it would be a good opportunity to put 20,000 people on the shore with shovels and their hands if that is what it takes. guest: i think it is a good suggestion. there is a website for employment opportunities as a result of the cleanup needs. i would invite you to make that inquiry. we will make sure that people who are responsible are aware of availability in the place you live. we will be calling on a work force to help us with the cleanup efforts, and obviously, bp is the responsible party and they need to pay for these costs, but it will take a tremendous amount of effort, and thank you for your suggestion. host: we're going to continue the conversation on our education discussion from earlier today on facebook. so if that topic interested you and you'd like to go to c-span's facebook page you can continue the dialogue. and now to capitol hill where a number of members of the senate energy committee will be looking at the gulf of mexico oil spill.

the lead on this committee is the chair, you see him right there. two panels today. the first one will include the attorney general for the u.s. department of justice, thomas perrelli, the director of the coast guard and david heys, deputy secretary of the u.s. department of interior. we'll bring you live coverage of that hearing now on c-span.

>> the senate energy committee getting set to hold its third hearing on the gulf of mexico oil spill. specifically today they'll focus on the financial liabilities of offshore drilling. there is a senate proposal that would increase the cap in oil company liability from $75

million to $10 billion. two panels today. first up federal justice and coast guard officials and then an analysis by the congressional research service. jeff bingaman, the chairman of the energy and natural resources committee. should get underway shortly. the senate is gaveling in at this hour. the house will gavel in at 10:30. they'll bring through morning hour speeches at 10:30 and hope to be able to bring you back to this hearing as well. the house in at noon for legislative business. president obama on capitol hill today. he spoke with mitch mcconnell, the republican leader, last friday and asked to attend the republicans' weekly closed door policy lunch. he'll be here today on capitol hill. congressional quarterly reports the republican leader agreed to that and aides say that the president is expected to make the case before senate republicans for the war supplemental bill, which is up for debate this week, and the tax extenders package, the tax

cut and benefits extension, including unemployment benefits and cobra benefits. issues on the hill this week. president obama expected midday for the policy lunches, and then later today he is out to california to campaign, participate in a fundraising event for senator barbara boxer.

>> senator ron wyden of oregon, one of the democratic members of the energy and natural resources committee in the senate. looks look the senator has arrived. live coverage here on c-span. >> today is the third hearing of this committee on issues related to the deep water horizon disaster in the gulf of mexico. while today's hearing will focus on liability and financial issues, we continue to have foremost in our minds the human component of this accident, the 11 rig workers who lost their lives, their families, the people of the gulf who are experiencing this catastrophic situation firsthand. yesterday, i was fortunate to accompany our assistant majority leader dick durbin and senator

lan do you, senator vitter, all of us spent the day in the gulf observing the consequences of this accident and the joint response of our government agencies and b.p. and the many volunteers. it's a sobering reality to see oil begin to impact the shoreline, to know that this well is not yet under control. however, i also saw many people who have been working night and day for weeks to fight this spill and to protect the gulf, and i think we all express our gratitude to them for their extraordinary effort. today we examine the liability, financial responsibility and penalty provisions of the law related to this accident. this is -- there is urgency in our effort. we need to ensure that those harmed by this accident are fully compensated and that a system is in place that properly

allocates risks and losses based on what i've learned so far, i believe that we have a system in dire need of repair. current law caps the responsible parties' damages, other than the cleanup costs at $75 million, which clearly is nowhere near the damages that result -- that resulted from this disaster. equally as troubling, the law requires the secretary of interior to adjust the amount of these caps, at least every three years to reflect significant increases in the consumer price index, yet the limit on damages for offshore facilities has not been increased. since the law was passed in 1990. 20 years of inflation have been ignored. victims of the disaster will certainly wonder why there should be any cap on damages and why those responsible should not simply be required to pay the full amount of the harm they caused.

b.p. has stated that it will pay all legitimate claims and that it will not insist on the $75 million cap currently in the law. but even accepting this as true, we have a broken system that is in need of repair. the oil spill liability trust fund financed almost -- financed mostly by taxes on oil, is intended to cover higher levels of damages and to spread the risk of excess damages among the industry as a whole. yet, it is limited to paying $1 billion per incident. congress, over the years, has been inconsistent in enacting taxes to fund this effort and the taxes that support it are scheduled to expire in 2017. so we obviously need to look at that as well. the law also requires that operators in the offshore environment demonstrate certain levels of financial responsibility to ensure that they can cover the losses that

they may cause. however, for facilities like the deep water horizon, the maximum amount required is $150 million and the standard requirement is only $35 million. this amount has not been increased in decades. we obviously need to fix this. finally, there are civil and criminal penalties available to the secretary to punish those who violate safety and other requirements. these are intended to be a deterrent to playing fast and loose with the rules and creating safety risks. but the civil penalties were set in 1990 at $20,000 a day. they've been raised only once to $35,000 a day. here, too, the law requires the secretary to adjust these penalties every three years to reflect increases in the consumer price index, and that has only occurred sporadically.

so we have our work cut out for us. these are complex areas of law and policy. we have a number of experts here to help us think through how to fix these problems, and i look forward to their testimony before, calling on some -- i know someone from the white house is here to speak briefly about his legislation introduced. let me call on the senator for her statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for agreeing to hold this very important hearing this morning. as you have mentioned in your statement, our visit yesterday to the gulf that senator white house and senator landrieu and several others joined us on, i think, was very important visit, a very important trip to understand the impact of the deep water horizon spill, understand better the consequences as that spill unfolds as we see the impact to

local residents, certainly to the marine environment, and i can assure you that what i saw yesterday certainly has reinforced my commitment to help make things right for all those whose lives and their livelihoods are being so vastly affected by this disaster. when it comes to the issue of liability associated with a major oil spill, i don't think that there's any state that's represented here on this committee that has a more direct experience, certainly a more immediate concern than the state of alaska. when the exxon valdez tragedy occurred, it was -- it was a horrible incident at that time. it was a long and very sad part of alaska's history. the litigation that followed was years in being resolved.

the litigation over punitivee damages literally took two decades to resolve. that in and of itself was an absolute tragedy, and i am committed to ensuring that we don't see a similar situation unfold with this gulf spill. now, i wanted our committee to hold this hearing because there's been considerable discussion about the liability for the deep water horizon spill, and what part of that liability is limited or not limited. and i think there has been some mischaracterization out there that b.p. is only going to be responsible for $75 million of the spill. mr. chairman, if i really thought that the federal government was going to protect companies that had billions of dollars in assets and then require that they only pay $75 million, regardless of the

ultimate cost in damages for the spill with taxpayers and spill victims that could possibly then be hung out to dry, i would be the absolute first to introduce legislation to correct what would clearly be a flawed system. the reality is the $75 million figure is drawn from just one provision on strict liability in the oil pollution act. and it has nothing to do with the expressly unlimited -- the unlimited liability provided for the cleanup costs. i think it's also important to recognize that it has nothing to do with the law's authorization for unlimited damages that are allowed under various state laws. and we recognize that not every state has unlimited strict liability, so we do need to take that into account. i think we have -- we have all stated around this table here in this committee room with the c.e.o. of b.p. in front of us

that we must hold and we will hold b.p. accountable. mr. chairman, you have stated and repeated again the affirmation that was made by b.p. that they will -- they will pay for and provide for all of those costs that are incurred as a result of this oil spill. when we were in the gulf yesterday with secretary na pal tan yo and secretary sala czar, they, too, reiterated many, many times throughout the course of the day that b.p. will be responsible for the damages for the cost associated with the spill. i think that we need to listen carefully and constructively on how we hold companies liable, how we incentivize safety and environmental safeguards as it

pertains to the $75 million liability cap. my own opinion is that we need to increase this liability cap to reflect both the inflation, the change in financial and the risk portfolios that are associated with certain types of exploration. and i hope that as we consider some of the suggestions here today and going out into the future here, we -- we consider how we make changes in ways that are not arbitrary. right now there's a proposal out there that the liability cap needs to be $10 billion. is that the right figure? i don't know. maybe it is. maybe it needs to be higher. maybe it needs to be unlimited. maybe it needs to be somewhere in between. but i think we need to make the time, take the time to ensure that we're building good policy on this. if congress decides to impose a strict and direct liability of

an additional $10 billion on top of the unlimited cleanup and the unlimited lawsuits that can be brought about -- against responsible parties in state courts, i think we have to consider what the potential consequences might be. will there be jobs lost? particularly in the gulf coast, our energy's nation -- our energy security perhaps weakened. we need to be considering these aspects. we've got an interest in making sure that the victims of this tragic spill and god forbid any future spills, are justly compensated in a fair and an expeditious manner. i think it is important that we figure out how we deal with this liability cap in increasing it, but again i'm reserving judgment on what that appropriate figure might be until we've examined this in a way na the secretary asked us to do just last week. so i recollect -- welcome the witnesses that we will have

today. i welcome senator white house for his perspective. and i thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership on this issue. >> thank you very much. senator white house has introduced legislation, s 3346, to revise the civil and criminal penalty provisions. we welcome him to the committee to make a statement about that bill. go right ahead. >> thank you, chairman bingaman. thank you, members of the energy and natural resources committee. first of all, thank you for holding this hearing. i encourage you to review the penalty and liability framework governing offshore drilling and enact changes to this framework so we can prevent future disasters like the one now unfolding in the gulf. thank you, also for inviting me to make a few remarks about my amendment of 2010 bill. the bill seeks to enhance penalties for failing to meet

worker safety on oil rigs. is it just one piece of the puzzle. my colleague has introduced two other bills to raise liability caps for oil spills when they occur and to eliminate the per incident cap on claims to the oil spill liability trust fund. i'm a co-sponsor of both of these bills and commend his leadership on this issue. i look forward to working with him and all of my colleagues in the senate to forge a strong deterrent system to discourage irresponsible oil drilling. just yesterday, as the chairman has indicated, we visited louisiana. the chairman, the ranking member, senator landrieu, senator durbin and others, to inspect the disaster caused by the b.p. deep water horizon oil spill. since the tragic explosion on this oil rig on the night of april 20, which took the lives of 11 workers, oil from mississippi canyon block 252 has been spewing uncontrollably into the deep waters of the gulf at a rate that no one seems able to

accurately calculate and it is very likely been underestimated. it is another thing entirely to go and see the massive oil splick spread across the surface of the gulf with black smoke bill owing off the waters where controlled burns are taking place. oil is now also washing up on coastal beaches and wetlands, areas vital to the economies of louisiana, mississippi, alabama and florida. we heard from fishermen about the destruction of the e co-system and the collapse of their industries. this is literally the only life they have ever known, and they worry it could be gone forever. rhode island fisherman faced similar worries at home. i'm sympathetic to the concerns of our fishing community and this fishing community. we'd enhance penalties in the

following three ways, increasing civil penalties from $38,000 per violation to $70,000 per violation per day. two, when the violation constitutes a threat of immediate harm or damage to life including other fish, property or the marine coastal or human environment increase the penalties from $38,000 per day to $150,000 per violation per day. and three, increase the criminal penalties from $100,000 per violation per day to $10 million per violation per day. the goal of this program is to ensure safe oil operations on the outer continental shelf. enhancing these penalties will go a long way from cutting corners on safety measures that can prevent disasters like the gulf spill. we need to take a look at the framework that governs oil and gas drilling and the requirements that exist to protect our workers, our

coastlines and the marine environment from devastating oil spills. we may want to consider banning drilling at certain depths until it's clear we can engargee in repair and recovery activities. i applaud your efforts to address the liability portion of this work in today's hearing. one thing i'm certain of is that the current system is inadequate n just the first three months of this yeerks the five largest oil companies worldwide, including b.p., made $23 billion in profits. the current liability and penalty limits are inconsequential in the face of those record-breaking profits. i want to close by anticipating an argument we will hear from the oil and gas industry. enhancing penalties will drive companies out of the business of offshore drilling. the way i see it, robust safety and environmental standards and tough penalties for noncompliance, with those standards, help to avoid disasters like the b.p. deep water horizon oil spill. not only will it save workers' lives and protect our environments, but this will save

money because these disasters cost many times more than the cost of prevention. just consider these costs -- in the 1996 spill off the coast of rhode island, cleanup cost and penalties totaled almost $32 million. in the 1989 spill at brenton reef, rhode island, cleanup costs exceeded $35 million and rough estimates of the cleanup cost of this one range from $2 billion to $8 billion. suddenly, $75,000 or $150,000 doesn't seem like such a very large number. mr. chairman, i'd like to offer into the record at these proceedings a list of some of b.p.'s violations taken from the m.m.s. website. these are exactly the types of safety systems that failed on april 20. may i ask consent to have that submitted for the record? >> we're glad to have that included. >> i appreciate the attention of the committee, and i thank you

for your good work. >> thank you for testifying, and your leadership in introducing the bill that you've put forward. we have two panels, and we will excuse you at this point. and we have two panels today of experts. first from the administration and then from the congressional research service. the first panel is thomas perrelli who is the associate attorney general. second, david hayes, the acceptly secretary of the interior. and third is craig bennett who is director of the coast guard's national pollution funds center. if they would all come forward, please, and take their seats. >> if there's no particular preference on your part, why don't we start with mr.

perrelli. and if you could give us your views in the first five or six minutes and then we will include all of the statements in full in the record and then we'll have questions. mr. perrelli, go right ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman and -- >> you've pushed all appropriate buttons on your -- >> mr. chairman? >> yes? >> senator sessions? >> one thing, what is the rule on submitting testimony? i believe we got mr. perrelli this morning at 6:00 a.m. we have that a lot in our committees. what is the expected presentation of written testimonies? >> what's our rule? our rule is 24 hours. >> well, i know people are busy and all of you are busy, but it does help when our staff will have a little more time to review it and we can be a little better prepared. thank you. >> i think we can certainly urge

folks in the future to try to comply with our 24-hour rule. more perrelli go, right ahead. >> thank you, chairman bingaman and my apologies for the late arrival -- >> would you pull that up or speak more directly into it so we can all hear you. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify about issues of liability and financial responsibility related to offshore oil production. before i begin, i would like to echo the chairman's sentiments and take a moment to express my condolences to the families who lost their lives and to those who were injured in the sinking of the deep water horizon. the fire that took place aboard the horizon and the spill of oil that created an unprecedented environmental disaster for the gulf coast. this disaster has been met with a massive and coordinated response from the federal government led by president obama. the agencies operating as part of the unified command and federal officials have been on the scene from the beginning. the activities have been focused as they must be on stopping the

oil spill and preventing and mitigating its effects. the department of justice has been fully engaged in these efforts. our mandate is to make sure that we recover every dime of taxpayer funds and ensure that the united states spends and all of the removal efforts cause bid this catastrophe. we have been working tirelessly and will continue to do so to ensure that the american people do not pay for any of the damages for which others are responsible. at the direction of the attorney general, we have been monitoring the situation on the ground, coordinating our efforts with the state attorneys general and working with federal partner agencies and natural resources trustees to make sure we measure and track every bit of costs incurred in damage to the united states, the states and the environment. we are looking ahead to issues of financial responsibility and liability, many are which arise under the oil pollution act which is the subject of my testimony today. as you know, it was passed in the wake of the exxon valdez disaster to provide specific legal authority for dealing with the consequences of oil spills.

they give federal officials the ability to designate responsible parties who are required to clean up oil spills and pay removal costs and damages. the coast guard has designated b.p. and transocean as responsibility parties for this bill. in its current form, it contains additional caps that limit the liability of responsible parties, caps which are based on the size and nature of the vessel or facility -- >> we are going to briefly leave this hearing as the u.s. house gavel necessary for morning hour speeches. can you continue to follow live coverage of the oil spill hearing on c-span radio. now live to the u.s. house here on c-span. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. may 25, 2010. i hereby appoint the honorable john a. yarmuth to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the

house of january 6, 2009, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to 30 minutes and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, for five minutes. mr. stearns: good morning, thank you, mr. speaker. recently speaker pelosi sent a letter to her committee chairmen asking all of them to chip away at the federal budgetary spending. in addition, the majority leader, hoyer, recently wrote an op-ed in the "wall street journal" urging for shared sacrifices to address the budget crisis this country is facing. unfortunately, mr. speaker, their rhetoric does not match up to reality. budget chairman john spratt even said, quote, if you can't budget, you can't govern.

let me repeat that. this is what the chairman of the budget committee said. if you can't budget, you can't govern. i could not agree more. it's becoming increasingly clear, mr. speaker, how house democrats cannot budget. american families and small businesses are making tough choices in this economic climate, but democrats continue to spend and to spend. the federal government is spending more per household than ever before and running up a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2010. the largest deficit since the end of world war ii. now, how much is $1 trillion? if you started at day one in zero b.c., 0 a.d., and spent $1 million every day you still would not have spent $1 trillion. despite deficits and debts as far as the eye can see, democrat leaders do not plan to even pass a budget resolution, but since 1974 when the modern budget process which created --

was created, the house has never, ever failed to pass a budget resolution. speaker pelosi and leader hoyer can send all the letters, publish all the op-eds they want, but it does not change the fact there is no significant or legitimate plan to rein in federal spending or reduce the deficit by them. the federal government now spends over $31,000 per household, the highest ever. recent budget deficits have reached unprecedented levels, accounting for 11% of the g.d.p. by comparison the historical budget deficits, the yearly debt deficit, is only 2.9% of the g.d.p. in the past. publicly held debt is expected to climb to $50 trillion by 2020. and when combined with rising interest rates and a postrecovery economic environment, the interest payments on government debt also will skyrocket. c.b.o. projection that the government's -- projects that

the government's annual spending will more than triple from 2010 and 2020, and from $207 billion to $723 billion, just the interest. these deficits are appalling and all more shocking since c.b.o., c.b.o. based these calculations on the complete expiration of the bush tax cuts, the alternative minimum tax will never be passed, and future appropriations would be indexed to inflation. this is something congress never will do. since democrats have taken over congress in january of 2007, the national debt has increased 42.4%, while the democrat leadership takes a -- talks a good game about addressing spending, we have yet to see any real action by them. the first step is to pass a budget to pride us with a blueprint, a simple road map for deficit reduction. the balanced budget act of 1985 set the target date for a budget for april 15. the same day as tax day for

most americans. unfortunately, april 15 deadline for enacting a budget resolution has long since passed and we still have no sign of a budget resolution. the senate has not passed a budget and the house has not even begun the simple process. without a budget there arno controls in place to rein in spending. this is a sign congress lacks the leadership and willingness to set a framework to limit spending or control entitlement growth. not passing a budget resolution sends a message to the american taxpayers that congress is really not serious about addressing the fiscal crisis here and is unable to meet the challenges of uncontrolled spending and run away deficits. this entire situation obviously is getting out of control. when someone goes for debt counseling, the first step is to cunt the credit card and live within your means. -- the theirs step is to cut up the credit card and live within your means. it's not higher taxes on

out-of-work american such as a value-added tax. that's why i joined my colleagues to send a letter to the national commission of physical responsibility and reform to not increases taxes to a v.a.t. tax. high taxes aren't the solution, less spending is. we must reduce spending of this federal government if we are to exercise fiscal responsibility. unfortunately, mr. speaker, the democrat leadership continues to talk a good game but has not yet shown a willingness to act in any, any significant measure to get our fiscal house in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i was going to talk about energy, but listening to my friend from florida i feel compelled to respond. first of all the democratic party is not the democratic

party, we are democratic, and we give the same respect to our republican fellows i would hope we would show more respect on the floor in properly referring to the democratic party by its proper name. but may be much more important, let's get our facts straight. when president clinton left office in 2000 he left this country with a surplus, with three back-to-back budget surpluses and surpluses as far as the eye could see under democratic economic management. a booming economy, that created more jobs than any other administration in history, and economic and budget surpluses that actually had created some concern on wall street that we were going to fully pay down the national debt over the next 10 or 12 years and put in jeopardy the treasury market, the bond market. there were actually stories of wringing the hands about that. in eight brief years the bush administration and their allies

in this congress took care of that. they took record surpluses and turned them into record deficits. three things alone added $6 trillion to the national debt. unpaid wars in iraq and afghanistan, and unpaid new entitlement programs on medicare part d drug prescription benefit, and the unpaid bush tax cuts that we were told by the republican friends on that side of the aisle would lead to unprecedented prosperity. enormous economic activity. it would unleash innovation, creativity, and job creation in america. you know what? it led to the most anemic job growth, barely positive, in any presidency. this year alone the economic policies of this democrati president will create more jobs than were created in the entirety eight years of the bush administration and their allies here in the congress.

they led to unprecedented debt accumulation in the united states. they took a record surplus and turned it into a record deficit. that's their record. the idea that they have clean hands and they can come back to us, the american public, and tell us how we ought to manage our fiscal house when they are the ones who put the fiscal house in disorder. they are the one who is ran this economy into a ditch. the worst economic meltdown in 80 years. the worst ecoc meltdown on wall street, the worst job performance in generations. an economy that was absolutely in a tailspin and close to the precipice of depression. that's their reco. and to come to the floor and lecture us on how we ought to manage the fiscal house is a bit much. the idea that somehow it's unprecedented that we haven't adopted a budget resolution, really? because in the 12 years the republicans were in charge of this congress for four of them

they failed to pass a budget resolution. and somehow the republic did not come to an end. lecturing us about whether or not we are going to have a budget resolution this year, let's get at what's really important. are we going to get our arms around this economy? well, on our record in 15 brief months this economy is moving again. jobs are being created again. i have sat and listened to fries on the other side frequently say where are the jobs? we have create add lot of jobs now in the private sector and we are going to create a lot more, it's estimated in the balance of the yr. a lot more than they did in the eight years in which they were in charge. we inherited a mess, a fiscal mess and economic mess, and we have had the untidy task of having to clean it up, but we are doing it. and we are showing results. what we don't need is lectures to the floor about how to do it theay they did it in the eight years in which they were in charge. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 12:00 >> legislative work includes 10 measures under suspension of the rules, including recognition of armed forces veterans and members. this week prebs plan to work on extending deadlines for certain tax breaks and jobless benefits including health insurance coverage. plus medicare payments to physicians. live house coverage when they return at noon eastern here on c-span. we're going to take you back now live to the seb energy committee. chairman jeff bingaman on your screen. this is the third of their hearings on the oil spill, hearing this morning about the financial liabilities of offshore drilling. live coverage here on c-span. >> first, let me say that as you'll recall from last week, there is a requirement that the

minerals management service act on exploration plans within 30 days under the outer continental shelf lands act. and that's the area where the cat goryl exclusions have been used. and cause that stat story requirement, exploration plans can continue to be improved but those do not allow for drilling. the drilling decision is a later decision under an a.p.d. there has been a special affirmative act to allow for drilling. as for the drilling, the department put a stop on processing new a.p.d. permits after april 20. >> specify a.p.d. for those of us who are not experts. >> application for permit to drill. >> all right. >> and they're basically two types of drilling permits, if you will. there is the initial a.p.d. that gives you the authority to put a

new hole in the ground. and then there can be situations where after you have started drilling, there are safety issues that arise or other circumstances that arise that require you as a driller to move that ongoing drilling operation around. those are called sidetracks, revised permits to drill, bypass permits, those are all for ongoing, already started drilling activities. what the department has stopped is approving new a.p.d.'s for current drilling activities where there's a need, often for safety reasons, to do a bypass or to do what's called a sidetrack. those have been approved, but those are not new a.p.d.'s. that's the, i think, is the reason for the lack of clarity. but in the deep water, there have not been any new a.p.d.'s implemented since april 20.

there were two that were approved between april 20 and may 6. they were both suspended. no a.p.d.'s that have been filed since april 20 have been allowed to go forward and do new deep water drilling. >> well, thank you for clarifying that. let me ask sort of the other side of the coin when we're talking about possible liability limits. the other side of the coin seems to me to be requirements for financial responsibility. what are we going to require there for companies that go into the deep water and drill? i'd ask mr. hayes if you have a position on that? >> we agree with senator whitehouse that it's appropriate to, and your point in your opening statement, mr. chairman, that it's appropriate to revisit that financial assurance requirement.

that seems anachronistic, frankly, $150 million financial assurance certainly for a situation like this for a company like b.p. fortunately it does not appear to be coming into play here, but we do think it's appropriate just as we look at potentially revising upwards the statutory penalties, we look at revising upward the financial assurance requirements. >> senator? >> mr. chairman, i just want to make sure that i understood clearly your statements to the chairman. is it correct to state then that both of you would agree that we should not have the current $75 million liability cap? that it should be an unlimited cap? >> i think for the future, for activities such as deep water drilling where there is a risk

of a similar major oil spill, i think we think that there should not be that cap. >> are you differentiating between deep water and shallow water exploration? >> i think we'll need to work with the congress and the committee on the whole range of activities that are subject, small vessels, large vessels, there may be shallow water drilling, deeper water drilling, but similar activities that could result in a spill, our view is there should not be a cap. >> there should be some assessment of risk and some analysis that plays in there? >> certainly we should look at the risks and look at transition rules as well. >> and mr. hayes, i want to make sure that i'm not misinterpreting your statement. >> i'm on all fours with mr. perrelli, senator. it's always good to pay attention to your lawyer. >> let me ask you, both of you have stated this morning and certainly your boss, mr. hayes, secretary salazar, has made

very, very clear that b.p. is the responsible party will be paying and that b.p. doesn't expect to be held to the cap. so if, in fact, it is correct here that there's no doubt that the responsible party is going to be held fully accountable for this particular spill, does the administration think then that we need any specific legislation to make this true? to ensure that this is in fact the case? >> i think we are going to continue to work to ensure that b.p. lives up to its commitments. so they have made that commitment. we take it seriously, and we will work with them to ensure that they do. so i think our focus on the legislative proposal is transition into a new liability regime. >> so basically going forward? >> we're focused on going forward. >> let me ask about that, because as the $75 million

strict liability cap is in place now, it only aplies in cases where there's been no gross ng or regulatory noncompliance. so i'm assuming that there is a possibility or a likelihood that any of these three faults can be alleged, in which case the liability cap is removed altogether? >> that's correct, senator. >> so, in fact, what we're talking about here with a cap may or may not -- and the may not is perhaps quite likely -- may not be in place for this particular -- for the deep water horizon incident? >> i certainly don't want to speculate to where the facts may be. but if there's gross ng or violation of any safety operational or construction regulation that may have caused the spill, the caps would be removed.

>> i won't ask you to speculate, butly ask you if the department of justice is aware at this point in time of any incident, instance, either proven or alleged of the responsible parties engaging in gross negligence, willful misconduct or regulatory noncompliance? >> senator, i don't want to comment on any pending or contemplated investigation. there are many facts yesterday to be developed. so i can't give you any insight on that currently. >> let me ask you, mr. bennett, because when we were in -- in louisiana yesterday, had an opportunity to hear from representatives from the fishing industries, the small charter boat industry as well as the oyster fishermen, and there was a discussion about what is happening with the processing of claims, and there was concern that, in fact, claims were being

expedited that there was a process that was transparent and that worked for those that had been affected, whether within their businesses and being able to go out and fish or charter bookings that have been canceled. the question to you is in your office's role of overseeing this claims process, are we sure that we've got the sufficient number of claims offices, that we have staffing that is sufficient, that we have a staff that can deal with -- for instance, we've got a big vietnamese community, do we have translators there, are we fully set up? the secretary of the interior was committee adamant yesterday that there would be followup meetings with admiral landry. he volunteered himself to go down there as part of a followup meeting because what we heard

was that in fact the process that is being set up is not meeting the needs of the local people. can you comment on that? >> yes, i'd be glad to. the law requires us to require the responsible party to advertise and collect claims. b.p. has been very responsive beyond the law in our questions or our direction as we oversee and make sure that they're complying with taking claims. they've -- we welcome any complaints or any concerns about the claim in process. we are not getting a lot of concerns sent to my office. so if you're hearing, that die want to know bit. my executives talked to b.p.'s daily about the claims process. they've opened 28 offices. they've been opening capacity at a rate of about 28%, and the claims growth has grown at a rate of about 12% and it's leveling office. it will probably pick up once oil comes to shore and we start getting more damage claims. but the capacity to take 6,000

claims a day, they're currently getting about 2,000 claims a day. they can surge to a capacity of 15,000 claims per day. again, this is industries, what they're telling us, but ate pierce from what we know, data that we have, that they're meeting the requirement. as soon as we got word about the vietnamese and spanish and croatian communities, we approached b.p. and said we expect you to handle that. and they immediately got translator services and they immediately started advertising the next day in local community newspapers and media. so b.p. has been responsive to any of our requests for direction from any concerns that we become aware of. >> you're probably going to be hearing about this meeting. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me ask the comment just made that b.p. has indicated that it intends to pay all legitimate claims. obviously, the question is what's legitimate? but aside from that, is the b.p.

, is their representive legally binding in any way? legally binding on them? they've simply indicated that they would intend to pay legitimate claims. six months from now, a year from now s. that a legally binding commitment? >> i don't want to make a judgment as to how that commitment might be viewed in a court of law down the road. they certainly made that commitment very publicly, as well as publicly committed not simply to pay claims beyond the $75 million but not to seek recourse against the fund, which is also a significant commitment. so we intend, whether it's in a court of law or elsewhere, we certainly intend to have them uphold that commitment. >> so you intend to represent that commitment as something that's binding? >> as i said, i can't speak to whether or not it would be binding in a court of law if we were to litigate this down the road. >> i mean, the question i ask the question is obviously that's pretty important, in the middle

of this crisis while the gusher is still growing from under-the-ocean floor, the representation today might be very different than the actions six months or a year from now. so i appreciate the fact that b.p. has made these representations. i'd feel more comfortable if there was some binding requirements here or they were legally binding. let me ask the letter that you received at the justice department from about 18 of us the other day asks you to take a look at an announcement by transocean limited, the owner of the deep water horizon oil rig, that it is intended -- it announced in switzerland and by the way, that's where it has about a dozen employees and it has 1,300 employees in houston but moved to switzerland, i think, to reduce its tax obligation to the united states. so in switzerland, it announces that it intends to distribute $1 billion to its shareholders at

this point in time. is that troublesome to you? we've written a letter asking whether it's troublesome because there may be substantial liability here for transocean as well. and if they go ahead and distribute that $1 billion in the face of potential liability, wouldn't that be pretty difficult circumstance for a lot of people whose lives have been dramatically affected to see? >> senator, i don't think i've actually seen a copy of the letter, although i've been told that it was sent. our focus is from all of the responsibility parties or anybody who's potentially liable to recover every time for the taxpayer. so regardless of whether they -- however transocean or another responsible party has spent funds, our goal is going to be to get back every dime for the american taxpayer. >> you will just have received this then. would you take a hard look at this? i mean, that does raise real questions. we had at this table three parties, each of which were pointing in the other direction

saying well, it wasn't our fault, it wag somebody else's fault. one of which was transocean, and i notice in their decision in switzerland, they want to give $1 billion back to their shareholders at a time when i think there might be very substantial liability questions that would suggest we'd want them to have that money available. you talk also about the issue of liability for offshore oil and gas development, and i think you talked about, mr. hayes, you talked about significant perrelli. the significant increases, obviously, will affect different companies in different ways. i think you alluded just a moment ago that may well have decision points with respect to whether it's a shallow or a deep well, the size of the project, size of the company and so on. define for us, if you will, what your thinking is going forward with respect to liability, significant increases, does that

suggest that you believe there ought to be a cap? and if so, what would the conditions be that attach to a cap? >> the legislative proposal that the administration sent up was structured requiring entities of all sizes to pay all removal costs and then plus some amount of damages. yet to be determined. we want to very much work with the community and look at the different factors, look at four different types of oil exploration or transport, the factors needed to ensure that companies invest sufficiently in safety. the factors needed to ensure that the funds at the end of the day are sufficient to make sure that all claim ants are paid out. i think we also want to look at the market impact that may affect different kinds of entities that may be involved in transporting small amounts of oil on a coastline versus drilling in very deep water. we think those different activities, each one requires a

little bit different look. >> let me go back to this other point. are there ways that you could take steps to make legally binding the representation by b.p., or at least ask them to make this legally binding at this point, number one? and number two, that's the one side of potential liability, and the other side is $1 billion being disbursed to shareholders at a time when you may want to see that it is available for liability on transocean. can you -- are you interested in working on both of those to see that the folks who are affected by this oil spill are protected? >> i'll take that back and we'll give that further consideration, senator. >> all right. >> senator sessions? >> thank you. mr. perrelli, to walk through this -- the statute that provides liability coverage, it has some good things in it.

i believe that it can be improved, and i've offered legislation to do that. with regard to the damages of cleanup, the cost of all the cleanup, is there any question that the responsible party, in this case, b.p., is responsible for all the cleanup costs, the marshes, the beaches and that kind of thing? >> senator, there's no question that they are responsible for all of the removal costs. >> and with regard to the $75 million category, is this a loss of profits that shrimpers or fishermen may have, potential beaches -- rentals that get canceled and those kind of things? is that what is capped under this bill? >> it includes -- the $75

million cap applies to, if it applies, as we talked before there are many situations in which it would not, but it applies to a wide range of damages, and that includes the kinds of economic damages that you were discussing, the cost of public services that may be required in response to wants the oil is removed trying to revive that habitat and that scenario where in prior oil spills, there have been very significant impact. >> this is the kind of lawsuit one might file under federal law in federal court, i presume. there are possibilities that on

the classical stage, pollution, nuisance, and trespass type actions, you could file those lawsuits also. >> they expressly allowed states to impose greater liability or requirements. that is correct, senator. >> the legislation that i signed onto does have a retroactive liability alterations in the act. i know the senator just said, should we do this? i have heard some complaints or concerns that this raises constitutional questions about the ability of congress to retroactively alter this situation. the department -- does the department of justice have an opinion on that? >> there would be many situations in which, for

example, if the cap did not apply, there would not be concerned about retroactivity. congress legislates back stroke -- retroactively all the time. there may be arguments made under the provisions, we think we would have pretty strong argument that congress legitimately legislating in order to ensure clean up. compensation would not run afoul of constitutional protections. >> would you expect that to be contested? >> it could be contested either as a constitutional matter or any breach of contract action, which it may be more likely. >> with regard to the investigation that is ongoing, to what extent is the fbi involved in this?

>> senator, i cannot comment on any pending investigation. >> i would just suggest that if there is a possibility of a criminal investigation and everyone is presumed innocent, the fbi should be involved in that. my observation is that their expertise in those kinds of matters exceed agency investigators, although they have great skills in many ways. with regard to the shallow water drilling, mr. bennett, is that within your jurisdiction? we do have thousands of jobs that will spill and in if all of shallow water drilling is stopped. the one sadr on going are soon wrapping op.

what is york -- the ones that are ongoing arsine wrapping up. -- are soon wrapping up. >> i will take that one on behalf of the secretary of the interior. the policy statement that i described and clarified with the chairmen is in place only until the 30-day report is delivered to the president later this week. this was essentially a time out on the drilling of new deep water wells, in particular. after may 6, we have stopped approving shallow water drilling as well. that is just until the end of the week. the issue has been raised appropriately as to what should happen after the safety report gets delivered to the president and we are looking at that

issue and are cognizant of the fact that to there are important distinctions between shallow water and deepwater risks. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. at our hearing two weeks ago, i laid out a pattern of safety problems at bp. today, i want to talk about the recent pattern of actions taken by transocean since the accident in the gulf. let me walkie very specifically to the timetable. the top management of transocean said that they had nothing to do with the accident. they said it was bp's fault. two days after our hearing in the committee, after they absolve themselves from responsibility, transocean went off to federal courts in houston. there they filed a claim under american admiralty law that governs maritime accidents.

they said, again, they are not liable, but if they are, their liability ought to be capped at $26 million. on the day after that, on may 14, transocean announced that the shareholders' meeting in switzerland that they are going to distribute a billion dollars in profits to shareholders. given that pattern of activity, and i have followed it since our hearing, i went out and put together this letter with 17 of our colleagues asking you all to investigate. by the way, we told the administration that i was going to ask about it this morning. here is my question. would you agree that transocean shifting $1 billion from its company to its shareholders

could possibly be a way for transocean to either evade or limit its liability? >> let me respond by focusing on the limitation of lovette -- liability action, which we are not a party to that action, but we have already responded to transocean. but transocean is attempting to do there is inappropriate. -- what transocean is attempting to do there is inappropriate. >> you believe it is inappropriate? >> seeking to limit their liability to $26 million, the statute that they are seeking to use is a statute best known as being the statute used by the owners of the titanic. congress expressly said that it does not limit liabilities under old ball -- opa.

>> what does the department intend to do in response to the recent pattern of activity by transocean? it seems to me that by what is going on is pretty clear. for a company that said it did nothing wrong, this company is working pretty hard to insulate itself from being held responsible for it and seems to me that this is an area where the department really needs to dig in and do a thorough investigation. are you prepared to do that? >> i cannot comment on any pending investigation, but i will say that on this question of whether they can limit their liability through this action they have filed, we believe in the strongest possible terms that they cannot. >> i certainly hope that you will look into this thoroughly because given what they said before the committee, given the fact that just in a matter of

days, they went out and took this action, then went forward and delivered the dividend. it seems to me that this is a pattern of activity that requires the department look into this thoroughly because the decision to transfer this enormous amount of money out of its own account at a profit given all the events that have taken place in recent weeks suggest to me that if the government does not look into this, the government is simply not following through in an area that i think the central for the government to have credibility in terms of its response to the tragedy in the gulf. i appreciate your saying that their conduct is inappropriate. i hope you will look into this fairly. this pattern of activity, and i consider it a pattern of literally from the weeks since they came here, strikes me as

unacceptable. i cannot say that it is illegal at this point, but it is certainly an acceptable -- certainly unacceptable. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. the headline from yesterday's " wall street journal" tells it all. gulf crews are improvising with chemicals and outdated maps. today is day 36. oil continues gushing into the gulf. no one is really sure how much oil is leaking. we were first told it was 1,000 barrels a day. and it looked like 5,000 barrels a day. now scientists say that the number may be much higher. the cloud of confusion over how much oil is spilling into the gulf is very concerning. it is also very unclear who is

in charge. here is today's washington post -- administration torn on getting tough with bp. secretary salazar says that bp has missed the deadline after deadline. if bp is not doing what they are supposed to be doing, we will push them out of the way. just yesterday, the coast guard commandant said to push bp out of the way, it would raise the question to replace them with what? that is why it is hard to tell who is in charge. the response seems to be delayed. we have tried many different things. during testimony just last week to this committee, secretary salazar promised that last saturday or sunday, traders would be pulled to try to dynamic killed.

saturday past. sunday past. 36 days, it still no solution. the american people want to note the administration is dithering. public anger is growing and the american people are angry. they're angry at bp and the administration. the head ministrations confused response stands in contrast with public anger. the administration likes to say it will -- it is time to use the other boat to stop the spill. bp clearly bears the brunt of the responsibility. there are responsibility for paying for all the cleanup, regardless of cost. the white house and the administration has some responsibility. there are lapses in the regulatory enforcement. the second story in the paper today -- u.s. oil drilling agency ignored a risk warnings.

the spill occurred in federal waters. the federal government owns the underground oil. at what point does the administration take complete control to protect our communities and our coast line? >> mr. senator, the commandant is the national incident commander operating on behalf of the administration and the government under the laws that this congress passed. to supervise all cleanup activities, he is the national incident commander. he is in charge. bp is paying for and implementing under his charge. >> can you talk to us about the upcoming plan, if there is one? >> the secretary is in houston as be speak today.

-- as we speak today. the final preparations are being implemented for a dynamic kill attempt. if today's procedures go well and the pressure testing proves sound, a decision will be made late tonight or early tomorrow morning to attend the dynamic killed tomorrow. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator sanders? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think we all understand that we are looking at one of the most significant ecological disasters in modern history of our country. we understand that nobody can fully estimate what either the economic or ecological damages will be. all this takes place, i must

say, at a time when the american people are having significant doubts about bp and transocean. multinationalat a corporation, bp, which earned $5.6 billion in the first quarter of this year. we're looking at a company which many americans are now believing ignored many safety factors as they proceeded rapidly in order to move the project along. we are looking at a company which denied -- refused to put information out there. we still do not know today how much oil is leaking. we were told 1,000 barrels a day. there are estimates today that there may be 100 times that. we see a company which many americans think has not been aggressive in attempting to stop the flow or in proceeding going

forward with a cleanup. i want to get back -- i want to ask to a very simple question. should we eliminate the cap completely and told bp 100% responsible? so that they pick up all of the economic and environmental damages. the very simple question. yes or no? >> senator, as i indicated, our proposal to lift the cap is focused on the future. we also think that we would have strong arguments if congress ultimately decided -- >> that is not a good answer, to be honest with you. what bp has said does not mean much. you may be the last person in america who trusts or believe what bp says. it does not matter. a year from now, the tv cameras

will not be there. some fishermen is going to have to go to court to get damages from bp, a multibillion-dollar corporation. now is the moment. do we lift the cap or do we not? what is the answer? >> our proposal to lift the cap is focused on the future. >> your position is that we should not lift the cap on bp for this oil spill. >> as i indicated, we are focused on the proposals for the future. mr. chairman, i would hope that this committee in the senate will move aggressively. the taxpayers -- is beyond comprehension that you have an oil company making over $5 billion in profits of the first quarter of this year at the same time we had a record-breaking deficit that these tax payers should be asked to pay one

nickel in cost. just because bp says something, i am glad you believe them. >> i do not think it is a question of belief cure. we are committed to recovering every single dime from bp. there are many circumstances in which the cap will not apply. we also recognize that there are many other statutes that may be available to pursue either penalties or damages from bp as well as state laws. we think that we will be able to recover regardless of bp's commitment. >> i think you are ignoring and making it more difficult. that is it. thank you very much, mr. chairman. cox senator bennett? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses.

let's look ahead. i appreciate your comment about -- leave it to the experts to try to get this bill stopped and get everything under control. there are two views that i see with respect to the future. one that says, ok, this happened because people were lax. that is the headline that we have quoted. either the company was lax or the regulators were lax. therefore, if we tighten up all the procedures, and nothing of this sort will ever happen again. the other view is, accidents happen. we have drilled thousands and thousands of these wells without any incident. statistically, this is a very small percentage of difficulty.

accidents happen with automobiles, airplanes. accidents will happen anytime you have a large number of activity of this kind. i would like reaction to that. is this indeed just a very small percentage that accident happen and weaken the statistically as far into the future as we have in the past and before begin another one of these -- or is this indeed the circumstance where there were lax practices? i do not want to have to determine who was lax, but where's this -- but was there something here that could be prevented in the future? if we do move in a direction that drives the nine majors at of this business so that only the major survive -- only the

majors will be big enough to deal with the cap. what are the chances that they would be able to get sufficient insurance if the cap is set so high or if the cap is lifted altogether so that a business decision would be made by the board of these companies, the risk is too great and we will drop all activities as far as drilling is concerned? look into the future in these two areas and give me your responses. anybody else who has a view on these two areas, i would like to get your response. >> too, senator. with regard to do first point, this is an unusual accident. that is clearly the case. there were too independent --

two serious independent things that went wrong. each of those independently is exxraordinarily rare. to have them both happen at the same time is even more extraordinarily rare. however, it is unacceptable for it to occur. that is why we are committed to doing a thorough investigation and a top to bottom evaluation of whether we have the right regulatory system, whether we are state of the arts, whether there is enough oversight of industry. and you will see later this week in the report that the secretary will be delivering to the president some ideas in terms of additional interim safety measures that we might consider imposing. this type of accident, a rare though it is, is acceptable.

it must not be allowed to ever happen again. that is our commitments to work with you and with congress, to make sure that we have a system in place so that we never have to deal with this again. i will defer for the second part of the question on the cap issue. >> i think we learned -- will learn every day more information about the risks of offshore drilling. i think that rethinking of the liability provisions is appropriate, as we learn more and more about the risk. you raise a number of questions about insurance. today, the major players in this industry already are involved in a mix of insurance and self insurance. they face the prospect of

unlimited liability, because of state law and other law that is out there. our fundamental starting point is that polluters should pay. or you have risky activity that is highly lucrative in a place where the entity is most able to ensure safety is going to be -- we think it is inappropriate. -- we think it is appropriate. >> you are going to drive toward concentration in the industry, perhaps? >> we think there are a lot of activities covered and different liabilities regimes under the current law may be appropriate. our focus here is where there is a prospect of a similar oil spill. most of that activity is a much

smaller set of players. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me just advise folks. the order is the following. we do have a second panel, so let me just advise everybody that we would like to do all that before lunch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate this hearing. i do feel compelled to make an editorial comment because one of the things that i can see happening in terms of where we focus accountability is the fact that we are not looking more broadly the consequences of a

philosophy of the regulation that has gone on now for many, many years. we see that on wall street. we see that now with minerals management service is. we see that across the board. there is an inspector general report documenting the fact that there were unscrupulous use of government funding from 2005- 2007. too close to industries that they regulate. this white house is dealing with holdovers from the former administration that believes in that deregulation, not having the accountability. letting industries make the decisions. even the minerals management service's chief that just have down was the bush administration. i mention that because i can hear were this is going in terms of pricing that this is somehow

about the obama administration. mr. chairman, we have 107 nominees pending right now that the president does not even have his own team in place. i am happy to hold them accountable. but let's give them their team first. i think that directly relates to what is going on here. i would say -- i do not want to deal with the old team that was in place right now, the holdovers from a philosophy that has caused us a lot of trouble. it has caused us a lot of problems. let's put the new team in place and let the president had his team. i am willing to be as tough as ever. let me talk about bp and ask your comments. when we look at the efforts, the history of bp, it is very disturbing be on this horrendous situation that we have right now. in march 2005, an explosion at a

bp facility in texas resulted in 15 deaths, 170 injuries. after an investigation, it was determined that bp cut maintenance and safety controls in an effort to reduce costs. the oil spill does not spill appeared to be an isolated incident it is part of a track record of cutting corners on safety. last october, bp fails to correct safety hazards. 439 new safety hazards found since then. they were fined $20 million for an oil spill in alaska because of a corroded pipeline. according to a recent study, bp refinery is our responsibility -- responsible for 97% flagrant

violations discovered by inspectors. most of these citations found that their behavior was an egregious and willful. my question is, given the track record, at this point, it is there any reason or evidence that bp might have been grossly negligent or in violation of the federal safety construction or operating regulation for any of the actions right now that were -- right now? >> senator, you correctly state that there is are circumstances in which the cap would not apply. our focus today has been on clean-up and i do not want to comment on any contemplated or pending investigations. >> does anyone else want to comment? clearly, this is a record of serious concerns about cutting costs and raises a lot of

questions about how we got into this situation without safety provisions put in place. this has gone on for over a month. it does raise serious questions about a number of different things. i hope we are going to focus on this in a much more direct way in the future. >> i would be happy to just reinforce the notion, senator, that we intend to absolutely look at the entire dp record as part of the overall investigation that is now underway. i fully expect the commission that the president announced last saturday will also look at whether there is a pattern for this company and do an evaluation of the adequacy of the regulatory program. in that regard, i appreciate your comment that the inspector

general reports that cannot today reinforced the notion that prior to the time this administration took office, there were serious problems at minerals management service. secretary salazar, and the very first among the coming into the office, established a new ethics procedure. the focus on that time was on the revenue side. we ended the royalty in kind program. we require a special ethics training. the secretary today is asking inspector general as a follow-up to that report to see if any ethical violations have continued in connection with the new orleans activity. we want to make sure that they have not continued. this is definitely a work in progress as we deal with what has been too cozy a relationship between industry

and regulators. >> to, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman for holding this hearing. there's been a lot of talk this morning about the oil pollution act of 1990 and about what the responsibility -- what the response party is required to pay under that act. there's been general agreement from everybody u.s. spoken that bp would be liable to pay the cost of cleanup. one of the big question has been about the $75 million liability cap. i made some charts this morning because i thought it might be instructive to look at how that liability cap of $75 million compares to some of the cost involved in this bill -- this spill. if you look at the first poster,

you can see at the bottom of the $75 million in liability. above that is the estimated damage to louisiana's fishing industry, which is right now estimated at $2.4 billion. above that, you can see the estimated damage to florida's tourism industry, which is estimated at $3 billion. above that, the dog that shows bp profit for the first quarter of this year, $6.1 billion. the large dot for the -- at the talk show bp profits for 2009, $16.6 billion. i thought it would also be helpful to show how that $75 million this into the total profits from bp for 2009. i misspoke, at the profits were

$16.6 billion. you can see that $75 million is a very tiny sliver of what their profits were. i think that is why you are hearing concerned this morning about that $75 million of liability cap. the question that i really have, and i am proud to be on this legislation to raise that liability cap to $10 billion, the question that has been raised this morning is should we have a cap at all on liability? does a cap encourage risk your behavior on the part of the industry? i do not know if you would like to take first shot at that. >> in a situation where you have the risk of a similar major oil spill, you have activity that is risky, but highly lucrative and you have the companies that are

engaged and in the best position to engage in a new technology to make sure that it is safer, to make sure they are complying with all the federal regulation. that is a situation where not having any capital makes a lot of sense. it is consistent with the basic principle that a polluter should pay for all of the damage that they cause. >> thank you. there have been a lot of talk about bp and they said they would pay the total cost of the cleanup. i did most of us looking at the scenes on television would say that that cost of cleanup includes the cost of the boom, the cost of people raking in the oil, but what else is included? are all of the legal cost the department's is occurring right now included in the cost of cleanup? is the time that the department of the interior spending on this

including in the cost -- included in the cost of cleanup? >> i will speak first, but then maybe mr. bennett can add to that. it does include expenditures on public services, all the damage to our natural resources, all of the efforts of our agencies, the impact of uses of fishermen and the economic impact. it is a broad range of categories. i will say that this is certainly unprecedented in its scope and there may be issues that arise that have not been dealt with before, but it was intended to cover a broad range of costs and damages. >> i would just add that damages include personal or property damages, lost profits were earnings, lots of government revenue.

natural resource damages but and that is the damage said. on the response side, -- those response costs are determined by her, so she needs something to support her in covering the cost. the surge of government that you are seeing is new ground. we really have not ever done this before on that scale and we are still working through some of the public policy questions. getting teams of scientists together to evaluate flow rates. if i were to go down and do a tour of the site, i would pay the coast guard operating cost because i did not consider myself part of the response. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

let me commend the administration for embracing an unlimited liability for economic damages. i have been advocating that we need to lift the cap and i will amend my legislation to pursue a limited liability, certainly in this regard. i think we disagree about the question of retroactivity. under the law, not what bp has said, under the law, bp -- when there is liability, they only have a $75 million liability cap. is that correct? >> i would not characterize it that way, senator.

it is conditioned on a number of things, there could be no gross negligence. there are many circumstances in which the cap would not apply at all. in addition, there are certainly other federal statutes as well as state law that could be brought into play. >> if all of these other elements could expose you and limited to leak -- unlimitedly -- in the absence of those exemptions that you describe, they would have a $75 million liability cap? >> if those exceptions did not occur, there would be $75 million liability cap. >> has bp entered into a consent agreement with the department of justice to agree -- to be liable

for above the $75 million liability cap? have they given you any written assurances that they will be liable for above the $75 million? >> they have provided the written assurances that they provided to the cabinet secretary and secretary salazar. the chairman made such statements to such congressional committees. >> i would like to see if the department has a copy. i would like to see what was written and what the nature of the language of bp and their commitment. exxon said many of these same things during the exxon valdez. then a litigated it all away through the supreme court. is unlimited liability allowed

through state law? it seems to allow state liability beyond federal caps for oil discharges. within such state. what a spill like that in federal waters be considered a discharge within a state, allowing increased state liability? >> i think certainly a significant amount of damage to state coast lines would be damage to that state. i think there will be -- i think the rules may be different. there would be significant damages that a state might be able to pursue. >> there is no question that this is a discharge not with any state, but in its territorial waters of the united states. is that correct? >> that is where the initial discharge cut -- occurred. >> when we go to state

liability, it pays -- there are no guarantees. if we believe that either between the exceptions that you stated may exist, we do not know whether they are pertinent to this particular incident, or bp statement that they are going to accept unlimited liability, i do not see what the reticence is to lift the unlimited liability. the inspector general of the department of the interior soon releasing a report that describes regulators allowing company officials to fill out inspection forms and pencil, which would inspectors would right on top of the pencil in 8 and turn in completed forms. this is is the latest in a series of allegations.

some of these have been referred to u.s. attorneys and they have passed on it. is the justice department going to look at these incidences to determine whether there should be prosecution? >> senator, i cannot speak to this particular instance. if we get a referral -- >> do you it intends to make a referral? >> we have just received this draft report from -- last night and i expect the secretary will do exactly what he did when he came into office in january 2009 on the heels of the investigations in colorado. he specifically referred everything to the u.s. attorney, even though that particular investigation had already been processed by the previous administration. in this case, the secretary issued a press release this morning making it clear that he

intends to aggressively evaluate these activities, all of which occurred under the prior administration. he intends to aggressively look into the individuals involved and to consider prosecution, termination, whatever is appropriate. >> i respect what the secretary has done in the ethics reforms that he has instituted. i do hope there is appropriate referral to the justice department. only when we act seriously will be regulators understand that you cannot be cozying up to the industry. >> i want to go back to this liability question. a cap of $10 billion -- testified that the administration's position is on limited.

is that correct? >> for deep water -- >> if that was in effect today, can this new law that we will consider, whether it is on limited -- unlimited or $10 billion, does that go into effect for bp? can we be retroactive and our laws? >> we think there would be strong arguments. >> to you believe there is constitutional grounds to be retroactive? >> we believe that it would not -- breach of contract actions could be brought. week we have a strong argument. -- we think we have a strong argument. >> whether the congress moves to a $10 billion cap, at do you

think that you should have a different cap for deep water, shallow water, this drilling can occur in 10 feet of water, 1,000 feet of water. the risks are a exponential in terms of that factor of death, distance, darkness. -- death. how is the head ministration thinking about this because it is very important to thousands of people in the industry that the natural in deepwater, but have been drilling fairly safely in shallow water. what are eat -- are you thinking about the effect of your proposal on the industry as a whole?

>> we cover a wide range of activities that may have different risks. we recognize that it is complicated and that there are many factors that need to be considered, including what will create the best incentives for safety. the impact of the market. and we would like to work with congress on what's -- what are the appropriate liability provisions for different types of drilling, for different types of transport. overall, i think that a primary point is that the polluter pay it should be the core of this. these liability provisions have not been changed in 20 years. they're not sufficient for the risks that we face today. >> i agree with you on that. i would call your attention to the wall street journal argument today that insurance premiums for day -- for offshore drilling have soared to 50%. for companies like bp, i am not

too concerned. but i am concerned about actions that this congress would take that would make it virtually impossible or very difficult for other independent and small operators -- and there are thousands -- that seem to be invisible to some members. they are not invisible to me. i think we have to be very careful about that. the polluter should pay. bp should pay everything. mr. bennett, i have one minute left. i want to ask you this question. i need to be very clear with you. what does the law require you to do to make bp -- do you have the

authority to make them do that? if not, do you need some additional authority? >> the current law requires me to notify them that their obligation to advertise -- beyond that, bp either denies the claim or does not respond to a claim within the 990 days -- 90 days. the idea behind that is that small claims to not have to go through constant litigation. they can bring it to us as a second look. if we pay it, -- -- that is good to know that not everybody in louisiana needs to hire an attorney. we do not have to have everybody hire attorneys and accountants. for the record, i want to say that -- in fairness, i would

like to say that 70% of their revenues come from outside the united states. when someone asks why they may be headquartered outside the united states, it is because 70% of their revenue comes from outside the united states. i am not going to comment at all about their distribution, etc., but what people have to understand about this offshore oil and gas industry is that a lot of these companies did a majority of their revenues from other places in the world, not just in the gulf of mexico. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. are you going to have a second panel at some point in time? >> we do have a second panel. >> i almost wish that he could join us now.

his testimony seemed to be a little different than yours on this issue of retroactivity. the reason why i am interested in this -- we want to know who is going to clean this up and how we will pay for it. to make sure that the taxpayer does not become the deep pocket on this. we also do not want to wait 20 years as we did with the exxon valdez case. in his testimony, on retroactivity, he said that the constitution disfavors retroactivity. at least five constitutional provisions make it to very hard to go back and do retroactivity. you see much more confident. >> i read his testimony and i think it is more consistent. as i indicated, congress legislate retroactively all the

time. particularly in a context where there is an important public policy. it covers a broad range of past and future activities. i think we have a strong argument that if congress decided to legislate a crapshoot -- retroactively, that it would be upheld constitutionally. >> how would you legislate? am all for them pain. what i did not want is to hear today that there is a simple answer. they were saying, we will pay

all legitimate claims. then they started saying, i do not know about that one. i do not want to hear today that we have great hope and promise in retroactivity only to find out that it takes us 25 years to get anywhere. in the meantime, there is significant damage that is not dealt with. he basically says that on the these five different issues here that three of them appear to have a modest chance of success and two of them seem to have almost no chance of success. those are those constitutional issues. you are thinking of something different? >> senator, i think that our view is that we would have a strong chance to defeat any constitutional claims if congress were to lift the caps. in ballpark the chances a little bit differently, but

fundamentally, congress legislates retroactively quite frequently. we do not think that would be an issue. i do think there is certainly the potential for breach of contract action, but congress reserves the right to increase penalties or increased removal costs or damages or increased the liability. i think that is clear to everyone in the industry. it does not say retroactively, but as i indicated, we believe we have strong argument to defeat any retroactivity argument. >> thank you for your clarity. do you think that we should also look at -- since bp has had fines and restitutions for environmental of violations, the texas refinery, the explosion in

2005, a week -- a leak from a pipe in alaska, manipulation of propane, diaz think there should be some type of three strikes and you're out clause as it relates to companies doing business that maybe you would not allow them to continue to bid on new leases? >> senator, we would be open to that, certainly. there are other examples and other environmental laws of situations where companies, because of a pattern of behavior, are not allowed to have federal contracts, that sort of thing. we are absolutely open to that. i think we are very interested in seeing these investigations run to ground and not prematurely drawing conclusions. but we do intend to look at those issues. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> i would like to request that when mr. hayes provides bp responsibility document to senator menendez, that you make it available to the entire committee. >> let me think this panel very much for your testimony. you've been very generous with your time and we appreciate it. let me called the second panel forward. that is the specialist for environmental policy for congressional research service, mr. king, who was an analyst in financial economics and risk assessment, and mr. robert melts, legislative attorney with congressional research service. i would just advise the witnesses that our republican colleagues have been invited to

a lunch with the president beginning here at noon. that is why they are not in attendance. that explains some of the absences. let me ask each of you to take about five minutes and make the main points that you think we need to understand and then we will include your whole statement in the record. >> ar good afternoon, mr. chairman. i am a specialist in environmental policy in the congressional research service. i've been asked by the committee to discuss aspects of the oil spill liability policy and allocation of costs associated with a major oil spill. my testimony will provide background on the oil pollution act liability structure and its interaction with the oil spill

liability trust fund. i should note that we do not abdicate -- advocate policy or take a specific position on legislation. it applies to any discharge of oil from a facility in navigable waters were the exclusive economic zone of the united states. responsible parties include owners and operators of vessels or facilities or lessees of offshore facilities. responsible parties are liable for oil spill removal cost, natural resource damages, and a range of economic cost. however, in part is liability may be limited. liability limits differ by oil spilt force. offshore facilities, like the gulf well, have their liability capped at all removal cost plus

$75 million. under some circumstances, it party is liability may be on limited -- unlimited. in addition, the responsible party must report the spell and cooperate with response officials. it is currently undetermined whether liability limits would apply to the gulf oil spill. regardless, individual liability is only one component of the framework established. the second significant element is the oil spill liability trust fund. primary purposes of the fund include immediate access to funds for prompt response and payment for claims in excess of

the responsible parties liability cap. the fund is supported by a tax on domestic and imported oil. at present, the tax is 8 cents. . .

lord, are nothing compared to the glory to be revealed for us. so as children of promise we live with undying hope, empowered by your spirit, we work in this world as the free children of revelation. knowing we can change and we can change the world around us.

as their representatives in government, help members to undertake the sufferings of your people and the bith pannings of new creation -- pangs of new creation. that through your redeeming love and purified wisdom a new order of prosperity and peace may be established for the whole created world. both now and forever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman fro south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, including our guests in the gallery, please join in. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under

god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: we are now in the 36th day of a manmade environmental disaster which is fast becoming an ecological a pock police for marine life. the ecosystems of the gulf of mexico cannot survive wave after wave of toxic substances hitting the beaches. the ultimate surprise is not that it happened. oil companies, democratic, republican add m.s refused responsibility and rejected alternatives n this privatization of the natural world, damage to sea life is the cost of doing business. the ultimate horror is we can't stop the flood of oil. won't stop consumption of oil

products, and fail to admit the limits of technology. this is a reality writ large as the environmental collapse becomes the new normal. can you realistically look to washington alone to protect the natural world? more permits have been issued. and our individuals impact on the natural world. we can seize this moment, we as individuals, can begin a green wave of sustainability to save the planet and ourselves. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute to address the house. mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. back in my beloved indiana and all across this country, families are hurting. this is a difficult time in the life of our economy. families are sitting down and

making hard choices. they are writing a family budget. small businesses and family farmers are doing the same. sitting down, sharpening their pencils, and making the tough choices to keep the doors opened and the lights on. they are doing that everywhere but in washington, d.c. the american people deserve to know that this democrat majority has not produced a budget. for the first time since the adoption of the budget act, the house of representatives has decided to abandon its responsibility to sit down and write a budget. it's truly extraordinary. the chairman of the budget committee, distinguished gentleman, john spratt, said famously, if you can't budget, you can't govern. by abdicating their responsibility to sit down and make the hard choices, this majority is arguing that they in and of themselves cannot govern.

they are unwilling to govern. the american people deserve leadership in the congress that is as good as our families and small businesses. they deserve a congress that writes a budget. madam speaker, where's budget? the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to address the house. mr. heinrich: mr. speaker, central in new mexico hags been flanked by the majesty of the sandia mountain ranges for thousands of years. most of these mountains have been preserved as mart of the -- part of the national forest, today i'm i.n.s. duesing legislation that would add the crest of montezuma to the north end and extend the wilderness designation to the south. for families living there, this legislation will ensure their access to critical water

infrastructure for farm irrigation and other important uses. it will also ensure that east mountain families can use these places for recreation. finally, it will preserve the area's critical role as a wildlife corridor for animals that migrate from north to south. i urge my colleagues' support for this legislation that will protect some of the greatest natural assets that make our state the land ever enchantment. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. not since 1974 when richard nixon resigned from office and happy days was the new hit show on abc has this house failed to pass a budget resolution. there's no doubt that passing a budget can be hard work. but just because something is hard work doesn't mean you don't have to deal with it. our constituents did not elect us to make easy decisions.

they elected us to make the hard ones. two weeks ago house republicans unveiled the youcut program. so far more than 500,000 votes have been cast. leading the field this week by a wide margin with about 40% of the vos is the proposal to eliminate the next round of nonmilitary federal employee pay raises. as "usa today" recently reported, federal salaries are significantly outpacing their counterparts in the private sector. this vote won't be easy for everyone. but it is exactly the kind of choice we must begin to make to get us off the path toward financial ruin. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for one minute to address the house. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, the most recent report from the bureau of labor statistics

showed that the econom has taken another 290,000 steps in the right direction. 290,000, that's how many jobs the economy added in the month of april. this comes on top of the 230,000 jobs added in march. according to commissioner keith hall from the bureau of labor statistics, these -- there are now numerous bright spots, the trend is encouraging, and the growth is widespread. the growing consensus is that the economy is steadily improving and that the private sector will continue hiring. this real possibility of hope on the job front is one of the reasons that an additional 800,000 people entered the labor force last month. as you can see from this chart, the declining red is the number of jobs lost in the prior administration. the blue shows the jobs and the trend in the right direction showing that policy does

matter. this chart is not for victory but it certainly shows we are moving in the right direction. there is now reason to hope and there is real progress on the jobs front. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed with amendment h.r. 4173, an act cited as the restore america financial stability act of 2010 in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute to address the house. mr. dreier: thank you, mr. speaker. our friend from columbus, indiana, the distinguished conference chairman said it perfectly when he talked about the challenges that families are facing across the country and trying to put together

their own budgets. he also pointed out the fact that for the first time in history, since the implementation of the 1974 budget and empowerment act we have seen no budget provided from washington, d.c. mr. speaker, it's not surprising that that has been the case. how can you put together a road map of where it is you are going when you have no idea where you're going? and that's really whe we are today. i'm happy to say that we have a wide range of very positive proposals that we put forward. we just talked about the youcut program, there are lots of things we need to do. tragically today we are dealing with very anemic job creation and economic growth, and there's something that we can do that will help deal with national security as well, and that is the challenge of -- and thats the challenge of

destabilization in the korean pin anyone suea. in the free trade agreement, we could implement the largest bilateral free trade agreement in world history and it would create millions, millions of good american jobs. please sign up now so that we can in fact get our economy back on track. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. altmire: i rise today to celebrate may as older americans month. older americans offer wisdom and guidance that our constituents treasure as invaluable assets to our families and our communities. and by the year 2025, one in four drivers in this country will be age 65 or older, without safe roads on which to travel, older americans will have dramatically limited mobility options. we must ensure that older americans are as safe as possible as they go their daily lives which is why i have

introduced h.r. 3355, the older driver and pedestrian safety and roadway enhancement act. my bill, which has 34 bipartisan co-sponsors, will make roads safer for both older drivers and pedestrians by implementing recommendations om the federal highway administration's older drivers handbook. i urge all of my colleagues to honor older americans month and the contributions of their older constituents by joining me in the fight for their safety and mobility. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. speaker. older americans care most about their children and grandchildren. and this congress is mortgaging their children and grandchildren's future. all across this country, families are struggling to balance their budgets.

businesses have been doing likewise and it means laying people off, tightening their s in order to balance budgets. and instead what is this congress doing? continuing to rrow and spend beyond our means. americans are also suffering from bailout fatigue. when you think about it in the last two years we have bailed out wall street, g.m., chrysler, fannie mae, freddie mac, and now the obama administration is proposing $8 billion for gree and over $50 billion for the european union that has been borrowing and spending beyond its means. yet america is following in these same footsteps. mr. speaker, we need a budget. and just last week, my friend, congressman pens, and i introduced a resolution asking for this congress to take a stand in opposition to u.s. tax dollars being used for the bailout. we cannot afford a too big to fail strategy to a global level. the only thing too big to fail is america itself. we owe it to the american people to have this vote. .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. harman: mr. speaker, my district makes most of our intelligence satellites. i devote enormous attention for helping develop legal and operational strategies for keeping our country safe. thobama administration understands that security and liberty are not a zero-sum game. we must capture or kill high-value targets, which this administration is doing in far greater numbers than did the bush administration, but we must also live our values. most important among them, the principle that the rule of law applies to all. tomorrow, my committee on terrorism and risk assessment, will hold a hearing to assess how the internet is used by terrorists to train, -- to

train others. the dark underside is it can be a form of violence and global troor. as difficult and controversial as this subject is, we must find a way to intercept those who wants to do us harm. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: witht objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. walden: thank you, mr. speaker. if we talk about national security and intersecting those who do harm, first thing we ought to talk about in this congress at this time is where's the budget? as the budget chairman has said, if you can't budget you can't govern. that was four years ago. taxpaye have to pay their taxes every april 15. congress was supposed to have a budget april 15. not since 1974 when the budget act was written has the house, he house failed to even

consider a budget. and the budget that we need to consider needs to deal with deficit spending. deficits of $1.4 trillion, $1.6 trillion and a trillion dollars every year added to the nation's debt and our kids' and grandkids' future. the budget doubles the nation in five years and triples it in 10. this is unsustainable. we will look like greece. we will lock like spain. the -- we will look like spain. the budget-busting deficit is horrible for our kids and graineds. it will not be good for our country's security. it is awful for our future. let's get a budget that reduces wasteful washington spending. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized to speak to the house. mr. gutierrez: thank you very much. it's impossible without talking

about b.p. -- without getting angry talking about b.p. i want to add one more b.p. to the mix. be proactive. this week i will introduce an amendment to the department of defense re-authorization bill that will call on the secretary of defense to consider barring b.p. from government contracts. disbar b.p. we hear that the cleanup may take years or may last forever. we hear about investigations that may take years or last forever. instead of looking backwards and who should pay, let's be proactive and take steps this week to ban permanently from federal contracts the serial abuser of thamerican trust. i urge you to support my amendment to the d.o.d. re-authorization and ban b.p. from federal contracts. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: when it comes to addressing the budget, competition is key. this principle applies to everything from produce to clothing items to defense procurement. as the house considers the national defense authorization act this week and an amendment impeding competition between fighter engines, it's important we keep the merits of this principle in mind. in order to continue to protect thousands of jobs and save taxpayers billions of dollars. history shows that competing fighter engines significantly reduce program costs while improving safety, reliability and contractor responsiveness. controlling costs, spurrg innovation and accelerating weapon system readiness and performance is a few reasons why we must continue the f-136 program. without competition we will rely on a single engine which could lead to unnecessary operational risk and the

potential for grounding of the entire fleet if a glitch is found. the f-136 prevents this troubling scenario. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for -- to address the house for one minute. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, this week the house will consider the american jobs and closing tax loopholes act. this legislation is another step in our efforts to create jobs and keep our economic recovery on track. the bill will help communities build schools, roads, other important infrastructure projects, putting people to work now. in my district, we will see benefits in places like one which have been in need of sewer systems. the build america bonds program in the bill will help advance clean energy efforts like

geothermal power efforts which will provide electricity for santa barbara county. mr. speaker, our economy is in rough shape. we are making progress. last month the economy created nearly 300,000 new jobs, a stark turnaround from the 700,000 jobs being lost at the end of the bush administration. this change comes in large part because of the tough, smart choices we made to cut taxes and invest in our people. the legislation coming up this week is another of these efforts to keep us on the road to full recovery. i hope all my colleagues will help support this bill and help build a stronger america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from colorado is recognized to address the house for one minute. >> mr. speaker, there are many heroes from colorado who have fought and continue to fight in

the global war on terror. today, i rise to pay tribute to one hero in particular. the united states army specialist grant wittman of goldman, colorado. the specialist graduated from high school where he was an athlete, avid soccer player and snowboarder. although one friend was killed in iraq, at the age of 24 he enlisted in the united states army. when his father tried to talk him out of enlisting, specialist grant wittman said he couldn't sit by while others die protecting him. this is a true indication of the kind of courage grant wittman possessed. on march 12, 2010, while assigned to combat, afghanistan specialist -- in afghanistan, specialist grant wit mapp's unit was a-- wittman's unit was attacked by small fir. during engagement, he was combrafle wounded and ultimate -- grateful wounded and ultimately succumbed to his

injuries while at walter reed medical center. he is a shining example of the united states army service and sacrifice. as a former member of the united states army and as a retired marine corps officer, my deepest sympathies go out to his family and to all who knew him. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen, we will soon bring to the floor a defense authorization bill that invests in our most important security needs. disrupting terrorist networks, countering nuclear proliferation, strengthening cooperation, preparing the iraqi government to stand on its own and investing ithe needs of our troops and their families. this bill builds on democrats' strong defense record. under president obama, we have killed or captured some of the

highest ranking leaders in al qaeda. many more than we did under the last administration. and the taliban laid out a clear way forward in afghanistan. disrupting terrorism with the full resources of our intelligence community and justice system and increased funding for human intelligence collection, cybersecurity and security for our skies, our ports and our borders. this bill offers us a chance to improve on the flawed record of the bush administration, and i urge my colleagues to support it and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. kline: mr. speaker, across the country countless familiar lows and small business owners are making -- families and small business owners are making the tough choices.

the american people realize the path to renewing our economic prosperity comes through courage and sacrifice. they also realize the difficult work must start today. it is a dare lix of public duty for this congress to deliberately fail to pass a budget. more than a year ago the american people ignited a national debate about the future they see for the country. they have demanded that washington get spending und control and spend taxpayer money wisely. it is shameful that here in the people's house the democrat majority's avoiding that same debate. we will failing our children by failing toroduce a budget. it is time to get our priorities straight and our fiscal house in order. mr. speaker, let's join this debate taking place around the country and begin to make the tough choices the american people expect from their elected leaders. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> to dress the house for one minute and to revise and extend

my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman florida is recognized for one minute. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, if you tune into last week's episode of "youcut," then you may recall that republican attempted to cut temporary aid to needy families program. this cut would be another break of the rich. instead of providing childcare subsidies to lower income families with children. fortunately this measure was defeated. this week they stall the important work of the house. while the youcut program has been touted by republicans as a partnership with the american people, a more fitting name for the program would be cutyou because it can hurt everyday americans while doing little to cut the federal keffs. what republicans failed -- federal deficit.

what the republicans fail to say is voters are able to vote to save a program rather than cut it. further, the youcut program conveniently targets only those who have internet access and cell phones which disproportionately leaves out both the poor and the elderly. i'll talk a little bit more about cutyou later on ts evening. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. folks in america's first district have a lot to say about spending the debt and the deficit. i'd like to share their comments. chris ss please cut federal spending. this issue can't be put off any longer. it's not time for us to be able to afford these fancy federal programs. we have to get on the strack of reducing spending now. the american people get it. dealing with the debt and

deficit should be a top priority. cut spending. no one has ever spent their way out of debt. elizabeth said, fix the budget. stop spending from what we don't have. the u.s. taxpayers' on the hook for billions. anyone with sense know that a debt crisis can't be solved with more debt. spending and borrowing is happening too much. this must end. you must balance your books and you must do so with cutting spending, not increasing taxes. frank from stafford simply says, stop the spending. diane from williamsburg says, the national budget is way out of control. citizens everywhere are so concerned about this that something has to be done right away. raymond says that our nation is falling hopelessly into debt. keep taxes low to motivate business and people to spend, not the government. with that, mr. speaker. i urge us to adopt a budget. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. . >> he rise today to recognize an extraordinary individual. for over five years maggie of new mexico has been stuffing care packages to be sent to the men and women of our armed forces. mr. teague: the simple act of stuffing care packages for service members is honorable enough. but there's a couple of extra twists when we look at mgy's story. you see maggie is only 17 years old. also on may 14, maggie and her corps of loyal volunteers stuffed hundreds more packages, bringing the total number of care packages that maggie has sent to 10,000. the care packages maggie sends to our troops give them a small amount of comfort as they pursue their dangerous and

important missions. we owe our troops great effort for even small comforts. thank you, maggie. god bless. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. one of the most difficult challenges facing our nation's future is providing clean, affordable, and reliable energy. mr. smith: rural america h tremendous wind potential. unfortunately, these wind energy sources lack infrastructure. including the expansion of transmission systems to deliver wind power from its sources to centers of population. we need to have the ability to create energy in one part of the country and use it in another without significant loss in either efficiency or usability. my friends, we need to continue to explore any and all viable forms of research and development in renewable energy. on thursday, members of congress will have the chance to see what the future may hold for our nation's energy resources at the 13th annual

congressional renewable energy and energy efficiency expo. there are still hurdles to overcome and now is the time to begin working for a strong and diverse renewable energy portfolio. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mrs. dahlkemper: mr. speaker, when i was sworn into office in january of last year, our economy was on the verge of collapse. thanks to decisive action in congress, our economy is turning around. we have created half a million jobs so far in 2010. our country is on track to create more jobs this year than we created in the entire eight years of the bush administration. in western pennsylvania our strong work ethic is driving our recovery. companies like coal draft industries are creating new jobs in my district because western pennsylvania is a good place to do business. things are improving, but we still have a long way to go.

we must continue to invest in american businesses and the american people. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together so we can help create jobs, support our businesses, and further our recovery. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? mr. rehberg: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from montana is recognized for one minute. mr. rehberg: mr. speaker, the american people vividly remember the contortions this chamber went through to find the votes nted to pass cap and tax. we remember the arm twisting and backroom deals that secured the votes for the government takeover of health care. when it comes to the policies the american people oppose, this house has always found the votes. yet apparently when it comes to passing a budget, something every family and small business must do, the majority just can't find enough votes to get it done. with almost $13 trillion in debt and record deficits adding more every minute, is this majority so desperate to avoid facing the tough decisions that they are going to scrap the

budget altogether? talk about burying your head in the sand. we are here to do a job and passing a budget is a big part of that job. let's get to work. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house foone minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. the army corps of engineers had a saying during world war ii. the difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer. in 1993 president clinton tried to do the impossible by lifting the decades long ban on gay and lesbian soldiers serving openly in the military. unfortunately congress opposed him and the discriminatory don't-ask, don't-tell law was passed. since then, over 13,500 service members have been fired and countless other courageous and qualified americans have been prevented from serving. well, it's been 17 long and

painful years since we tried to do the impossible. congress now has the chance to end this injustice. the president agrees. the military agrees. the american people agree. let's honor our nation's over one million gay veterans this memorial day. this week let's lift the ban on gays serving openly once and for all. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without jection, the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i was pleased to hear that petty officer second class mackey was acquitted of all charges of abid, a conspirator in the 2004 murder in of four u.s. contractors in fallujah. he can now rejoin his ship mates, who were acquitted of

charges as well with the juries reaching the same verdict. while these warriors have been acquitted, what is left behind is significant legal debt, all three men sut civilian counsel. based on the results of these trials. i can understand their decision, up against the united states government in court the 10e8diers faced osecution with unlimited resources. today i'm introducing the legal relief -- service member legal relief act which reimburses soldiers who seek the best defense available eanch subsequently acquitted or charges dropped in cases related to the handling of terrorists. ms. granger: our war fighters face great personal risk every day on the frontline in the global war on terror. they have a right to defend themselves in court against egregious claims from known terrorists. we need these men on the frontline to continue battling those who are actively trying to kill americans at home and abroad. if the court finds they have done nothing wrong and simply

executed their mission, we should repay their legal fees an got them back into action as quickly as possible. that's exactly what my legislation does. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i was outraged when i found that our u.s. census bought promotional materials made in china, including this census 2010 baseball hat. mr. schauer: this hat is the poorest quality i have ever seen and your tax dollars paid for it. recently i read in the american chamber of commerce and china's 2010 white paper that chinese markets remain closed to american goods. even when u.s. companies manufacture in china. what remains clear is that china has access to our government contracts and we don't have access to theirs.

so it's time to stop buying chinese goods with our u.s. tax dollars. i have in my hand a quality hat made in america by unite here workers and a lousy chinese made hat in the other hand. where do you want your tax dollars going? which jobs should your tax dollars support? support my bill, h.r. 5312, to force china to let our people and our businesses compete. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from gafment is recognized for one minute to address the house. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, washington just isn't listening to what the american people want. take a look at our state of affairs. our national unemployment rate is close to10%. we have almost $13 trillion in debt.

and our budget deficit for this fiscal year, 2010, is projected to be $1.le trillion. and americans keep on asking, where are the jobs? indeed, where are the jobs? mr. speaker, republicans stand ready to get spending under control and to pass legislation that does create jobs. yet the democratic majority refuses to move forward with even the first order of business in getting oiler fiscal house in order, and that -- getting our fiscal house in order, and that is passing a budget. this would be a fill your of our most basic responsibilities and the first time that happened since the current budget rules were put in place back in 1974. mr. speaker, we need to rein in federal spending this year. and the first step in that process is passing a fiscally responsible budget. and i urge my democratic colleagues to do just that. i yid back. the speaker o tempore: for

what purpose does the the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from missouri is recognized for one minute. mr. carnahan: thank you, mr. speaker. eight years of failed economic policies under the bush administration left a deep economic hole for the new obama administration, but three things are clear. it will take some time to dig out. we have made steady progress. and there's much more to do. but yesterday the joint economic committee released its report showing progress with new jobs created and decreasing unemployment in my home state of missouri. now is not the time to reverse direction. we must remain focused on the real measure of recovery and that's jobs. we need to move beyond bickering to real solutions that will put real people back to work. i urge my colleagues to once again take up the job creating america competes bill that will strengthen u.s. scientific and economic leadership. to create jobs in investment

and science, we can't let grid lock hold us back to let countries pass us by for them to sell us the technology. ensuring the u.s. competes globally in a common sense way of creating jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from kansas seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: as a c.p.a. i counseled folks who are in debt. the first step is to acknowledge the problem. the second step is to develop a budget that maps out the path to solvency. our children who stand to inherit a national debt level that is unsustainable should require congress to ado a similar aroach. apparently the majority are afraid to admit that washington has a spending d borrowing problem, and they plan to avoid even discussing a budget.

in 2008 then candidate obama told joe the plumber, and i quote, we need to share the wealth. i was concerned then but now i'm appalled because who are we sharing the wealth with? the chinese. sending nearly $1 trillion to foreign nations to pay debt service on reckless spending is not what our kids deserve. our kids deserve a congress that will do their job and make the tough decisions to get our fiscal house in order which starts by developing a responsible budget. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for whaturpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized for one minute. ms. hirono: mr. speaker, i recently met a teen from the university of hawaii, one of 20 collegiate teams selected to build an energy efficient solar

powered house as part of the solar decathlon, an international competition sponsored by the department of energy. in the fall of 2010 -- 2011, the d.c. national mall will transform into a zero emission solar village built by the next generation of engineers. they will demonstrate an array of innovative energy technologies. designed for a tropical climate the hawaiian model will be built using a biobased polymer and the house will be buoyant enough to float in the event of a flood. a new generation of leaders in the clean energy economy will emerge from programs like these and i look forward to walking through the solar village next year. the solar decathlon is one example of harnessing american ingenuity to meet the energy challengesf the 21st century. let us continue to support programs like these that empower a new generation of thinkers to engineer a clean energy future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

om pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. pitts: to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute to address the house. mr. pitts: in a year for the first time in memory the pelosi congress is failing to adopt a budget, i'm proud to co-sponsor a spending limit amendment that would place a cap on federal government spending. tax rates go up and down. tax laws change. the economy changes. but in the past six decades federal tax receipts have stayed consistent at nearly 20% of g.d.p. in a "wall street journal" op-ed last monday, it was noted, quote, the tax base isn't just something you can kick around around -- at will. it makes and economic living system that makes its own choices. we can't fight against the maximum level of natural taxization. if we raise taxes we won't collect enough to reduce our deficit and we won't restrain economic -- and we will restrain economic growth.

we have been bailing out for far too long. the spending limit amount is a sensible measure that will keep our government in check. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for one minute. . ms. castor: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm proud to have the air force base in my district. now, t defense bill that will take place in the house this week will make them successful in their mission. the defense bill will follow a strong commitment by this congress under democratic -- democratic leadership to our military families and our military personnel. one, robust pay raises for our military over the past three years. two, the new g. bill where we

democrats restored the promise to theserave men and women who have served this country in iraq and afghanistan for a full four-year scholarship. the recory act provided tax incentives to businesses who have -- who are sending soldiers off toar, and an historic veterans budget that they hailed for a cause of celebration because democrats led a bipartisan effort to adop the -- adopt the largest funding increase in the history of the v.a. the speaker o tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and trevise and exte. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvaa is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, the headline in "the los angeles times" read, "budget woes, just don't pass one." now, that's a novel idea. i think we can apply it to a number of things that are having right now. oil spill woes, think about it

tomorrow. fannie and freddie problem, thinabout it tomorrow. 's too bad our constituents don't have the same luxury ignoring their budgets. the national deficit is currently $12.36 trillion. the president's budget calls for a $3.8 trillion in federal spending which will put the deficit of $1.6 trillion. these are numbers e majority want to keep qet. in my mind it would behoove the majority to take a look of how to get it under control. it would seem to me we can do a good job wh a red pencil if the majority would allow it. but that would be real work right now and apparently we don't do that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for one minute. ms. kilroy: in central ohio,

the economy is growing stronger. we must encourage prosperity. the american jobs anclosing tax loopholes act will do just that. it will close loopholes that give outsourcing a benefit and will provide joband tax relief for businesses and working families. you know, for too long, unscrupulous corporations have outsourced american jobs sending themrseas, sticking american taxpayers with the bill. it's time to close at that tax loophole that encourages that behavior and demand accountability. this bill also will close another tax loophole and make wall street fund managers pay a fair tax rate on their income. st like my central ohio constituents do. make the oil companies pay for the gulf oil cleanup, not amican taxpayers. and it will rebuild our crumbling infrastructure with build america bonds. also giving our students summer jobs, promoting research and

development with a research and development tax credit. h.r. 4223, the american jobs and closing loophole act, is deserving of our support. i encourage my colleagues to vote for it. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas recognition? . gohmert: ask to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from tas is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. well, we were toldhat don't-ask, don't-tell was something we'd take up once we had a study done because that's something we fair to our men and women in the service. now we're told that we're being to take up the bill now. we were told by the supreme court that it's ok to have a cross in the mohave desert. they took it out after they lost and now the park service are working with th thieves. the auto task fce met behind closed door, turned the bankruptcy law upside down, med

creditors unsecured, own the place, take property without due process, turned the constitution upside down. the congress and the courts did nothing. no wonder emplment is going down and unemployment is going up. businesses can't trust this government. it is time to get back to a body that deals honesty, with integrity that jo can count on. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> to address the use for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: thout objection, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute to address the house. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about the importance of continued support for jobs for americans. when america faced massive unemployment in e 1930's, our government stepped up with a w.p.a. and the c.c.c. it's time to continue that drive as t demratic congress has been doing without

much help from our republican colleagues the fact is that local governments have been hardest hit in the area of job cuts. the local governments have lost over 140 jobs in 2008 and 2009 and the numbereeps growing. anher 53,000 jobs will be lost by july 1 if we don't act. another 128,000 be lost by fiscal year 2011 if we don't act. anso, mr. speaker, i'm asking my colleagues to step forward for people whoeed to work. this summer we're looking at young people not having enough jobs, and we need this congress to act. we've seen job creation. we've seen job growth. we've seen 290,000 jobs created last month but this drive needs to stay alive. the democratic caucus is committed to it. we hope our republican colleagues join us for jobs must continue to be the first of our business. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the stock market is vy minute is dropping like a rock over financial collapse of greece and the peing failure of our euro nations. they are bankrupt from unsustainable government spending under the same programs the democrats in this body are now forcing on america. with an overwhelming majority in the house and senate and a democrat in the white house, they can't even pass a budget. mr. carter: heck, they're not even proposing one. mr. speaker, the house majority has provent can't govn. and if we don't make a change, america will join greece in national bankruptcy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognitn? >> ask unimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from florida is recogned for one minute to address the house. mr. speaker, there's a lot of talk in congress about restoring naial security for the american people. thiseek everyone in this body has a chance to turn their words into action.

this week we will have the opportunity to vote to preserve access to doctors r millions of americans and medicare. no senior in florida's 19th district or anywhere in america should see the doors of their doctor slammed st because of ill-advised cuts in medicare. likewise, no veterans should worry that tricare benefits should slam the door shut. we must serve medicare beneficiars and america's veterans. mr. deutch: this legislati will stop a 21% stop in medicare reimbursement rates s that doctors in our communy can continue to do their important work. our seniors deserve access to more than simply medicare. they deserve accs to doctors. let's show our doctors a the seniors and the veterans who rely upon them the respect that they rightly deserve. let's continue to help restore

financl security to the americaneople. i yield back. the eaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the spker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texass recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. spker. i saw a headline yesterday. said anotherrillion dollar week in washgton, d.c. we're going to spend nearly $1 trillion this week in washington. you know what, we don't even have a budget. mr. neugebauer: there's another problem. we don't have $1 trillion either. so now wt are we going to do? well, 're going to go out and borrow more ney from the chine and other people. you remember the old days when you asked your parents to get a loan. now, we ask our children to pay back our loans. hear a lot of talk in this town about cutting expenses, cutting thbudget. well, it would be nice to cut a budget if we had one. but we don't. and how does the majority think that they n run this cntry, ad this nation when th don't even have a buet? we don'tven know what the

deficit's going to be but we hear it will be $1.8rillion. by the way, a trillion, that's 12 zours in case anybody wants to know -- zeros in case anybody wants to know. chairman spratt, chairman of the budget commiee, who is supposed to bring us a budget, says if you can't bring a dget you can't gove. so there we ask the question now, c this democratic majority govern? the speaker pro mpore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek rognition? >> to dress the house for one nute the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute to address the house. >> mr. speaker, i represent the 10th mountain division, which is located in fort drummond in my district. i honor the brave men and women who are preventing future teorist attacks against our homeland after eight years of failing to have a clear plan in afghanistan and providing the

resources necessary to have our trps succeed, we are now taking the fight to their own run. and we have theon the democrats have worked with this president to successfullkill and capture hundreds of al qaeda and talin leaders in iraq, afghanistan and pakistan. last week, a suicide bng tack on a convoy in kabul reminded us of the brave sacrifice of the mennd women on t front line are making. two officers from the 10th mountain division, both lieutenant occurrence, were among those killed. -- colonels, were amg those killed. they were part of a team that was conducting training and setting conditions for the 10th mountain division deployment to afghanistan later th year this is a heartbreaking loss for the fort drum community and our hearts go out to their families. thank you and i yield back. thspeaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from califnia seek recognition? >> to address the house for one mite. the speaker o teore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute to

address the house. mr. mccltock: mr. eaker, the eory of this house to pass a budget at a tof precedented deficit spending speaks volumes of the house majority. in order to resolve a crisis, you must first be willing to face it. and if you can't face the problem, you can'teal with it. that's what the budget process is. the painful but necessary assessment of our financial affairs. without ithere can't even be a theoretical solution. i've seen this before in california. as left-wing jorts took control of our financial -- majorities took control of our financial affairs and boosted ending at a reckless pace, we watched the orderly budget process disintegte into a mere sham, unable and unwilling to face up to the consequences their out-of-control spending, they simply abandoned the budget process. ultimately, they broht the most prosperous state in our nation to the brink of bankruptcy. mr. speaker, california's an example to be avoide not imitated. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpo does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. yarmuth: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute to addrs the house. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. it always amuses me to listen to my republican colagues talk about the economy. th talk about smaller government. they talk about lower taxes. they talk about cutting spending. i call this bumpertrip economics, and we've seen what bumper strip economics means it was callethe bush administration. and that led us to the worse recession that we' faced in this countries since the 1930's. in kentucky, we've seen what bumper strips actually mean. when senate candidate rd pal means smallegovernments means don't hold oil companies accountable, let's not hold mining companies accountable for 29 deaths. let's not have the federal government enforce basic civil rights. no, we need polici that will

get this country moving again and that's what democrats in coress are committed to providing. i yield back. mr. faleomavaega: for what rpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. -- the spear pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from floridaeek recognition? i ask permission to address the house for one nute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from florida is recognized for o minute to address the house. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to add a moratorium and new drilling permitsn the gulf of mexico. recent reports are saying 17 new permits have been grante since the explosion in the gulf. it's also shocking to findut 19 environmental waivers have been issued since that. over six million gallons are now -- have now poured into the gulf and continues to pour every day. 250,0 gallons-plus a day. "the washington post" reported today the manament svice officials get paid a cash bonus when they close these deals with bigwi