for the american institute, and jim ayers, senior adviser of the ocean conserve van sigh. thank you for being here. i'll go down the row here. keep your comments to five minutes. i'll have questions after, and i'll have questions for the record i cannot get here based on time. i'll start with grover robertson. >> more specifically the eight gulf counties in northwest florida, i want to thank chairman begich and the senate members to allow -- i stand before you as a 7th generation floridian. we have survived and thrived in escambia county but a civil war,

countless hurricanes, booms, and depp recessions. however, the deepwater horizon spill rocked our community like no other event. as chairman, i found myself as the een center of florida center's oil spill response for the last 14 months. i wish to share those experiences with your committee today for reform as well as suggestions for money were clean water act penalties. we faced a crisis unlike anything we have seen. that tragedy took 11 lives, countless jobs, and cost extensive damages to our resources. escambia county is no exception. we prepare and respond to hurricanes. florida's emergency response teams are the best in the country, own arguably the world. city, county, and state first responders practice and prepare year round to respond and recover from potential

disasters. shortly after the oil spill, we had 48 hours to prepare for oil on our beaches. we declared a state of emergency predating the state of florida and prepared a plan to block oil from entering our fragile estuaries. within 24 hours of declaring state of emergency, the state of florida declared a state of emergency, and we were introduced to the unified command structure. with the plan in place, we were ready to do what was needed to protect our environment and ultimately our economy. we were stopped instead and told we must accept the protection plans of experts that never step foot in our county and knew nothing about the tidal flows and our bays. instead of putting up booms and protecting bays and passes, we argued with strangers about what was best for the local waterways. this system of federal down

approach simply did not work in disaster situation. while there's many aspects of opa that are effective such as command structure for federal waters and national response, the response process in local jurisdictions must be changed. while i recognize the act implemented during natural disasters could not be applied uniformly to manmade disaster, there is an element that should be applied regardless of calls. local experts need to be including in determines response and recovery plan for local jurisdictions. the very people who lived and made livelihoods in their community are best suited to know where priorities should be placed and what should provide protections of the environmental resource of that community. i would not pretend how to respond to an oil spill in alaska thafn an outsider knows how to protect escambia county.

ultimately the oil that was 48 hours offshore took 30 days to get to the beaches. this should have allowed us time to imprelim plans to protect our passes and waterways, but we were prevented from implementing our plans by july when the well was capped. we spent the first 75 days using inadequate plans given to us that were not effective and wasted money. my point today is local government provided better protection to the estuaries in the bays and the citizens of escambia county and prevented cost savings. the only thing that prevented us was opa. i said several times it is my belief the coast guard and other agencies were staffed with good people who wanted to do the right thing for our community and nation, but they were presented by the rules presented in the oil act of 1990. opa must be enacted to allow for

coordinated defense of our environmental assets by local, state, and federal jurisdictions working together. local government has a place in the planning, coordination, communication, and implementation of disaster strategies and decisions. its omission leads to failure as seen in may and june of 2010. i'd like to close there's still time to make this right for the process and clean water act. noaa, dui ax other state -- and others are identifying the extent of resource injuries and the best method to restore them and the process required. this process has been inclusive and we are grateful. i'm also pleased to say the beaches are recovering and are beautiful. while we recover on the inside, the scars never leave us. prior to the deepwater horizon oil spill, i operated a successful real estate business started by my late father in

1977. like other businesses, i filed and received a claim from the oil spill. my business has not recovered. so much so, we made the hard decision to merge with another firm after 34 years of existence. i am not alone. there's countless small businesses there that suffered a similar fate. any funds received due to the fines of the clean water act should be directed so investments can be made for the long term recovery of our communities both environmentally and economically. we must take -- we must now turn the disaster around and seize the opportunities before us. we must take the opportunity to learn from our mistakes and reform opa. we must take the opportunity through the process to help our environment fully recover from the tar on our white sand and take the opportunity to use the clean water act fines to invest in the gulf coast and our economies, not just to survive

this disaster, but to thrive in spite of it. thank you for the work each of you do for our country and its citizens and thank you for the time to hear my testimony. >> thank you, mr. robertson. mr. turner. >> thank you, senator, and thank you for holding this hearing. i'm a -- i do fieldwork, worked on this 35 years. in the marshes last week, offshore two weeks as of sunday. i'll speak to things in the field as asked. the oil has not gone away. it's still there. walk in the marsh, and you can smell it. the crush on the marsh is still there, you can probe the marsh and have fresh oil. it has not gone away. there's impacts in the marsh, and offshore we have the grand canyon, the grand tetons.

we know things have been impacted and killed. there's a dispore -- disproportional amount of oil and 70% of the birds in louisiana were oiled and 70% of the turtles were from louisiana. i'll come back to recommendations about what might be done the next, but i'll make comments about the context of what's happening. we can't say we know very much right now because we're trying to figure out, for example, is the shoreline eroded more because of the oil or just a little bit more? is it larger erosion to an area that's already lost 22% of the wetlands? did it strengthen the shoreline in some cases? if you figure out the context we're talking about that certain amount of the oil is in the marsh, how much is lost, how much of the area, the

shoreline -- it might be in the order of a few square miles a year that's lost. we're losing that much a year already. primarily through the program so there's a very dramatic lost that might be and the climate background loss. the restoration is taken in the context of what's going on as a whole. restoration can be done as a whole with the background factors in mind. the hearing that's going on for restoration as we have understandable desires to protect the shoreline from hurricanes and flood protection, and that may require for levies, but that destroys wetlands behind them. we try to restore them, but yet lose them and it's conflicting. the agreements we reach about that need more people at the tail, not fewer including the national agencies, the local -- the whole suite of things involved in the oil spill of course. the oil companies are asked to

carry some of this. it gets fairly complex, and that doesn't mean we have to be timid about engaging in these. as an example of the complexities, there's workshops making recommendations what to do with the oil spill money that will be out in a couple of weeks probably. one of the things is to address the issue of hypoxcy offshore. it's nutrient release from the midwest. there's the restoration technique of diverting river water into them. there's more detail than you want to hear, but it's causing wetland loss because the nutrients into the lands. the win-win solution is restoring water quality offshore and the restoration technique to be used in a productive way with the rivers. the oil spill on the one hand is

demonstration water sheds of the tba projects to facilitate a more important use of the farm bill funds allowed and the farmers actually according to all the miles and working we've done in the communities, they use fewer subsidies, greater profits, and better water quality. it's a win-win solution in the workshop. in terms of some quick observations bouts what went wrong or what might go better next time -- one of the assail issues is we have to have greater involvement and it's helped to have greater local involvement, understanding, participation, and expertise available, and there's several federal programs underunittized in the gulf with the reserves, and there's a table in my comments.

texas made use of these, but the middle three states have not including louisiana with the only state without an estuary reserve program. anything to help that would be build support, participation, shared governance. we didn't have long term monitoring going on. we didn't have funding when the oil spill happened. you can't measure impacts if you don't have preimpact data, and we could not get that. the only agency that helped with that was the national science foundation. they did come through with some. the last little detail on this is most of the assessments for damages on toxins are based on individual species. it's good to the lawyers, but because it's precise, you can defend the results, but they don't represent reality in the field. they need a greater sense of the

more holistic view of damages when they do the assessments, and i'm out of time. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. mr. turner. >> good afternoon, chairman begich, senator rubio. abi is more than 47 member companies representing america's oil and gas industries. we have 9.2 million jobs including in the gulf of mexico. we need to power the economy, way of life, and we dlefer more than $86 million a day in revenue to the federal government. it's been more than a year since the accident. we can want forget the industry and nation lost 11 workers and our thoughts and prayers continue to go tout workers. the incident provided us with a

reminder to maintain a focus on safety as a priority and operations. immediately after the ask, the industry formed task forces to examine every aspect of offshore safety systems including equipment, operating practices, top sea well control, and spill response. due to the leadership and work of the industry, we now have enhanced capabilities in each of the key areas -- prevention, capping and containment, and spill response. as an industry, we recognize the most effective oil spill response is to prevent it from ever happening in the first place. therefore, a great deal of attention is always placed on prevention. recommendations developed by the industry task forces formed the basis of the regulations we have now on prevention including requirements for maintaining barriers during well construction, implementation of testing requirements during drilling operations, adoption of api's recommended practice 65, part 2. the industry is developing practices to help improve

deepwater horizon well design and up stalllation practices as well as bolten 97, a joint effort between api and drilling contractors to improve the link between the safety system of the drilling contractor with the safety system of the operator. ocean energy management and enforcement participate in these activities and 100 of the api documents are referenced in the boemer regulations. there's the time pieces in place for offshore safety to be up and running this year. there's implementation of safety and environmental management systems in deep water operations drawing on the collective knowledge of the industry and promoting safety practices. should an incident occur, preparedness is a key factor.

.. >> while preliminary reports have shown the impacts at the shoreline, seafood and vitaly of the area significantly less than what was anticipated, the long-term impacts will continue to be monitored and studied. moving forward, industries commit review the entire spill

response identify any potential gaps and address were necessary. we've initiated this review on issues such as dispersants, burning and mechanical recovery. this review effort involves both u.s. and international stakeholders. it is open to the entire industry, covers both golf and alaska activities, and seize government input into the program. great strides have been made to enhance the industry's capability to prevent an incident from happening. to cap and contain a leaking boat, to respond to a spill and committed to building on this progress. we are also prepared to safely and to resume operations in the gulf of alaska and other areas. permitting moves forward at original pays in the gulf alone, we can put 190,000 more people to work, safer bring more more of the gulf badly needed energy to consumers and deliver billions of dollars in additional revenue to our federal treasury. take you. this concludes my statement. i would be happy to take

question. >> thank you very thank you very much, mr. milito. let me move to mr. ayers, and it will go into questions. >> chairman begich, senator rubio, thank you for the invitation to be here today. i'm a senior advisor and consultant the ocean conservancy, although i have other conservation clients as well. the ocean conservancy is a national marine conservation organization, a scientist, citizens and volunteers to promote a healthy ocean, and have done so for over four years headquartered here in d.c. my testimony will address three things. prevention, preparedness and response and recommendations with regard to express in deepwater horizon and exxon valdez. second, restoration, and third reference to the arctic and what i believe is an imperative approach. among many other things i served as executive director of the exxon valdez oil spill trustee council and led the effort to develop and implement a comprehensive restoration plan. i later became chief of staff

were supported that plan in move forward with preparedness including issues that were mentioned earlier like shipping and continued preparedness. and prevention. in short, we are not prepared. we are not yet committed to prevention. the oil pollution act of 1990, though it has done a lot of good, had significant holes and in particular with regard to response. here are my recommendations of how to fix the problem. first, we must integrate spill prevention and preparedness into the oil and gas decision-making process here congress should mandate that baseline science and an understanding of the marine ecosystem with which we intend to drill, to fully understood that informed decisions about if we should drill, when, where, and how i based on size. it also means giving a stronger role to agencies like noaa and coast guard and the aforementioned, they are

insufficiently now funded and not given the authority to incorporate true worst-case scenarios into the planning process. we must require the best available technology and engineering to be brought forward into the process. that is currently not a mandate under opa 90, and i participated in that and find myself guilty. it is our responsibility to bring the best and brightest of america to bear on this project and on this issue of offshore drilling, and we have not done so. second, we need to step up our game with respect to spill response. government regulators and industry operators must ensure and demonstrate that they have trained personnel and equipment sufficient to contain, control and clean up worst-case discharges. as year earlier, the cascading approach of bringing supplies, equipment, personnel from other states and other nations is insufficient and protecting our nation's ocean resources.

the coast guard must be authorized to ensure that responsible parties, oil spill response plans and every contingency plans are, in fact, in place. and comply with the national contingency plan is on your question earlier, although it suggested the national contingency plan of how to operate, it is not mandated. nor is it in place today. congress must commit the financial resources necessary to ensure that agencies like the coast guard and noaa can do their job. i humbly suggest a small increase in a per barrel tax would provide the funding necessary to ensure the responsibilities are met. and, in fact, we be certain, provision that would allow and ensure that america can comply. with the requirements of preparedness and prevention and response. it's america's oil. america's oceans. oil companies sell order. it's the governments

responsibility to ensure that the public trust is protected. let's move quickly to restoration. restoration is becoming a part of our culture and our economy. from the talented to the gulf, this country is engaged in restoration and will be for the rest of this generation. i'm pleased the restoration plan is moving forward in the gulf, with the gulf ecosystem task force that was greeted by the president. and other natural resources trustees under opa 90 are moving forward. but i have several critical elements to suggest. nesa my experience with the exxon valdez oil spill, we must have a common vision for healthy bio diverse productive gulf, and we must have clear measurable objectives and rigorous criteria moving forward with projects. to make this happen, congress should demonstrate that america will not sacrifice the long-term health of fisheries and biodiversity of the gulf of

mexico, or any other large ecosystem of this country, or short-term and usher production of any kind. that must begin with dedicating a significant portion of the clean water act penalties, as has been done by senator rockefeller and senate bill 1140. some piece of those entities should be directed in a separate account within the united states treasury with earnings up that account supporting a long-term gulf ecosystem monitoring observation research program. and with that said, mr. chairman, let me say that science-based approach i'm suggesting would work in the arctic as well. and as you can see, it's science that is missing in both applications, both in the preparedness and response, and also in the restoration. congress should act now to establish a long-term scientific monitoring observation research program, and ensure response to those are in place before offshore environment is exposed to widespread industrial

activity in the arctic and the intended risk bearing. finally, a broader level, mr. chairman, although senator snowe is not here let me mention that congress should ensure that the united states has the financial resources necessary to be an effective steward of its ocean and coastal ecosystems. the national endowment for oceans act cosponsored by ranking member snowe and other members of this committee would do just that. the ocean conservancy recognizes the united states must continue to develop energy. it's an imperative. but we must do so the right way. we can do it right. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. what i would do, senator rubio, i'm going to seven minutes because we're the only two here. i will allow you up to seven minutes but i will allow you to go first and i will finish up. >> thank you. i'm not sure i will need a full seven minutes. thank you for adhering. they do over being a part of the commission. mr. robinson, it's great to see. i was in northwest florida last

week and small business committee of out as to do a field hearing on this spill. i have a couple three separate questions and i think they can all be properly answered. the first is one of the concerns i kitchin, which i guess i had heard before. but was really articulated to me anyway we hadn't thought about as deeply before, there's this real concern in the gulf region that the spill happened but the full impact of it may not be known for years. people get there, look around, good news, not oil understand and so forth. but, in fact, there's a bunch of oil still unaccounted for. it's out there somewhere and its impact might be delayed. i heard a lot of concern from folks about that, in particular their concern was we're going to set up response process, beatifically wire act, that a few years from now if there is some delayed impact there won't be any funds or mechanism in place for the. they will be a gap between response this year and impact it may be felt years down the road. i don't know. if there's any thoughts you

would share with us but it's a line i will be pursuing a. as we move forward on that process. >> who would like to respond to that? >> absolutely. you can have a chronic undermining at the strength of an ecosystem and having event like a hurricane that will reveal a. hurting only comes every 15 years in that area. so absolutely. there can be delayed response and they're just obvious to the eye because there have been, for example, in the marsh. they're happening below ground which are not looking spent i think they're two separate issues that we are to address that we learn from the exxon valdez. let me say we are 18 months into it before and realized the situation along with our science advisers. the first is that it's imperative that as soon as possible there's a monitoring observation and research program that is established. we did that would on 18 months after we began the program. but that research and marketing

program is still in operation in alaska today, and it's a separate account like the one i suggested be set up which is a full monitoring observation research program. the second is the issue that you're referring to, senator, and that is in alaska they're still places in prince william sound, and other places where oil is still found. there are still storms that turn up those hydrocarbons. and i think that will continue to be the case in the gulf of mexico for many years to come. >> my second observation is kind of a newer issue, and i don't know what perception, it relates specifically again to the gulf. cuba has recently announced that it is going to begin to explore off its coasts. and from the science i've been shown, a spill in one of those sites would be even more catastrophic than what happened, based on occurrence and the weight it would take it. i think they would all be like

40 or 50 miles away from the florida keys. so much closer than what even happened with the recent oil spill. are there any recommendations you have about how to deal with a foreign drilling operation like that in terms of things we should be, what we can do? because ultimately there is this spill, said in a cuban operation, its impact will be fully felt by the entire gulf region, actually entire eastern seaboard potentially, but there's a lot we can do about it. has any work ever been done on that? is there good examples of transnational cooperation? and i believe that one of the real quickly. i just want to reaffirm what the commissioner said about florida bass response. we're very proud of our emergency response operations in the state, and i hope moving forward that we have response mechanisms not just for oil spill but in general, that recognize the people on the ground who deal on a daily basis with the geography and

topography of a certain area and know a lot better with all due respect, well-intentioned scientist far away who think they have a good idea. i just want to echo that. >> thank you. i apologize that we miss you. we wanted come testify. we were doing redistricting. you know how long some of that takes. but i think it is important just what you said, the fact we need to be at the table. florida and its individual counties need to be at the table if something happens regarding response. clearly we were 110 miles away in escambia county from deepwater horizon well and it did not prevent us from having impacts. so clearly comes to response, i think there is something in your. i was just with other counties and there's a lot of comments that again, in some places it works well, and that is when they engage the locals. by the comments we heard from some of senator begich is constituents in alaska, there

were people from montana with yellowstone. there are other places on the gulf that didn't have that same experience. if we go ahead and say now that you have to include those local governmental authorities so that they can engage the process and begin response immediately, i think that will be important to continue to help at least coordinate that response. we are all very concerned but what if we don't have a responsible party. >> as far as the other countries, like this particular issue of cuba, i think repsol is one of the countries under companies. we don't know what safety standards they would have. my point is a spill would have just as disastrous if not more as the one already occurred. is there any thoughts, any model we would follow, any president? >> mr. chairman, senator rubio, this committee has led the way with regard to fisheries and taking major standards, or important standards of this country into the international arena, both in terms of action

policy and even legislation, and a recent senate joint resolution. and certainly it's in my view that ultimate is what's going to have to happen, including with senator cantwell's concert over shipping, although it's governed by the imo. but the standards for offshore drilling is first a matter of this country. i won't repeat my suggestions, but those standards are really the beginning of a discussion that ought to go into the international arena. and we've done that with fisheries in many ways, from drift nets the bottom trawling. and certainly the state department and noaa and coast guard have been very involved. >> i've exhausted my time. my only point for further discussion at some point, i don't necktie today, it was the sole focus of this income at some point especially if it's companies that are doing business in this country and

your data with nations that are not followed the same safety standards, i'd like to figure out a way world country where we can figure out comes i hope we can have those conversations in the future. >> thank you very much, senator rubio. that's a really good point, as you are talking i was just thinking that many of the same companies do business in federal waters and state waters and federal lands, and you never know, the lease agreements we have, what opportunity we have. so it's a good question. mr. a was brought up a good point on fisheries. especially out of this committee, an international activity that have great international standards. so it's a good question. it's a good one for later down the road. thank you. let me, mr. robinson, if i could follow up. because i think your response to senator rubio intrigue me because some of what we're doing in alaska, and let me just ask you, last year we had

legislation called the shore act that we're moving through. it created a gulf advisory council. similar to what would have in the prince william sound, what we have where citizens are engage. they are not regulatory but they are advisory in early stages of prevention and other things as well as monitoring a lot of activities. is that an avenue or something that would be a positive step? i don't legislation read last year we had to india. it seemed like it's always, we do these after spills. that's the problem. we always, that's why we are advocating one for the arctic before we developed the arctic -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think it is. i think national association of counties, we took a strong advocacy asking all of you and congress to look, including local governments, and it was well several others around the gulf back here in washington in march, and it was a commissioner

from alaska stepped up and said, everything you said was our exact experience, and clearly we did learn how to engage in local. so the more you can do that, the better. i think certainly that's a starting point, but i think when response happens, when the problem occurs, at some point or another local government has to be brought in, in a better way than we were just sitting on the sidelines. and that was a very difficult process for us to go through, same thing we knew and we tried to advocate, and there certain things as i said, i would know where to begin in either the pacific or the arctic in alaska, but surely i know they're people who are your constituents you do know how to do that. i think some or another they need to be engaged in the process, certainly as i said planning as well as coordinati coordination, negation and implementation. >> thank you. jim, let me ask you a question or two with regards to clean

water penalties and how to utilize them. i know that's going to be one of the big issues we deal with, had we put that money to work. i think you heard senator rubio talk about how to monitor. you've indicated and others have indicated that. can you talk, just give your thoughts, i know that legislation, one of the bosses tried to do in a.d. 20, 80% of the gulf and 20% set aside for other activities which could include arctic scientific work and others, but how would you see if there was in a.d. 20 split with a 20% could end up in regards to the rest of the oceans our waterways within the united states be? certainly. thank you, mr. chairman. >> as we all know, anytime we are discussing the distribution of funds these days, it's fraught with peril. >> that's what i'm giving you the question.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. [laughter] >> i am here to help. >> as i am. sinner, it's certainly my view, and the ocean conservancy strongly supports senator rockefeller's bill and the use of clean water act penalties towards the 80% dedicate towards the gulf and certainly the idea of having a portion of that be used for the long-term market observation and research is, is in my mind a tremendous step forward with regard to a true commitment to restoring gulf of mexico. with regard to the balance of funds, i certainly wouldn't speak for or haven't in a long time except with regard to escort tugs, speak for the oil industry. we see eye to eye i think that escort tug issues in alaska. but with regard to the use of other funds that are going in to

the oil spill liability and trust fund, those funds are, originate as a fee or attacks, if you will. originally each barrel of oil is taxed and that discussion came up in opa 90, and actually the state of alaska has a per barrel fee. those are public resources and their own by the public. and that discussion went on 20 some years ago. and those funds, that fee per barrel is there for oil spill various liabilities. it is to be used as investment to do with oil spill issues. clean water act now royalties are of course a penalty, unlike in my view the oil spill per barrel tax, which i suggested an increase on earlier, to be clear. but those dollars in my view off not to go into the oil spill

liability trust fund, but be used in fact for those areas in large marine ecosystem where the industry intends to go, conduct offshore business. so with regard to your question specifically, my view is that 20% ought to be used in those areas where the industry is excited and proposing to do offshore business. and that money ought to be used to in fact put in place the kind of infrastructures of monitoring observation and research that i am talking about. and if they're headed to the arctic, my view is some funds, it makes no sense to me at all to relieve the oil spill liability trust fund tax because you're paying a penalty but remember, there's a cap on oil spill liability trust fund. so if you put them into account is racier getting some money a back slit outages right the oil company a check. so my view is you want to invest

those funds. if they're headed to the arctic, we all know that we have a tremendous gap in monitoring observation research and tremendous gap in response, according to noaa, and the coast guard who was just year. >> let me ask another quick question. mr. milito, i'll have two quick questions for you. gym, last question. citizenry advisory council for the arctic, has your organization taken a position on that? >> citizens advisory council for the arctic, in my view, i'm sure in my work with the ocean conservancy, other people at work with the committee have found very helpful. they are offered. it's not easy to invoke the public. it's that easy to be transparent. but certainly we support a citizens advisory committee. we think it's very important. certainly we work closely with them come and the out to be at the table and a discussion of

what's happening in that ecosystem. >> very good. mr. milito, you heard me ask a question earlier to noaa, relationship between noaa and boemre regarding decisions or the process that will go forward in regards to oil and gas leasing and ocs. indicate me from the standpoint, even though it's in new process, how has that been working? or is it to knew, what are your thoughts be? i think it's too new to form an opinion on it. i will say that under the outer continental shelf lands act have been opportunities. it is an option for all federal agencies to be engaged in the process whether the five year leasing plan, the lease sale of the permitting process. this formalizes it to some degree, and i think it actually lays out the steps in which noaa can insert itself. but in talking to the boemre staff, even they believe it's too early to comment and provide an opinion on that. >> can you tell me, you know,

and i will be very alaska center care for second in regards to the arctic and arctic development. can you give me from the issue standpoint, how you've heard a lot of the issues that are out there both from a independent individuals as well as organizations, the concern they have as we move forward and what kind of development may occur there, give me your two bits on kind of how you see the industry respond, which is different than a lot of what the gulf, different if imus, different tips, different pressure, a variety of other differences. let alone the climate. can you give me some thoughts on that? >> we are seeing a very tailored planning process for activities in the arctic. at this point we're really just looking at the show model. show is going out of its way to not only meet the regulation but to go beyond the regular should it turns having vessels and the personnel on site in the event that there would be any type of

a blowout type incident. and as well as having the actual prevention measures in place for the arctic environment. so the exploration plan and the permits associate with it, spill response plans are very tailored, very robust for those purposes. i think we've seen a lot of holdups in the process, whether through permitting at the normal level or through the epa, but it looks like we're getting past all that and all those questions are being resolved. so it's going to be a matter of looking forward to very selective drilling that will occur. we are not talking about punching holes, multiple holes in the arctic and partner. we're talking about very isolated number of wells are being planned in being allowed to move this forward, to just explore to see what is there. we are hopeful this will move forward, given the tremendous investment that that brings. and also the opportunity to maybe help shore up tabs is an

ongoing resource for the country and for alaska. so there's tremendous benefit to it. and we think that we have a strong system in place, taste upon the tailored way that this activity is being addressed. >> just for those that are listening, taps his trans-atlantic pipeline, which volume is decreasing rapidly every day. last question for the panel, and again, mr. milito, if i could ask you to follow up on senator rubio's concern, and i think senator nelson's concern about cuba, how the proximity, the lack of jurisdiction we have, and more than likely the ability for us to have a government relationship with cuba, for many reasons, that we're still in for 40 plus years. that put that aside. -- but put that aside. do you think industry folks recognize that as an issue, and

i do know the details of it as much as the senators from florida, but recognizing, let's assume for a moment for this discussion it is a significant issue of concern that if there's a still there, do you think the industry would be proactive in trying to figure out what kind of relationship, for example, i would use one example, for example, that there is a country to offshore developing in cuba that they would allow u.s. inspectors to review those platforms and facilities for standards? on throw that out. i'm not asking us or for definitive answer, but to be proactive rather than waiting for something to happen that can be very frank with you, from so from an oil and gas take him if something goes wrong in cuba and it comes to florida, it's going to have a ripple effect of industry throughout the country. in a negative way. so do you think there's a proactive opportunity here, rather than waiting for something that could happen in

the wrong direction? the industry looks at operations internationally, and we have seen all the standards that are being created here, shared with those in europe and around the world and vice versa. and even through the department of entry we have seen ministry of forms put together, we have brought industry folks to participate where all the regulars from around the world get together to discuss this. and the problem is very obviously that cuba is not at the table. we have seen interior reach out to mexico and have dialogue with them. and industry fully supports trying to get consistency, because it doesn't make sense to go from one region to another and operate at different standards in place. so i think there could be an opportunity there. i can't give you a definitive answer, but it would make sense, given that this companies operating in cuba, many of which operate in the gulf of mexico, so there might be a good opportunity to try to make sure we have consistency, and perhaps

ways to make sure that capabilities that u.s. has in the gulf can be deployed to assist in those types of responses. >> would you mind discussing with your association may be a formal response to that question quick you can address it to the committee and we will all share it with the senators from florida. but the thought would be what are the proactive role there that we should be taking from our income but also from the industries and, prior to this kind of developments occurring that we will, cuba will not come to the table. >> right. >> that's a guarantee at this point. so what do we do to ensure that we have the best standards, even though maybe cuba doesn't have those standards, but how do we ensure businesses have the best answer it doesn't in fact, we are prepared for it. would that be acceptable for kind of a formal response? >> we will go back and run that through. >> great. thank you very much. let me thank the panel in total. again, thank you very much.

and again, there's additional questions that members of our resubmitted that you see and hope you can respond to those. let me just check with staff to make sure i don't have to do anything official here. the record will be kept open for the next weeks for questions. thank you all for participating. at this time, the committee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> six, eight, nine -- >> nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, zero. >> these are the stakes. to make a world in which all of

god's children can live, or to go into the dark. we must either love each other or we must die. >> vote for president johnson on november 3. >> this weekend we look at the history of political campaign ads with lsu professor robert mann. former homicide detective james lavelle on the day jack ruby killed a man under his protection, lee harvey oswald. american history tv on c-span3. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history.

>> the president of the african development bank and associate minister of the u.n. develop a program recently joined a forum on economic and political development on the african continent. the event was hosted by the society for international development in washington, d.c..

we are going to show it to you now. it's about an hour and 15 minutes. >> voices from the leadership and development, and, of course, we do have a very distinguished panel before you. but first let me introduce myself. my name is mr. chairman. i and the immediate former secretary-general of the committee, but i also served, my country as ambassador to france and i think you read the rest of my bio in the conference booklet which you have. but let me introduce you to the panel before i say one or two words. we do have before you, first of all rebeca grynspan. rebeca is native of costa rica.

she has been vice president of our country. she now works with the united nations in the undp word she is the deputy administrator. rebeca took her degree in economics from costa rica but she also has science. she is an alma mater of the university of the united kingdom. my friend, donald kaberuka, he is -- in a way in which i'm proud. but he grew up in terms of the

accidents of history in africa. his parents were in exile. sort of went through most of his education in kansas near. but after that -- tanzania. but after that shinseki was able to go back to his native country. where he served in the central bank as deputy governor. and later became the minister of finance, and overseen very remarkable transformation, all that country, to the stage where today in africa we pride ourselves of being one of the most robust economic models in africa. and, of course, donald was very

much the architect of our economic transformation. he is now or since 2005 the president of the african development bank. he started at the university which is my, modern. took his degree in economics from there. and later went to glasgow in scotland where he obtained his doctorate in economics. so you can understand that we do have a form of -- form of the panel before you, and that we will have a very lively conversation. so let me begin by asking both of them a very general question. over the last 40 years, rebeca and donald, we have seen within the global society a number of

commissions, looking at north-south relations, looking at how we can build a more just and more humane global society. what richard and his colleagues in the '70s and '80s described development, described it, with a human face. so we went through the transformation. we went to the commission your entrance of the environment, the climate justice. we went through the south commission which was chaired by the founding father of tanzania. and, of course, we can also speak a lot about our dear friend, a very strong member who started the human development group also.

of all these commissions and all these reports it's really been ethos about the rich and the poor and how to alleviate poverty and make international cooperation realize the objectives of realizing a social justice. but 20 years down the line, dr. greenspan, what is the balance sheet? what you think is the balance sheet? this whole idea delivered or do you think that it is still a work in progress? >> well, i really think that a lot has been achieved since what we're seeing right now with the emerging south, the global south, the emerging african continent that we were talking about, the improvement and progress made on the development

goals, even in sub-saharan africa we are seeing, despite many of the challenges, progress. so i think that a lot of progress has been done and has been achieved. but i wouldn't say that the main thing is happening right now, because i think that we are shifting in what we are seeing in the world. the main thing that has happened is that many of the ideas that were competing in development, because there has always been competing ideas, and that's only one part of that. but what is happening now that is different from the past is that those competing ideas have more power to be put on the table as options. and getting away from one size fits all type of policies. and the reason for that, in my

opinion come is because you are seeing the emergence of new path to development. that are coming the south. so part of what is happening now is that there are more options on the table for the developing world that are being powerfully put forward, because of the success of many of the countries of the south. so the main options that are open, are opening up to the developing world are much more than they were in the past, where there was pretty much a very strong one paradigm type of you. so in terms of those of us who have been in the development field for a long time, this is very good news. because it's precisely the discussion and the diversity of

the policy options in front of congress that rely really, the richness of the possibilities for the future. and i think the emergence of the global south is making that much more fortunate today than it was in the past. >> thank you. thank you rebeca. the global south, if you read the challenges of the south, which is -- you do get that sense of competing ideas. ideas that are founded on northern perspective about how to address into development in the world, and particularly in the global south, but also ideas from the south itself, you know, about what really can drive economic growth and development. mr. kaberuka, what perspective can you offer?

>> juma, thank you very much. thank you for inviting me to this audience. the balance sheet -- [inaudible] we have come a long way. the world today is a different world. maybe africa is converging much more slowly than the rest of the world, but latin america, asia, the asian runoff, africa. today is a different world. [inaudible] however, this is the liability factor. if you look what is happening, in the horn of africa, you could

say that is what went wrong. because it cannot be at a time when the world is making so much progress,. [inaudible] many of the goals, you can blame mother nature for the drought but you cannot blame mother nature for the fund. policies, failures, issues. so for me that is why our children are dying. i think it is an indictment on all of us. go to the arab world. in tunisia where i live there were investments, international organizations, including ourselves while replacing the regime for the very good of the

country. i think for me, two things emerged. one of them is a thing called bargain that somewhere you can deliver and development, and then democracy for another day. forget it. [applause] >> then you can have freedom. i think -- [inaudible] and, therefore, we have kind of a long way in terms of growth, in terms of the economic, but we have a challenge. it reaches everyone. but also it expands freedom for people. however, it is about -- for me,

this is where i think it is biggest item on the liability. >> thank you. thank you very much indeed. if we put now, locate this whole debate about the competing ideas on development, and, of course, -- i think grynspan has brought a copy on the table there. new ideas on development after the financial crisis. do you really think that the management and leadership of global economic affairs has undergone radical transformation as to bring out this competing idea? i know whenever i travel to

europe over the last two years, attaining various discourses of this nature. there is this feeling in europe, and i think the united states as well, that there is a new model of development that has emerged. that the chinese, for example, in terms of their participations in development in africa have taken a different kind of a model from the rest of the wor world. and you hear rather negative sentiment, you know, about this chinese model of supporting african development. would you say that this would constitute one area of competition in terms of what really works best for poor countries?

>> an interesting question. i really think that the whole space is changing dramatically. first of all, because many of our institutions were built on the north-south. you receive money from the north, to channel into the south, and at the same time you channel money you channel disillusions from the north to the south. and i think that what we are learning today is that we don't have anymore, these very strong initials between other countries. donor countries and recipient countries. they have developing, developing challenges, at the same time that have an important flows of investment going to the other

developing parts of the world. china is an example but it's not only china. it's brazil and india and turkey, and it's, well, korea that is join now that community. so, we are living in a cooperation space that now have a much more actors in terms of shaping the way in which this partnership is happening. and i think that this is a very good thing. in my experience now, when we go to the contrary, many of them one to ask a we're doing, what we're doing more and more, is to bring the solutions of the south to these realities of the south. you know, to the problems of the south. so the south, this trilateral corporation will be more and more the new fashion which

cooperation will happen in the world. but the second part in terms of one model is that i am a true believer that you have to go to countries and work with countries in what is best for them, that the issue of ownership and countries being in the driver's seat of development is not only a rhetorical, you know, a good political thing to say, but is really key for development to be successful. if we don't do that, if we don't strengthen that part of the equation, so we want to get the results that we're looking for. so when people talk about one model or a new emerging model in cooperation, i really to think so. i think as i said at the beginning, that what we have to

strengthen is all the models that will work, and go to the country to see, allow them to drive the transformation that they need. and all the sectors that we're seeing in the world our stories of countries take into own hands their development challenges. there are stories about leadership, about national building, about social cohesion. those are the stories of success that we are seeing. so these idea that is only one model, the one that emerges. that's like an excuse to get around some of the things that we need to establish as principles and the development cooperation. lower the bar and some of the things. >> thank you, rebeca. we're very lucky this morning

that we do have any audience the president from ghana as well as deputy prime minister from kenya who also i hope will be able to share with us this particular experience in terms of the chinese model of development and how they are working with african government. but let me turn to donald kaberuka. from the perspective, do you really think that there is a competing model of development, particularly in the context of the chinese, the turkish as well as were still is now engagement in africa. as the development, particularly in develop? >> first of all, let me say that there was a time when --

[inaudible] we all know that policies when we see them. as you see happening inflation and countries, if you see growth which is not inclusive, you know these are bad policies. whatever. what i think is important, we don't know -- that is important. we have a range of countries who have come from different paths. [inaudible] there is vietnam, brazil, korea. different models. now, there were mistakes. [inaudible] the answer is here we have the

continent of 1 million people. recognize resources and would like to unlock the potential for the rest of the world and for the africans themselves. how best do we do so? now, you could begin by a set of policies which are standard. number two, then you have to do instead of sequencing and timing of things you have to do, which must be different from country to country. chinese model is not found in vietnam or in north korea. in the '90s, in the year of the so-called -- when they said africa was the last decade, the lost decade,. [inaudible] in those days, if you get

international aid you must invest in social sector. so for second have, in energy, it must transfer. so today it is moving to the markets. whether that is connectivity, whether infrastructure. because of big business the highest in the world. almost 40%. so change is coming. it makes a difference. [inaudible] this is not africans adopting chinese model. it is think we have a problem. i don't think that our africans in this room who are prepared. but it is a problem. and at the moment that happens to be mainly infrastructure and the whole issue of integrating our economy.

[inaudible] so for us, infrastructure is business and our economy. the chinese, the indians, the americans, soviets. >> thank you. let me now turn to this broader panel here. you on the floor. would anybody wish to intervene at this stage with a question? or if you, what we have so far discussed. and i welcome some involvement from the floor. president, he would like to say something?

>> do we have microphones? yes, please. >> you put me on the spot. [laughter] >> but what dr. grynspan said, the question broadly, i don't like the idea of tying development down to the economy. i believe all the efforts should be made to improve the quality of life for the individual citizen. and while the economic development, i tell you if

economic development is not based on good governance, governance where the individual has to say on who should govern and when such a person should step down if the governance is not delivering. then i say it's not grounded development. in china, economies ideology -- [inaudible] it comes to you like a contractor. if you wanted to infrastructure, i'm ready to do that. okay, i want some of your oil. this is what has happened with china. i don't know if you'd call that development model. so, i believe we are talking of development into the future, which takes a broad look at

comprehensive look at all the systems of development. .. [applause] >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> i have a question. >> yes? >> i'm from tanzania. there's such a nervousness about chinese or asian engagement with africa, and i'd like to get your per specttive as -- perspective as to why you think

that nervousness is from i'm detecting from washington, london, and paris, why do you panelists think the west is nervous with africa's engagement with the east? >> thank you. nervousness about chinese engagement in africa, i hope that the panelists will be able to respond to that, but can i -- is the slideshow ready? do you want to share with us from your perspective from the inner perspective? ready? there is a question? >> yes. >> yes, please. yes, please. >> thank you. bob bird. there may be different models,

but it is useful to have goals and goals have indeed spurred a number of actions. the development community really now wonders how you see the process of gold after 2015? what would you like to see as goals for the communities of the world and how can the process be one which after all, the last ones occurred because of u.n. conferences and in their wisdom we vice haven't had so many, but what is the process of involving peoples in the discussions of leading to the goals? what is the process you want to see how we get to agreement on this? >> can i take one more

question? would you like to step in and share with us your insights from the kennian -- kenyan angle? >> thank you. i don't know why you think i'm a politician. [laughter] but i'll try to give it a shot. now, i think one of the issues that we need to perhaps look at is that if china's renewed engagement with africa or the south for that matter is useful, i think it is because it is now bringing a new reawakening from the west because for quite awhile, the west has been disengaging from investment, but speaking from a kenyan per

perspective, i've started seeing a reentry of many, many big investors who want to look at kenya fresh. i think there's definite possivity here, and a few weeks ago, we had an opportunity to host the yemen chancellor in nairobi, and the audience did ask that with this new relationship that is beginning to emerge where china is coming in so closely, do you think it's going to harm your relationship with the west? the response from kenya was very interesting. he said, i think we should move away from the fear of trying to choose friends for africa.

let africa have an opportunity decide who can be their friends. otherwise we do nothing to what used to be there in the past, but the issue is can the friendship be meaningful or not? i am touching up the issue of what someone talked about on issues and goals here that if the relationship and the friendship is going to have a meaningful impact inspiring useful development as described, then i think we need to look at it, and we are globalizing, so i think this friendship on this latitude must really be functioning. thank you. >> thank you, prime minister. [applause] let me return then to rebecca. i think three of the member issues have a reason. one is about the government

issue that refuel -- really that is what defines good governance in general and the development model maybe sometimes we do not look so much at the development -- i mean, at the government's per perspective, and one of the major criticisms about chinese investment in africa is precisely that the reason of the sensitivity about do they really care about the state of government in a particular country where they are involved? of course, this is a very large question which i think you might want to respond, but one from tans tanzania also raised this

whole issue about nervousness and why should there be nervousness about chinese aid, and another question which i was going to raise later which also revolves around the economic model for development, and, of course, mpg's seen in that particular context that unless you are able to break these particular development challenges, you might not be able to have the kind of economic growth that you need to sustain the economy of the country, so can i -- can you respond to some of these perspectives that have come from the floor? >> sure. >> i don't believe there's nervousness about china. i don't know because the whole world is investing its own.

china is the biggest of the u.s. traders so i think europe or the u.s. or africa, the whole world is big business with china. that is not a sign of nervousness, but a relationship to manage. i look at it in the following. in 1980, eight of us people where europe is 80%. today, people wonder how they live. india in the 1980s was the biggest user of foreign aid. vietnam, now it's down on the economy with only 10% of its depot and product line. it's interesting what is happening. that's the first thing. number two, to link the two

questions -- i think really the best in terms of advocacy, what you do to advocate for the best, but i think there was a critical mistake we made that we must now accept. i think we predicated too much goals on foreign aid that within the years there's double aide, consecutiveness, and the rest of it. we know by 2015, some countries will, and others won't. we know there's progress to make and it's about economy growth that is inclusive. that requires what? investment. investments are coming to africa they tell me, and they are coming in large numbers, in large numbers.

they need infrastructure. they know that. in fact, some of them want to work with us on energy. they see opportunity, but they are looking for stability. they are looking for rule of law. they are looking for institutions that work for everybody. they are looking for a private sector that not banks on privileges, but competition. that government enables both africans and non-africans to invest and put capital on the table. the role of governor is sound institutions, investment, and, of course, getting to the -- [inaudible] it's not an objective itself. it's important to expand horizons as you grow, but for me i think sound institutions, sound governor, and the need to

increase investments on other continents, be competent for investors and africans. that's how i connect the link. >> i think there's something important there. that is, we need to bring back to the discussion of the development the economic perspective. in a way, you know, the mpg's that were so important, i think they were the best we could do in 2000, and that's why so much has been achieved in many of them and all countries want to achieve all of that, but a lot of progress has been made, but one of the things that we're lacking is this economic perspective. the discussions about the development from economics, and i think that we need to get back on track. it has happened with the human development paradigm that at the

beginning there's an important discussion about the economic option that makes human development possible and sustainable, and we have to discuss much more what i will call like the premarket condition, and we are excited, marginalized the discussion and what happens in the market for economic growth to be conclusive and sustainable. i think that is very important, but a word of caution that is that unseen again, these tendencies to talk about growth with no objective. you know, growth, again, being this solution to all social problems and all government's problems. we know that that's not the case. we know we can have growth with exclusions. we know that we can have growth with economic and political exclusions. we know that, so i think that it's very important when we

think about the agenda for the post-2015 period that we will talk about inclusive and sustainable growth in a meaningful way, not all growth will bring about the stainability of the agenda that we invested so much on. that's my first one. let's be careful because i see a reconstruction of the course again trying to put just growth at the center with no other considerations, and growth will be, again, what ever growth will be, you know, for poor and the pro-mpg's, and we know that's not the case. you need to make it to intervene and make the right policy choices for growth to be inclusive and bring the boys and groups to the table. that's my first point. that has a relation in the post

agenda with two things that in the international assessment that we made about mpg's and what we're bottling that i want to bring to the table. one of them is for many countries for growth to be inclusive, development in agricultural agenda has to be brought back very forcefully in terms of policy. the agriculture sector and the small holders portion of it has been left out of the investment and the care of the policies and a lot in terms also of investments and the international community so to bring back the issue of development and agriculture, i think that's key, and so when we talk about investment that i totally agree with donald, i think it's important to talk about investments that are also

inclusive because we can make big roads and high bridges and big dams, and we cannot -- and it may happen, but again, we don't bring the water and the roads that will make development possible and will bring those groups into the mainstream of development. my second point is, yes, these again in growth, investment, and everything, but for growth to be intrusive, and to make this point many times it's only like at the end, economic empowerment of women is key. economic empowerment of women is key. that hasn't happened alone. it needs a set of policies and rules and laws that will unleash the potential of women to a very important partner of development. my last point is the energy agenda. we have more than 1.4 billion

people that are energy poor, so in thinking about the post-2015 agenda, the linkage between poverty, energy, and environment has to be a very important one. you know, if we don't give access, energy access, to the poor in the world that are lacking the meaning of -- that is required to make it happen, you know, productivity talks, ect., but we can do that in an unsustainable way or sustainable way, and the solving the energy question in terms of make and energy accessible but also the solution being sustainable in terms of climate change and the environment will be a center piece, i think, of the discussions for the post-2015

era. >> thank you, thank you, rebeca. [applause] i was going to come back to you, rebeca, to have you share with us the latin-american experience. i hope we have time to do that because i think some of the fundamental points you raised about growth without inclusion and marginalization and the equalities into the ecological balance in latin america seems to -- to reflect poorly on the kind of transformation and the miracle that is happening in latin america, but we'll come back to that point.

now, donald, you have been one of the leading painting of a very rosy picture about an african engagement. i know there's. brought out a number of -- i know there's been a number of writings in the past year reflecting on the roaring african lion, and i know you participated in some of that literature, but i know you're a leading advocate of the view, and this is to quote president obama, that this is africa's moment, that africa is ready to scale up development, and you see some very key underlying factors that support the resurgence of africa. can you share with us your per

perspectives on why you have this very on optimistic picture about the resurgence of africa? >> forgive me for what i'm about to say. [laughter] you have heard this before. in 1981, i visited ghana and i found complete economic break down because the military won power and there was mismanagement, and then it began on a long trail of economic faults, and then to begin political reforms, and now ghana is becoming an independent country. they have become an income country which should have been a long time ago. one condition is the ability to

continue to rule in that country, the institutions have to be stable. they deserve the issues of infrastructure which they are trying to do, but there's a newfound oil well. for me, these are the critical issues on the agenda. from around 2000, africa's getting new momentum, which in my judgment cannot be stopped, because it's underlined by the democracy and urbanization and other things and young population. there's a large discussion of incomes. now, those are facts on the ground, but the risks that are mentioned, the risks are real. that's in the political arena, managing natural resources, and, of course, resolving the issues

of infrastructure, but until my friends have said, things are happening enough, for those of you who don't deal with africa on day-to-day business, but i go to the bank, and i see investors all over the world coming to africa. i'm talking about billions of money every year, investors, and so i'm encouraged in other ways. today, if you're looking at the greek bond which have been junk bonds or modern european countries and compare to africa assets, i see now the african risks that is now at the right level. i think we're on the right path. we have many problems to resolve, economic growth is one of them, managing natural resources, disease, and ensuring

that we govern on the issues that was mentioned about the environment and the rest of it, but i'm confident about where we are going. >> thank you. can i -- can i again bring aiden, the rest of the participants to share their insights? anybody with a burning question? yes, please. >> i have two questions, or actually three on different top picks. one is covering the chinese and africa, and you also mentioned the famine in the horn of africa, and i understand good for african countries to have more of an option in who they view as foreign friends, but at

the same time, you also see that large pieces of lands are being leased out for chinese who grow their own products or to grow plants for biofuel, and as you say the father and famine in the horn of africa was human made, doesn't that have to do with promoting economic growth and the way africa deals with china and making large projects that support economic growth. there's also dutch investors doing business in africa, but don't necessarily good for the small scale farmers or the herdsmen who are being pushed aside. that's my first question on -- i don't think it's a nervousness from the west, and i also have concern for ordinary people, and my second question to you would

be to what extent do african countries take into account demographic changes and the facts that there are so many young people in africa, and do you think that that is an opportunity, or do you think that's a risk for the development of africa, and my third question would be to ms. grynspan because she said they leave out the economic theory, which is true, but at the same time the entities came in because their response to the structural process, and if i read the literature, i still feel that poverty reduction strategy papers and the world bank are still empathizing structural adjustment and not emphasizing mpgs. there's lip service to poor and lip service to social sectors. we can separate that from economic growth and the private

sector doesn't need healthy people that are educated to work for them, so -- >> thanks. i think that's enough. [laughter] >> i'm allowed to ask a full question, but it fits in well with the youth. to me, tee -- it's youth, unemployment, and resentments in growing inequality, and i'd love to hear from both panelists, do they think that's a problem, is it one which now needs to be tackled? what can be done? if it's not done, are the growing number of billionaires and big money interests going to prevent the democracy to tackle those issues? thank you. >> one -- yes, please.

>> thank you very much. i'm hohamed hussen. i'm working with the academy of science, and i was also a former executive director, the academy of sciences academic world, and i just want to bring in the voice of the scientific and ecological community and development which has so far been quite ab sent from the discussion, and we all know and understand without proper investment in science, technology, and education there would be no sustainable growth, and i think this is one of the key problems facing the poor countries, especially in africa. proper investment in education, science, and technology, and i

was, by the way, for instance, in lisbon, the annual meeting of the african development, and i was very delighted for the first time we are having this issue dealing with high education, science, technology investment in africa. my question is can you highlight some of the key issues raised in this strategy and how the african development bank is deeply implemented? thank you. >> thank you very much indeed. that's a very interesting question. please. >> yes. >> you're very strategic. [laughter] >> thank you very much. i'm chris brown from canada with the sid governing counsel, and my question is directed in the context of the role of leadership and development in africa. clearly throughout africa's history and even into the present day it's shining example

of good leadership and the impact that's had. number of examples -- nelson mandela. i had the privilege of visiting rwanda last december, and i was quite impressed as what i saw as genuine progress in light of the tragic past. what i'd like to know in your perspective of what we discussed so far, the extent to which leadership is important and what is your sort of prognosis for the future and the role that leadership will continue to play in development. thank you. >> yes, maybe we'll start with dr. grynspan because when you talk about a role of leadership, brazil, for example, has seen that kind of remarkable leadership with lula over the last two years. there's the africa formation,

but you could give us very quickly perspective on the economic transformation that's taken place in latin america, and yet, you know, you do have these clashes, erosions into the success in terms of the emerging inequalities, in terms of the environmental concerns that go with this kind of development, and, of course, then you can also respond to the questions of education because talking to my friend who was kenyan teaching at harvard kennedy school of government, his doctorate thesis was from brazil raising

fundamental issues on the role of science and technology in bringing about social and economic transformation in the developing world, really underscoring the importance ever education, and you can respond to that question. ..

>> the economic reality to come in more because if not you have this two different agendas. one for economic growth and one for them and we need to bring one another but not forget the mpgs or the economic policies of the countries. that was my point. i totally agree with her. now, in latin america, let me say first the main factor that we forget in latin america is the democracy came in latin america big time, you know, you have a very strong, strong

democratic continent in the framework of democracy many of the policies for more equality and distributions came about. because within democracy the voice really of the people were heard much more for education and health improvements and for policy interventions that may see the economy grow in a more equitable work. when you look at all the studies that have been done in latin america not only about economic growth but the declining of inequality the conclusion is that inequality was falling not only because it was a natural thing that we have anyway but of the states with the right public policy for that to happen. so my first point is democracy is a big part of the success of latin america. it's not a small part of latin

america. the expansion of education is the second major factor. with the growth as i say were introduced and they were of two types. on the one hand, the resources of the poor to the rural sectors by a conditional cash transfer were very well designed, were designed in a way that was for the first time in latin america a way from realistic type of capture about the interests, the

different interests. 100 million people in latin america are today under some kind of cash transfers or conditional cash transfers scheme. but the second interaction in the literature was the intervention in the labor market. and the regulation for minimum wagers and for increased real wages in the labor market. and that part has been cited by the literature and it has been a very important part of the success. just two points left in terms of the challenges that coincide that some of you have said in the question. one is that the youth challenge in latin america is also huge. let me give you only one number.

1 of every 4 young people in the regi region, if that's not exclusion i don't know what exclusion is. you have 25% of the young between 15 and 24 years old that are out of the labor market and out of the educational system. and it's a huge problem for the region and one that will need much more effort to be solved. and the second one, we have to avoid the middle income track, and avoiding the middle income track is the issue about science and technology. is to come to an agenda of knowledge, science and technology. and latin america is really

behind asia in the investment in science and technology. and something that goes with it that is to go beyond the expansion of education, of basic education and to go to the next step that is the expansion of tertiary education for the science and technology agenda to be coupled. >> thank you, rebeca. there have been a question about the food insecurity and now we manage, you know, climate change particularly in the context of what you mentioned about the drought in the horn of africa coming all the way down to northern kenya but also there's been the question about the demographic transition. i know that in your current economic outlook report, you do make a great deal of reference

to the impact that it might have social stability in africa. and, of course, that is also related to the whole question of education. give us your perspective on some of these issues. >> thank you, sir. let me begin with the question of leadership. >> leadership and development. it is said would you prefer a ship leading lions or lions leading ships? i'm not that is the context. leadership is important. it's even decisive. but a critical factor is institutions. leadership is something you do within a human dishonor and it can go to very good to very bad. or the other way around.

leaders who are very good for their companies and obtain power or someone that isn't and it goes very, very badly because the institutions were weak. and for me i think it's critically important to have leadership but even more important to our strong institutions which are our function. i think for me it's where it is and you can have lion but to me leadership is important. on economic resources. i agree, it is important the africans decide how to manage the natural resources because the natural resources are depletable. they are exhaustible. whether you are trading with the americas or europe these are resources which have become -- would be exhausted at some point. so we must use our resources to build an industrial base, to be

a productive base which would be in the long term. i think we avoid the mistake of the '60s and '70s of being the exporters of these raw products. that implies who the buyer is. i believe many companies in my continent you have oil exporting companies below the poverty line. that is completely unacceptable. it is important the economy feeds into a productive capacity for the country does not damage agriculture. that is i think the orthodox. now, on the famine and full security. i do want to be clear on this. they said it a minute ago writing about bangladesh and india on the famine. he said the problem was not your food or such it's entitlement. in other words, a group of people because others have died

or some other issues to food development. the failure of policy in the horn of africa is about 8. managing the somali crisis, it's the longest crisis on the african continent. that is a failure. and the failure of african leaders ourselves. and this the beginning point. how do we resolve the issue of somalia. number 2, how to have a long-term planning for the delicate system which is not harmed and that is not rocket science and we are prepared now to work with the head while trying to work with other national institutions to look at the whole long term planning for that area but it supported it.

land grabs coming to companies for their own and investing in africa for democracy including the domestic market. i think investing in the business is must be welcomed. in terms of flowers, coffee, tea and the rest of it so why not write? but actually coming to the african land to export food out of africa that is traumatic. you are not losing land. you are losing water which the future could be an issue. and so there's some in october organized by african union, ourselves, and the economic commission for africa to look at the best practices for this kind of relationships. and those best practices exists. and i hope we can find a way in

which we can encourage investment in family at the same time the famine in interest that take it into account. >> what about the youth -- [applause] >> i want to say my brother the thing about inequality. it's more than that. tunisia was a failure, i think the perfect failure of this model of what i call authoritarian model. that is to say will give you education such as even help along they keep quiet on the democratic side. now, that is okay for some time but the youth educated and denied internet could not go on for long. you see in tunisia they free the internet tore educated people so

how can you den them access for knowledge. it follows inequalities, inclusion and i think now in arab spring in tunisia there's all these other issues and we're encouraging them they are part of the package for the post-evolution recovery in tunisia. >> thank you very much indeed. i'm not really going to sum up. we're left with 2.5 minutes. what i'm going to do is ask for your last word. so give us your last word in terms of what you think the s.i.d. should really learn in terms of the current development thinking? and i know there are competing ideas and competing models.

and s.i.d.s now are in search of a clearer part in terms of its ethos. what woulding your advice in terms of international development in terms of its thinking? >> well, i would say that it has been an enormous force of idea in evidence-based research that has to continue to derive discussion and development. it's about the uncertainty, about opening up the options. and i think that the role that the societies can play in that field is enormous and we should avoid to go back to the course of things that have the answer for everything, you know, and that there is only one way of doing things.

and to play our role on that arena as you have played always since you exist. it's my major aspirations. but can i say only one thing for today because this is something that was brought up in the beginning. but let me say in discussion development. let's not forget somalia and the horn of africa needs today. if we continue about -- to talk about development but we failed in saving the children and mothers that are suffering today in somalia, it will be a huge failure for the whole development community. and my last thought is let's never forget that the short and the long term start at the same time. so at the same time that we help somalia to get overexcited in

how to avoid the crisis in future. [applause] >> there is an immediate humanitarian need and i think rebeca you are appealing for support to this congregation so i think we should show our support to the humanitarian cause in somalia and the rest of the horn of africa. so those who are able to contribute something, please, i hope that the s.i.d. secretariat can do this. this is an appeal that is coming from rebeca and i totally endorse it. last word from you and particularly last word from you. how do you really see the s.i.d. moving forward, playing a frontal roll in this dynamic -- this development-thinking dynamic that we're experiencing today? >> thank you very much, juma. >> i think the nature of the

horn is not simply getting the food to the somali children. that is important. we now have to save lives in the horn. but, you know, this crisis has not come as a tsunami. it has not come as a surprise. we have known about this crisis for the last six months. this is not the first time it has happened in the horn and i don't think it is the last time it will happen. i think the best contribution we could make let us work together for this stability ensuring that the horn of africa does not see this tragedy in the coming years. and that begins by political action by african people themselves on somalia. this is the longest crisis on the african continent and i think that is that issue. number 2, i think i see my friend and i leave him to develop that later.

someone said in the last few years in tunisia we have found the collapse of the oil and the collapse of the lehman brothers. and in between the world is quite different. and so the society of international development has had an agenda over this period of time which is absolutely fantastic. i think you have done a good job in terms of advocacy for what the world can do for africa. that was a problem. it was, what can we do for africa? it is unlikely that the ritual suffering physical retrenchment unemployment can generate sources for the kind of investments we have to make. but gives the horn architecture for abilities. and i think the new agenda they need it could be, how do we get

africa to convey on its own potential, take advantage of all these possibilities now which are opened to the world which are domestic, which are originally and international. i think in general the africans work with you instead of the international community doing something for africa. they find it's an agenda for my continent. it sets an ability and it largely depends on what we do in africa. stable institutions, institutions creating confidence for investors, african investors and foreign investors and the economy is in that agenda. >> thank you very much indeed. [applause] >> i know you clapped but can we now formally give a huge clap to

our two panelists. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you so much indeed. thank you so much. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> president obama turns 50 tomorrow. he's going to chicago for his birthday and tonight holds a fundraiser there. chicago natives jennifer hudson and her by hancock are scheduled to perform. proceeds goes to his re-election campaign. it begins tonight on 8:15 eastern on c-span.

>> that figure that was the moving veil of ignorance from human understanding, that's an american invention. that's not a classical statue but it's sort of classical for what it really is all about. >> if you missed c-span's latest documentary the library of congress, there's a preview right now on c-span's youtube channel. become a subscriber. it's free. be notified of all the latest videos we're posting and watch the entire library of congress documentary and hundreds of other timely videos online at youtube.com/c-span. >> now, the senate environment and public works committee looks at recommendations for improving u.s. nuclear safety in the wake of the japanese nuclear disaster earlier this year. those recommendations were released in july by nuclear regulatory commission special task force. most of the five-commission

members testified at this hearing. california democrat barbara boxer chairs this 2 hour and 15-minute hearing. >> good morning, everyone. senator carper is the chair of the subcommittee. i am delighted that he's here. and also, of course, we have a good turnout considering at noon we have a crucial vote. so we're going to move forward. today is the fourth time the members of this committee have gathered in this room to discuss nuclear safety since the disaster in japan. since our first briefing in march 16th i've asked the nrc to heed the wakeup call and reevaluate our current safety and security measures that are at our nuclear power plants, especially, i wanted them to

look at a pair of plants that are located in areas that face the possibility of natural disasters such as earthquakes and flooding. california's two nuclear power plants at diablo are located in size mick active areas and i want to repeat any task force recommendations be it implemented as soon as possible since millions of people live close to those plants. millions and millions of people. the nrc has begun to act. first, nrc ordered inspections on the 104 operating nuclear reactors and issued reports on their readiness to address power losses and damage following extreme events. more recently nrc issued the results of its near term 90-day task force review. i understand that the six-person task force that conducted the review was made up of senior nrc staff with more than 135 years of combined expertise. but they did not rely on their experience alone. the task force also had full

access to all nrc staff and to all experts as they prepared their report. the task force found and i quote, continued operation and continued licensing activities do not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety. that means that the task force found that no plants needed to be immediately shut down but problems were identified. the task forces highlighted some issues that should be addressed right now. as we speak, while further study and analysis is needed before other recommendations can be implemented. last month i sent a letter to chairman yascow which i urged the commission to act properly of the near-term task force recommendation. their near-term recommendations they need to be implemented now in the near term. i support the chairman's roadmap for action within 90 days and i encourage and i will ask the commission to move forward expeditiously. it took 90 days for the task

force to make their recommendations. it should not take longer than 90 days for the nrc to accept or reject them and move toward implementation. any stalling will not be viewed favorably by the american people. i can assure you their confidence in nuclear power is waning. the task force concluded that the nrc and i quote -- the nrc's safety and approach is incomplete without a strong program with dealing with the unexpected including severe accidents. i'm still quoting them. continued reliance on industry initiatives for a fundamental level of defense and depth similarly would leave gaps in the nrc regulatory approach, unquote. these findings are important. although the task force stated that an accident like what happened in japan is unlikely in the u.s., they did conclude changes should be made to our regulatory system to improve safety. they further concluded we cannot

count on voluntary industry initiatives to provide the necessary level of safety. the japanese were not prepared for the disaster that hit them on march 11th. that's the lesson learned from fukushima. we can't afford to make the same mistake. we should make improvements that will enhance safety and preparedness for unforeseen disasters. to that end, the nrc's 90-day review includes important recommendations. they should move quickly. the nrc should. to quickly implement the safety recommendations contained in the report or we're wasting taxpayer dollars and money. in addition, i believe more work should be done as part of the longer term review to address moving, spent fuel to have other issues that are not fully addressed. today i call on the commission to announce a plan of action for adopting the task force recommendations. and i am not alone in my call for action.

a july 23rd "new york times" editorial stated if nuclear power is to have a future in this country, americans have to have confidence that regulators in the industry are learning the lessons of fukushima and taking all steps necessary to ensure safety. they went on to say this month's nrc near-term task force issued thoughtful and commonsense recommendation. the five commissioners should quickly adopt them. an editorial reported the nrc should use this review not merely to respond to a single event but to ensure that it is actively assessing low probability but high consequence risks. on july 19th, 15 nongovernmental organizations including the union of concerned scientists, the national resources defense council sent a letter to the nrc urging them to act to implement the decision. my colleague senator mark kirk of illinois was reported as

saying, quote, the bottom line is we cannot let the lessons learned from fukushima to become a forgotten story by dragging our feet on some of these critical short and long-term improvements that can be made now. i couldn't agree with him more. for both the safety and confidence of the american public the nrc must act without delay. it is not acceptable now that we have the results of the task force review to merely call for more study and further delay. and i look forward to hearing each of you make a commitment that you're ready to move on their recommendations. you must act now that you know what some of the problems are. it is your moral and your legal responsibility and i consider it mine as well. i call on senator inhofe. >> thank you, madam chairman. first i would like to put into the record the letter from the marvin fertel the president of the nuclear institute. i will read one sentence it says the task force report lacks the

rigorous analysis of issues that traditionally accompanies regulatory requirements posed -- proposed by the nrc. i would like to enter into the record. >> absolutely into the record. >> and i think this report of the full commission actually we have -- this is a joint committee. this is a full committee and the subcommittee, a nuclear subcommittee, which i use to chair a few years ago. chairman yasko related in our june hearing how as a part of a review i'm going to quote him at this time. he said we've always asked ourselves a question. are the plants still safe? is there anything we need to do today to address that? and the answer continues to be no. that we want to get good information. we have time to do that. and i agree. it might be a while until we have to have an adequate assessment of the event, but we have time and, frankly, we need

to take time to ensure that we learn the right lessons that any regulatory changes have the maximum benefit to safety. in that spirit, the task force describes how following the three mile island event, the nrc took a number of actions which were not subjected to structured review in which, quote, were subsequently not found to be of substantial safety benefit and removed, unquote. i'm pleased to see that a majority of the commissioners are committed to ensuring that the task force recommendations proceed through a structured review process that incorporates the views of a wide range of agency staff. the nrc's advisory committee on reactor safeguards industry and other stakeholders. meanwhile, a full commission can take action at any time should new safety information warrant. there are many facts that we still don't know. the accident not just about the

technical aspects but also emergency preparedness and the impact of external influences on decision-making. it's important to remember that the japanese regulatory system is very different from our own. i believe it is crucial for the nrc to understand those differences in order to assess whether proposed regulatory changes will accurately and adequately address the actual problems highlighted by the fukushima accident. accordingly, i have sent a letter to each of you and look forward to receiving your responses. i was pleased to see commissioner svinicki endorse that concept. i was also disappointed to hear from the chairman that he considers it to, quote, difficult and time-consuming, unquote. i don't believe that an accident in a country with different regulatory systems and practices means that ours are broken. i think the nrc must take time to learn not just the technical lessons from fukushima but also the regulatory and policy lessons and hope the nrc will

focus on solving specific safety weaknesses highlighted by the fukushima event rather than allowing itself to become distracted by resigning a regulatory framework that has served our country very well. the nrc's efficiency principle and good regulatory states, quote, regulatory action should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction they achieve, unquote. structured process akin to the comments of commissioner making making and ostendorff goes a long way toward enduring that. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. i'm going to call on the subcommittee chair and then the restroom and then the rest of the colleagues. senator carper the ranking member chair. >> welcome. it's nice to see all of you today. this is a day our economy could have melted down. and it looks like we're going to be able to avoid that. and we want to make sure that

the recommendations that these smart people at work at the nuclear regulatory commission -- that we can somehow seize the opportunity, seize the day and make sure we won't have a meltdown and of our 104 power plants. i'm happy that you're here and look forward to this testimony. these are challenging times for the nrc. they've been frankly challenging times for my colleagues and me as well. and we're going to get through this day and hopefully we'll get through your recommendations and you all pick some ones that are the winners and ones we implement later and we'll get this show on the road. as many of you know, my interest in nuclear energy comes from a clean air and energy security perspective. it also comes from the perspective of 23 years as a naval flight officer chasing submarines and many of my buddies lives on aircraft carriers and ships and i have a lot of interest in that perspective as well but nuclear power has helped this nation curb our alliance on dirty fossil fuels. nuclear power has also helped to

reduce our air pollution, the damage to our health and cause global warning. however, as we saw the crisis unfolding at fukushima facility, one wrong step at a nuclear power plant can have big and bad consequences. this crisis is a strong reminder that with nuclear energy we can never be complacent. safety must always be our top priority. and competent. -- today we look forward to our nation's power fleet in light of the crisis at fukushima. i especially look forward to hearing more about the recent task force recommendations. i hope to learn today how the commissioners expect to move forward on them. and i was relieved that a task force was likely to happen in the united states. our nuclear fleet posed no imminent risk to public safety. this is due in part to the due diligence of the nrc to protect public safety. but as our colleagues have heard me say, once or twice, i believe

it's not perfect. we need to make it better. and i believe this task force took this thing to heart that we can do better. i believe we can all agree on -- that some of the task force recommendations are commonsense. and should be implemented maybe sooner than others. i'd liken these recommendations to patching a hole in a boat that is slowly leaking. they are no brainers and they can be done with relative ease. some recommendations will need more time. maybe much more time and a fair amount of vetting. these recommendations are like taking the boat apart and putting it back together. definitely more time is needed. more thought is needed on some of those and how we'll go about them. i sincerely hope the commission will take time to talk to stakeholders and get public reaction from all sides of this issue before moving forward with these recommendations. however, i'll be disappointed if we are six months or a year from now down the road and have not seen any action from the nrc on any of these recommendations.

that would not sit well with me and i'd urge you to keep that in mind. we need to all work together -- i like to say we're all in this together and we are. we're all in this together. and we need to make sure that we incorporate the right lessons learned to keep our nuclear fleet safe in the future because in the end we're all in the same boat when it comes to nuclear safety. thank you, madam chairman. and welcome. it's my pleasure to introduce john barrasso the ranking member of the subcommittee. >> thank you very much, i appreciate it. i thank you. i thank chairman carper entitlet recommendations for enhancing reactor safety in the 21st century. in reviewing the report, there are a couple of points that i believe need to be stated that come from the report itself. and first, our regulatory framework to protect our nuclear plants is working. it is working. as the task force concludes, although complex, the current regulatory approach has served the commission and the public well and allows the task force

to conclude that a sequence of events like those occurring in the fukushima accident is unlikely. unlikely to occur in the united states. and could be mitigated, reducing the likelihood of core damage and radiological releases. as commissioner ostendorff, who is before us today, stated on july 19th, i do not believe that our existing regulatory framework is broken. i agree. i do not believe that our existing regulatory framework is broken. second, our regulatory system is quite different than japan's. i agree with commissioner ostendorff's opinion with regard to the conclusions in the task force report that the fukushima tragedy occurred in another country whose regulatory structure is quite different from that found in the united states and that, quote, there is still a great deal that we do not know about fukushima concerning the sequence of events, the failure of modes of equipment, functionality and

execution procedures. well, because of the reasons that i've just mentioned with so much uncertainty still remaining, i find the report to be light on suggested recommendations directly tied to the events at fukushima. instead, this report appears to be loaded with recommendations with our entire system of oversight and safety. i agree with commissioner svinicki who commented in her recent vote that the task force report recommendations are surprisingly specific and detailed for what was to be an initial 90-day review. in fact, the document is 82 pages long. i am not surprised, however, if you put 6 career regulators in a room for 90 days that you're going to get a lot of suggestions for more washington red tape. recommendations that appear to be based on old agendas. this is what i believe we have here before us today. some of these recommendations may be good and worth pursuing. some may not be.

but as commissioner svinicki stated about the recommendations in the report, lacking the nrc technical and programmic staff evaluation beyond that of the six nrc staff members who produced the task force report, i do not have a sufficient basis to accept or reject the recommendations of the near term task force. there is no immediate threat that needs to be addressed according to the task force so we do have time. there is no need to rush to regulate. before we move forward with more red tape for america's nuclear industry, perhaps we need to look at these suggestions more closely. i'm not advocating for a few nrc public meetings to simply check a box. i'm talking about real nrc staff and stakeholder input through an open and transparent process where recommendations can be reviewed, prioritized and eventually either approved or rejected, which is essentially what commissioner magwood in his

letter of july 29th to congressman markey. this is the type of review that i believe four of the nrc commissioners before us today are advocating. so i thank you madam chairman and look forward to the testimon testimony. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you for holding this important hearing and thank you to the nrc for being here. the first and i think most important point that i want to make is the function of the nrc is not to represent the nuclear power industry. that's not your job. if we have more nuclear power plants or fewer. that's not your job. your job foremost is to make sure that the nuclear power plants that we have in this country are as safe as humanly possible. my friend from wyoming, senator barrasso and he reported that

it's unlikely we're going to have a fukushima disaster in this country. well, you know what? people in this country and people for this country, unlikely is not quite good enough. we want to make sure everything humanly possible that can be done is done to make sure that the nuclear power and the nuclear power plants in this country are as safe as possible. madam chair to the commissioners here today, it seems to me we should take note of the associated press' very disturbing report found that the nrc and the nuclear industry have worked and i quote in tandem to weaken safety standards to keep aging reactors within the rules, end of quote. and in that regard, i have joined with the chair of our committee, senator boxer, to call for a gao investigation of these allegations. americans are concerned about

nuclear safety not just because of the a.p. investigations. but because of what happened in japan. we have 23 reactors in this country that are mark one models, the same as the fukushima plant. the president asked the nrc for a safety review after japan and the nrc's task force of senior staff did a 90-day review and laid out 12 recommendations to improve safety. they did what they were asked to do. a "new york times" editorial summarized and i quote the group's most important finding is that our nation's oversight of nuclear power plants is a less than rigorous patchwork of mandatory and voluntary provisions, end of quote. the task force recommendations include a no-brainer measures to test earthquake and flood resiliency and to install hard events to reduce the risk of hydrogen explosions. we are here today to find out what the nrc is going to do

about these 12 commonsense recommendations. some people may think this is, quote-unquote, government red tape. some of us believe that, in fact, we have got to do everything we can to make sure that the impossible does not happen and that a major nuclear accident occurs in the united states. the answer from what i am hearing up to this point from a majority of the members of the nrc is that nothing is going to happen with regard to these recommendations. the chairman has asked the nrc to begin to move forward on all 12 recommendations within three months in order to fully implement new post-fukushima recommendations by 2016 and i applaud him for doing that. this does not sound very ambitious to me. yet, the media reports that this time frame is apparently too ambitious for three of our commissioners and i hope they dispel what i read in the media

and that is commissioner svinicki, magwood and ostendorff apparently as i understand it they want more study and review and delay. and i happen to know -- i've been here long enough to know what happens in this town when we, quote-unquote, delay. when we want to postpone a study. it means that the issue is going to be swept under the rug. that nothing is going to happen. and to me that is unacceptable. we need a commission focused on safety and acting on the task force recommendations in a swift and transparent manner. i believe we should all demand that the nrc commissioners today commit to start action on the safety recommendations within three months. delay is not an acceptable option and i look forward to hearing from the commissioners. thank you, madam chair >> thank you, senator. senator alexander? >> thank you, madam chairman and thank you for the hearing and thank you to the commissioners for their service. i think it's always useful since

safety is our concern to begin with the safety record, no deaths of any commercial nuclear reactor. no deaths on any navy reactor. and no one was even hurt at our most celebrated nuclear accident 3 mile island. that's an enviable record which we should always try to improve. but i'd like to approach it a little differently today. i'd like to ask this question. what if we didn't have nuclear power? what if we didn't have it at all in the united states. it's 20% of all of our electricity, 70% of all our clean electricity. we use about a quarter of all the electricity in the world to power this country. what if we didn't have nuclear power? well, we could look at japan which is the third largest economy and get an idea of that. there were a couple of articles last week juan was in the "wall street journal" and bloomberg. the "wall street journal" did say the japanese are very

patient people so they turn their air conditioners up to 82 degrees. the reason this is all true since the earthquake, most of their reactors are out. they've closed them down for maintenance. and to check them. and so they've lost about 20% of all their electricity in japan. about the same amount that nuclear power provides to us. so their air conditioners are 82 degrees. the car manufacturers are working on weekends to avoid sucking up during the week. the emperor and empress are going around the palace with candles and emergency responders have brought 22,000 for heat stroke. it's about the same weather there as here. they are expecting their bills to go up because if they use more renewable power because it's higher cost. bloomberg is even more graphic. it quotes the chairman of sharp a company in tennessee making

solar panels. it could be the end of manufacturing in japan. an exodus of japanese manufacturers, he sees. if we don't keep these reactors operating, he said one man economy will change. the japanese chamber of commerce estimates that japan's gross domestic product will fall by 3.6%, lose 200,000 jobs if all of reactor close by next spring as scheduled maintenance take them off-line. so there's a little snapshot of what would happen if you lose 20% of your electricity which is what nuclear power provides us. why do i raise that? because as was said we have an aging nuclear fleet. we haven't built a new reactor in 30 years. 25 or 30 years from now, this commission will have to decide whether to extend the life of a lot of the older reactors. i've advocated building 100 new

nuclear reactors over the next 20 years and even if we did that, we'd still barely replace the reactors that we have and the need for electricity in this country because the eia, the energy administration institute says -- estimates that the increase in the need for electricity will be up by 31%. so we're going to need a lot of clean reliable electricity in this country. and we can't afford if we want to have a high standard of living and good jobs to lose 20% or 10% of our electricity. and if we don't have nuclear power, we'll to have rely on coal. that's dirtier. on gas. that's dirtier and who knows what the price of gas will be. and the idea of relying on windmills to power the united states of america is the energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats. so we're going to need lots of nuclear power. and as long as we're having eloquent testimony about delays here which i just heard, i would like to recommend we have no delay in one of the other

recommendations of the committee, which is to complete without delay the designs for ap1000 and the economically simplified boiling water reactor design, in other words, complete without delay this commission's approval of those two designs so that we can move ahead building a sufficient number of nuclear reactors to give us the kind of clean, reliable electricity that will permit us to have the low cost energy to have good jobs in the united states and not experience the kind of exodus of manufacturing overseas that the japanese are afraid might happen to them if they're not able to bring their reactors back online. thank you, madam chair. >> i thank you very much. senator udall? >> thank you, madam chair. and thank you for calling this hearing. i think many others have said it already but i think safety is

the key here and i'm going to want to hear from each of you as how you believe we should move forward on the safety issue. i think it's unacceptable if we have the kind of thing happen in the united states that happened in japan. and i hope that you're on a wavelength and going to move in the direction of taking seriously what this -- what this task force said. i mean, my understanding -- this is a task force with 139 years of experience in this area. they're substantial. they're people who really know what they're talking about. we talk about recommendations that fall into five categories. these categories seem very commonsense to me, clarifying the regulatory framework. i mean, you got to take a hard look every now and then at regulatory frameworks and how they work.

ensuring protection. the task force recommends under that category part of a longer term review the nrc evaluate potential enhancements to the to prevent or mitigate size mike fires and floods. we've seen those in new mexico and they've seen them across the midwest and we need you to take a hard look at that. the third category enhancing mitigation. the task force recommends the nrc strengthen station blackout mitigation capability all operating in new reactors for design bases and beyond design bases external events. i hope we'll have time to discuss that with you. i intend to ask a question about that. strengthening emergency preparedness. the fourth category seems very commonsense to me and something we could move forward with on this front. and the fifth, improving the efficiency of nrc programs. i mean, we always want to be

doing things like that. so i'm not going to use all my time. i want to get to the questions, madam chair, and i'd yield back at this point. >> next is -- i'll get my list. senator johanns. thank you so much for being here. >> thank you, madam chair. to the commissioners, let me just start out and tell you we appreciate you being here with us today. so many things were said by senator alexander that i concur with that it would almost be sufficient that i adopt his statement but let me offer a thought or two if i might. i'm very anxious to hear about the safety concerns. we have nuclear power as you know in the state of nebraska. it's been a good neighbor in our state. we feel it runs efficiently, smartly. we feel that the folks who are

operating the facilities in our state are responsive to the community. i would be remiss if i didn't mention the quality jobs that go with the facilities. all of that has worked very well for us. the second thing i would say about that is, as you know, for many months now we've been in the throes of a historic flooding event with missouri river in nebraska. and that has implicated our nuclear facilities. we have found you folks to be responsive, the staff to be responsive. and it has been an experience that although difficult and trying because so much land has been under water for so long we feel in terms of the nuclear facilities that people have responded well and not overreacted but worked with us.

therefore, i'm very anxious to hear about the safety recommendations. i don't think there's any doubt, wherever you sit on this dais that we want to make sure that our facilities are safe. but i would also offer a thought that there's a reason why we're not building nuclear power plants these days in any kind of numbers. when i talk to folks in this industry, they say it's complicated. it's very difficult to get through the process. it's enormously expensive. and there's no guarantee that you're going to get anything at the other end for that massive, massive investment. there seems to be a better way of doing this. now, newscast not an area of expertise for me. i have no nuclear background, whatsoever, in my life. but having said that, what i'm anxious to hear about today is the economics of what you're

recommending. just because i want a full picture. sometimes you have to make hard decisions, do the things that you need to do from a safety standpoint even though you know that the cost is there but there's just no other choice. but for me i always like to weigh the decisions made against the costs that is incurred and try to get an understanding of whether we really have benefited the situation in any significant way for the investment. this industry, i worry, is literally at a point where it could shut down over time if we can't somehow free up the ability to approve plants and approve construction and deal with the safety issues in a cost-smart sort of way. so those are the kinds of things i'm interested in. but i don't say those things to criticize you. like i said, our experience in working with the nuclear

regulatory commission has been a good experience. people have worked with us and the staff has worked with us. i'm just interested in how do we do this in a way that's safe but economically viable? thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator. senator lautenberg. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. thank you, members of the nrc. i think you do a very good job. i'll start off with that and then i'll get more critical. we do thank you. since japan's nuclear crisis began unfolding five months ago, americans have wondered, could it happen here? the nrc's task force studied the situation closely and determined our nuclear facilities pose no imminent threat to the american people. and while this is reassuring news, our work is just beginning. the nrc's task force issued 12

recommendations to strengthen nuclear safety and ensure reactors remain safe including long-term stops to improve emergency preparedness and protect facilities when earthquakes or other natural disasters occur. now, it's critically important for the nuclear regulatory committee to act on these recommendations quickly. the five commissioners we'll hear today are from our country's most important guardians and we're relying on you to keep our country's nuclear facilities safe and secure. prompt action on the recommendations to the nrc is particularly important to the people of my state, new jersey, where four nuclear power reactors provide our state with half of its electricity. just last month the nrc renewed

the license to operate the reactor at hope creek which shares the same design as the damaged reactors in japan. now in its renewal, the nrc included conditions intended to make hope creek safer and we've got to continue to take every precaution to make sure this facility and others like it are as safe as we can make them. the fact is nuclear power play as great role and critical role in our country and it's an emissions-free energy source that provides one-fifth of our nation's electricity. so nuclear power can be -- continue to be a part of our energy future but the disaster in japan has taught us nothing can be taken for granted where nuclear power is concerned. japan is a world leader in technology. and its leaders believe that fukushima -