of mine from east brunswick, new jersey and cost the lives of others. during two tours of iraq, he sought treatment for paste-traumatic stress disorder when he returned home in two 2004. because coleman was a member of the ready reserve, neat they are the army or reserve would treat him. after returning from his second tour in iraq, sergeant coleman took his life in 2008. our amendment prevents future tragedies by requiring that members of the irr or those who serve as villed mobilization augmentees who have completed at least one tour in iraq or afghanistan to receive a counseling call from personnel

not less than once every 90 days so long as the service member remains. and to take whatever followup measures and to report to congress on the program's effectiveness. i ask my colleagues to support this important and very necessary amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. chairman, i will ask for a recorded vote on the motion or the motion en bloc . first, i but first i wish to pay special tribute to ranking member mckeon, a gentleman of the first order who has not only continued the bipartisan attitude and bipartisan work in our committee, but has made it

work very, very well. we owe him a debt of gratitude and i want to pay a special word of thanks to him for his excellent work and cooperation in mking our committee so bipartisan in nature. a special thanks also to the fantastic staff that we have. members take credit for all the good work that they do, and so often they go as unsung heroes, but they really make this committee work so well and so solid -- solidly to each one of them, true professionals, i express deep thanks and gratitude. mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman yields

back his time. the question son the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes visit. the en bloc amendments are agreed. to mr. skelton: i request a recorded vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendments offered en bloc by the gentleman from missouri will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. skelton: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question son the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 5136 directs me to report they have come to no resolution therein. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee o the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5136 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following communication. the clerk: the honorable speaker, the house of representatives, madam, this letter serves as my intent to resign from the committee on armed services, effective today, may 27, 2010, signed, sincerely, phil shuster, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignatiois accepted. the chair will entertain

requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> ski annapolis consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: one day of poth because ma announced he would send national guard troops to defend the border, the state department announced, surprise, the guard troops would not be used to stop illegal immigration. this announcement was designed to leave americans with the false impression the administration would strengthen border security. there appears to be a contradiction within the administration. we don't know who to believe from one day to the next. we are starting to learn on health care, on taxes, on transparency, on the stimulus, and now on immigration policy, that the administration's words are seldom what they appear to

be. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absences requested for mr. -- for ms. ginny brown wait of florida for today, mr. hastings of florida after 6:00 p.m. today and for the balance of me week, mr. davis of kentucky for today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?

mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i would like to claim the special order on behalf of the republicans. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i ask annapolis consent that today, following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following member mace be permitted to address the house for five minute, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. klein of florida, ms. wasserman schultz of florida, ms. woolsey of california, ms. kaptur of ohio, and mr. defazio of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previoused orer of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe of texas.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. poe of texas. mr. klein of florida. mr. jones of north carolina, ms. wasserman schultz of florida. mr. burton of indiana, ms. woolsey of california, mr. moran of kansas, mr. whitfield

of kentucky, mr. defazio of oregon. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from texas, mr. poe is recognized for -- mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. there are certain requirements of this body that the constitution sets forth. this is the body that controls the purse strings of the country. this body has an obligation to make sure that we act cautiously, carefully, in spending the money that we legally steal if those who produce it. it would be theft, except that we are authorized to pass laws

to make it legal theft. when we take it from people who produce that money in this country. but it should come home to folks around this body that we have an obligation to those people to be conscientious in the things we do. accordingly, it's the obligation of this body to prepare a budget in order to have control over our appropriations. the people that i serve with, that have been here for years, say this is the first year they recall ever not voting on a budget in the house of representatives. there's no budget. but when politics is more important than actually

protecting the country that we are sworn to protect, then from a political viewpoint, it's easy to see why someone might want to do this for the first time in so many years and avoid putting forth a budget because if a budget were brought forth in this election year with so many people already upset, the tea parties so angry at the vast overspending, they would be able to see exactly how off the charts this body's spending has been sand projected to be. with that money that we legally steal from people who produce it in the country. so, we haven't had time or the political fortitude to step up

in this body and prepare a budget as is required. we have an obligation to protect private property, but as we've seen with the gulf coast, that hasn't happened. we've heard this week from the minerals and management service and those with the department of interior that they have been on guard since day one, since this spill happened. well, why wouldn't they have been on guard since day one when drilling commenced? we know from the records, from the hearings we've had, that when the deepwater horizon platform was put in place, back in 2001, for the first 40 months it was in place, every month, as is supposed to occur, there were offshore inspections done.

from there, it gets very fuzzy. we find out that m.m.s. can't tell us exactly how many inspections there he been since then of the deep water horizon platform and their drilling operations. we did hear in our hearing and question and answer time, as part of the public record yesterday in natural resources, that they're not really sure how many times the inspections occurred, but what some of us, through some digging, have found out there is one entity and one alone in the minerals and management service that's allowed to be unionized. and that is the offshore inspectors. now, that struck some of us as strange because the offshore inspectors seem a bit like our armed forces.

you know they stand between our homeland and bad things that could destroy or harm our homeland. so who would have thought that something, some entity with obligations similar to our uniform services to stand between our homeland and harm would have union contracts? well, we couldn't find out from d.o.i. or the department of interior. or the international -- or the internet yesterday in our hearings -- o m.m.s. in our hearing. but normally union contracts would have limits on travel, the limits on the number of hours that could be worked, limits on all kinds of things. you put limits on how much those standing between us and harm can serve, can travel to

go get between us and harm? wee done nothing about that. in fact, what has happened is, we now learn that the department of interior, secretary salazar, they've decided, this administration has decided, m.m.s. has not been functioning very well so we're going to divide it into three separate entities. i don't care that it's not a new problem. that it goes back a number of administrations. the fact is, it's a problem now. and instead of realizing that unionizing people that stand between us and harm allows there to be limits on just what kind of service we can expect from those standing between us and vast amounts of harm should

never happen. that shouldn't be allowed to take place. but what we heard yesterday was actually that we're going to possibly let unions take hold in all three of these entities. we don't really know right now. . what kept coming to mind to me growing up in east texas, i have been around stagnant ponds that stunk to high heaven, but became so stagnant, non-moving, no water coming in, that it just stunk so bad, you could hardly stay around them. and it seems that m.m.s. has

been that way. the things that have gone on in m.m.s. stink to high heaven. they are repugnant to anybody with any type of foral fiber. investigations going onto the bribes that occurred. nobody knowing when or if they did the inspections they were supposed to, did the testing that was supposedly done. there may have been inspectors that were in bed with people they were supposed to be inspecting. that there were favors, perks, gifts, potential bribes to look the other way. we don't know what happened on deepwater horizon. an investigation is ongoing. we haven't done a lot about that, but here we have a

stagnant cesspool and so much may have been done that is i will legal and -- illegal and rather than deal with the issues, this body is going to fund three, divide it up into three. i know from having seen stagnant, tinchinging cease pools, that if you divide them up, they stilltink, still repugnant, if you just completely clean them up and put pressure water in, but we're not dividing that up and add to the stagnant cesspool. and not only that, we are going to allow the situation to grow bigger with potentially

unionization of people so they can have their travel and hours limited so you can't expect as many from them as someone between us and great harm. we aren't doing a great job on so many of these areas. you look further in the kind of money that's been appropriated and you find out that we are appropriating billions of dollars to countries that don't like us. we provided, i believe $00 million to somalia. and as we know just in the last couple of days, there is a potential threat that is arising from somalia. we are giving them $100 million and giving yemen, $200 million, i'm not sure of the exact number. $300 billion was given to

israel. but when you look at the money we have given to the enemies of israel, it appears it's more than that. so i recall the u.n. voting accountability act. it won't see the light of day in this congress, but it simply says countries that vote against the united states more than half the time do not receive any financial assistance the following year. the report comes out each march 31. we got the report that came out march 31 of this year and we see that the vast majority most of the countries in the u.n. that we give money to, billions of dollars total, they vote against us. the vast majority of the time. some of them vote us 99% of the time and we are ging them

money and you don't have to pay countries to hate you, they'll hate you for free. and yet this body just keeps throwing money at that. we have thrown money at wall street. i have begged people on this floor in private conference around this hill, read the bill. read the bill. i beg people, implore people. if they read the tarp bill, they would have seen that wall street was going to have a slush fund and that has been continued by current secretary of treasury, a slush fund, bail out your buddies, goldman sachs had the biggest year they have had in history. we can't find out how much of their billions of dollars they made last year came from the united states government, the u.s. taxpayers or money we borrowed from china that our great grandchildren will pay so

people can engeorge themselves on wall street. we can't look at that issue. we find out that wall street is donating four to one to the democrats so why should we clean up? we'll call them fat cats but when push comes to shove, we have a financial reform bill that is called the deform bill that will empower the people in ways some of us can't imagine. we're going to have people in the government pick winners and losers. we're going to say you are at systemic risk as a bank or company, so you can't fail. you can run your competition out of business but we aren't going to let you fail so we are picking winners and losers.

we aren't doing our job around here. but we can come in here today and we can go meddling with the greatest military that mankind has ever seen. the men and women of our uniform services are unrivaled up to now. not only have we had time this year to do a budget and we parent aren't going to do one. we haven't done anything to protect private property, we haven't done anything, absolutely zero to bring down the price of energy. we are going to skyrocket that. but one thing we are proud of, when it comes to health care and the seniors that were counting on medicare, we are cutting $500 billion out of medicare and as the president himself said and this is the basic quote, where

in the past when you went to the doctor and got five tests, now you'll go to the doctor and get one tests. it took many tests to find my mother's brain tumor and as a result of that, we had 15 years with my mother. we aren't going to do that. some seniors, they just cost too much. so we're going to cut $500 billion and call it waste, fraud and abuse but we aren't doing anything in the bill to clean up the waste, fraud and abuse because that's going to be ongoing. and we are going to cut that money. and our bdies in c.b.o., they will score anything that this majority sends on over. i was told last summer, we will

not score anything that is not in final bill form. we find out, that comes from a republican, because if somebody in the democratic party, they'll score it and give them a score they need and if it doesn't work out, we'll have a meeting at the white house or the capitol and before you know it, if the majority leadership says it will be under $1 trillion, they will ignore $250 billion here, $150 billion here and finally find that and we have to do with the c.b.o. and i'm sure, having talked to the director, i believe he means well and he is trying to do the right thing, but they are funded by the majority in congress and they know that. you aren't going to get an

appropriate score and that's the reason you have over 600 bills from the majority scored by c.b.o. and just barely over 100 scored that were republican, over 600 scored, only 100 were republican. and you know, a former speaker told me when i described my health care alternative plan, he says you got to get that scored. that could absolutely transform the debate over health care, because it would save money and give control to patients that medicare patients would have control over their own health care, yet it would be financed by the taxpayers. they have the best of both worlds and yet it would be cheaper than what we are spending now. nearly a year now, have not been able to get c.b.o. to score it. it is a travesty. but yes, we come back again to the military.

we don't have time to do the jobs that the constitution requires this body to do, but boy, we sure are going to medical with the greatest military mankind has ever seen or heard of. it is phenomenal. and when i compare the state of the military right now to way it was when i was in the army after vietnam, there's no comparison. this military today is phenomenal. they are incredible. a yet, we found something that wasn't broken and we decided to mess with it and see what we could do, not intentionally, of course, but this majority decided that they were going to fix something that wasn't broken. don't ask, don't tell, it's called.

and what it meant when president clinton instituted that program what h was that whatever you're drawn to sexually, you keep it private, you don't let it get out and become open with regard to your military service and we want you in the military. that's what it comes down to. but that hadn't been good enough. we have too many people in here that did not have good history teachers and so they don't know the lessons from history. and so we're destinned to repeat them. and that's what we're doing now. we are repeating the lessons of history. and historians would have a hard time going back and finding any great nation, even to the earliest city states that

achieved greatness and then toward the end of their existence, they forced homosexuality to be accepted in areas like the military. why have we not learned this? why couldn't we let the military do their jobs? with as much respect i have for our majority leader was shocked in the debate over don't ask, don't tell to hear the americans with disability brought up, because i think everybody on this floor agreed that the americans with disability act that made this nation mr. ackerman: cease i believe to so many -- accessible to so many people, it was a wonderful thing and it makes you feel good to know the accessibility there is and continues to be until the

nation is gone. so why would we want to hasten the demise of this great nation? why would we want to mess with the entity that stands between those who want to destroy us and our homes? well, we haven't had time to do a budget. we haven't had time to protect our homeland adequately by doing adequate oversight over the minerals management service or the immigration service or homeland security or the federal reserve. no. no. we just let them run themselves basically. but, boy, we have found time to work on social engineering to please the political left in an

election year just so some people have their base happy when they come to november. we're following the footsteps of nations that have walked to the dust heap of history. now, i know people think this is such a grand and glorious job in congress, you have no idea. but it is an honor and it is a privilege to get to serve in these hallowed halls. we owe our predecessors so much better than what we've done. we've had time to make sure that we continue to allow the unborn to be killed. we've had time to make sure that federal tax dollars could be taken from taxpayers who believe that it's murder to kill a helpless, unborn child

and put that into a health care bill and call it health care. we've had time to cut $500 billion from this health care for seniors. but we've learned nothing, apparently, about preserving liberty. as chuck holson said a little over a year ago in a bible study, you have morality, you have economic stability, and you've got liberty. and when you lose morality, you lose economic stability and you get economic chaos. folks, we've lost economic stability because we've accepted the loss of morality. we've looked the other way when

you had the madoffs looking -- gorging themselves. we looked the other ways when the paulsons and geithners were seeing that their friends on wall street were enrich and engorged. we've looked the other way. we looked the other way when the bankruptcy laws were completely disregarded. it required secured creditors to be protected and unsecured creditors to be on the short end of the stick. flip the laws upside down because the unsecured creditors included the unions. we give the unions ownership interests in the auto companies. we take a big ownership interest and we violate some of the very principles on which this nation was founded. and it doesn't matter whether it's a democrat or a republican president that says we're going

to make money for the taxpayers, it's not their job, it's not the job of this congress, it's the job of taxpayers to make money with their money, not this body. and not the white house. and it was a shame on the supreme court when they allowed that auto task force, illegal, unconstitutional order to go through. ruth bader ginsburg, to her credit, stayed it for 24 hours, then the court looked the other way and allowed that unconstitutional bill to go through because apparently the white house convinced them if they didn't let this illegal, unconstitutional bill go through, people in the auto industry would all lose their jobs. hogwash. there would have been -- they would have been forced into reorganization. the union contracts would have had to have been renegotiated. it would have all gone through

reorganization process. it would have come out leaner, meaner, more efficient, but we couldn't allow that because there were political payback to those that helped the majority and the president get elected. there are some who said, maybe it's a good thing for us republicans that the health care bill got passed because it was so harmful and detrimental to america that, gee, it'll help us get back in the majority. as i've said on this floor before, i'd rather stay in the minority than see a bill that devastating to america, to the principles of private property, and of sanctity of life, just be frittered away. i'd rather stay in the minority than have my party helped by such a devastating bill.

didn't have time to do the right thing in all of that, didn't have time to read the stimulus bill. $787 billion. didn't have time to read that. the crap and trade bill, didn't have time to really read that. we had 300 pages of amendments that were added in the wee hours of the morning when we were to vote on it and even when we voted on it, as i pointed out, the clerk hadn't even got the whole 300 pages enmeshed and included with the bill so you could read it and know what it really meant. but we had to pass it. we didn't have time to wait. we had time for any of these important bills that will devastate america, but, boy, we had time to meddle with the united states military. we heard some isolated cases of someone who ended up having to

leave the military because they couldn't control their sexual hormones to the point that they could keep their sexual orientation private. but what about the thousands and hundreds of thousands of people in the military who have now been betrayed? they were promised, we're going to have a study. we're going to make sure that we don't do anything to harm the military. but a little problem came up in this body keeping its promise to the military that problem is the november elections coming up. and the problem is, that some of the solid base, left wing, of the majority were not happy. they didn't feel like enough had been done to suit them and so we had to break our word to the military, rush this bill in here and eliminate don't ask,

don't tell. but, oh, no we heard from people that, gee, we're going to roll back don't ask, don't tell. sure, of course we are. but we're going to wait until we find out what the study says about how devastating it'll be to the military. yes, the secretary of the defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff both said they would follow the order of their superior officer, the commander in chief. but those who were not politically appointed by the commander in chief sure didn't go along with it. they daintgree to it. you find a commander every now and then that would. but we have hundreds of thousands and millions of people who have served, who

hope to serve, who are serving now, that we have betrayed. and it breaks my heart. i'm so sorry. -- i'm so sorry that this body broke its word. for political gain. now, under the scenario this majority and this administration have pursued, we're in trouble. the one thing you find historically after nations on their way to the dust heap of history take after passing things like we just did today, you see a great deal of cockiness arise to belittle those who ve studied history and know where this all goes.

and we seek to destroy them. because when this nation was founded, one of the most popular slogans, some quote cicero, some quote voluntary but the same slogan. i disagree with what you say but i'll defend to the death your right to say it. we have obliterated that as a hallmark of this nation's founding and its existence today. so that now the slogan is more truthfully, iisagree with what you say, and i'm going to destroy you. i'm going to get you fire i'm hoping i can get you put in jail. we passed laws in this body that will help do that. we have already allowed arrest of some even though, as was pointed out, well, they deloped charges. putting people in jail because

we disagree with what they say, so we don't defend to the death any longer their right to say it, we want to destroy them. the people in power will make sure that happens. you disagree politically with the party in power, you have a right to be concerned. we didn't have time to do a budget. bewe didn't have time to read these big bills that we have run through and voted on. but we have had time to take over the student loan business. that's right. if you need student loans for your children, mr. speaker, those in america to get their kids through college, as my wife and i have, because we gave up the private sector and went into public service, we needed student loans. and we took them. thank god i got our kids through college with --

graduation of my youngest saturday with my wife, proud moment, thank goodness we got her graduated before the only source for student loan was to come begging to the government to let me have a loan for my child. to go to college. you think politics could ever come to play in who gets a student loan and who doesn't? gee, it sure came into play in who got to keep their car dealership. gee, it sure come to play as to which states get more government facilities taken away and which had more facilities added. it certainly has come into play in all kinds of things. so why wouldn't it come into play eventually in who gets a

student loan? now, we've taken over fannie mae and freddie mac. you would think if there were somebody serious in leadership about reforming the financial sector that we would first reform the two entities that brought this nation to the brink of ruin, fannie mae and freddie mac. instead, we're not going to reform them. goodness, no. we're going to make matters worse because we're going to give the government even more power and more control over everyone's financial situation. certainly part of the health care bill. yes, sir, we get to now tell you what private products you buy and can't buy. this is a time of tragedy. i realize that we have been

less than moral as a nation and we're paying a price. i realize when you begin to kill 10 million, 20 million, 30 million, 40 million, 5million sweet little innocent babies, i know our first was prematurely born. she held on to my finger for hours as the doctor said she's drawing life, she's drawing support from you. my sweet little -- those sweet little innocent children. we've supported them being killed. and as i was at the lincoln memorial a couple of weeks ago again. i try to go regularly. i find it inspirational.

reading those words on the inside north wall of the lincoln memorial, could think about the unborn being killed, the sweet, innocent children, doing anything they could to cling to life. my baby could not see, as the doctor said, but she knew enough to hang on. she wanted to live. she struggled to live. i love her dearly and i'm proud she's my daughter. . and i read those words about the death of innocent children. and the words of abraham lincoln were these as he tried to make sense of the destruction and the almost complete destruction of

this grand experent in democracy and how families could fight families and kill family members, how a nation turn against itself, that they have been allowing slavery and been allowing brothers and sisters to treat others by putting them in chains and bondage and outrageous treatment. and as lincoln sought to make sense of it and thought about the north and south and destruction of each other, he said both read the same bible. both pray to the same god. and each invokes against the other. it may seem strange that any man should bear to ask a just gd's

assistance in wringing their blood from the sweat of other men's faces but left us not be judged. the prayers could not be answered that neither has been fully answered, the almighty has his own purposes. lincoln adds, quote, woe onto the world for offenses because offenses come, woe to that man by whom the offense comeeth. we shall suppose that american slavery are now adays american abortion which is in the providence of god must needs come but which have continued throo his appointed time, he now wills to amove and he gives to both north and south this

terrible war as the woe do to those by whom the offense came shall we descend therein any departure from those die vine at try beauties which the believers and a living god always ascribe to him. fervently do we pray that this mighty scourge of war a i would pray abortion may pass away. if god wills that it continue until all until the wealth of the bondsmen of 250 years shall be sunk invery drop of blood shall be paid with another drawn by the sword as was 3,000 years ago so still it must be said that judgments of the lord are true and righteous all together.

with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as god gives us to see the light, let us strive on to finish the work we were in to bind up the nation's wounds to care for him who shall have borne the battle for his widow and/or fan to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. lincoln knew about sacrifice. he lost a son. he believed it was punishment in not ending slavery more quickly. they have pursued the exact

course that we have in the last 20 years in this nation. we need on get on track, because as was said, when you lose morality, you get economic chaos. when you get economic chaos, you get those wh are always willing to sacrifice liberty to get economic stability. no greater example than germany in the 1920 and 1930's. they had a little guy with a moustache who was evil, who promised economic stability and delivered it at the price of their liberty. it's time to stop the madness. it's time to stop passing bis that have not been read. it's time to stop meddling with the greatest military that the world has ever known and trying

to disrupt it by own social engineering. i couldn't believe i heard the majority leader bring up the americans with disability act in the context of talking about open homosexuality in the military. for me, what does that mean? we did a wonderful thing when the americans passed the americans with disability act but does that mean this body was going to force the military to accept the disabled on the front lines? we are going to make a former prisoner of war said, we are going to make our objections wheelchairs so they roll and hit. the military has one purpose and we need able-bodied people to do it and we need nothing to detract from their military mission. it's not a place for social engineering.

it's a place with single focus on be on the military mission to prevent those who would destroy this country and our freedoms from being successful. and if someone can't control their sexual hormones, then that's a distraction to the military no matter what gender, what sexual ownertation, it's a problem. -- orientation, it's a problem. don't destroy the military that has been the greatest it has ever been. this still has to pass the senate. but we haven't seen a great deal of courage on this issue down the hall and there may be those who believe it will help with the next electric. i would rather stay in the minority than have things like this that hurt our country and hurt the chances of its survival

. let's do the right thing. we didn't do it today. and it breaks my heart to hear the applause over the fact that we broke our word to the military who trusted us. so it is with a very deep broken heart, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, before we do any more harm, i move that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is aagreed

hoyer. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the chairman for yielding. i want to thank the chairman, who is one of the giants on half of national security, military defense quality of life for our troops, who, for decades, has been one of the outstanding spokespersons for making sure that we had the defense we needed and that our troops had the equipment, the

resources, the quality ofife that we would expect to have our young people have. so i congratulate him. i thank mr. mckeon as well for his cooperative spirit in bringing this bill to the floor. democrats inongress have worked closely with president obama to fight our enemies, promote our interest for troops and families. compiling a record of securing our nation in stronger and smarter ways. we strengthen america's military by putting new and better weapons into the battlefield. like more aerial drones. we've killed or captured much of the top leadership of al qaeda and the taliban, and for the first time, there is alear plan for a way forward in afghanistan, which, ankly, was negligented for years under the previous administration. democrats often in face of republican opposition have increased funding for human intelligence collection, cyber

security, and security for our skies, our ports, and our borders. all of this was necessary and appropriate. but looking out for our tops, our veterans, and our families. again, i say there is no member of this body and almost every member indeed of this body on both sides of the aisle has worked together to maintain the quality of life for our troops and give them the resources they need. none more so than chairman skelton, however. democrats e making sure that our troops get the body armour and mine resistant vehicles they need when they are on the field and the opportunity for a college education they deserve when they return home. that's good for them and it's good for our country. today's defense authorization bill builds on that record, authorizing crucial national security programs for fiscal year 2011. it promotes efforts to disrupt and destroy teorist networks and strengthens the ability of our special forces to act

directly against terrorist organizations. it increases our international cooperation against terrorists, especially against the taliban in afghanistan and pakistan. at the same time, it also insists on accountability, acquiring semiannual reports from the administration on the status of the taliban and the capacity of the afghan government and security forces. that accountability important and necessary. because the threats we face have changed in a post cold war world, this bill also strongly supports ballistic missile defense and nuclear counterproliferation. including the president's effort to secure all of the world's known nucle material in the next four years. the conference the president convened here in washington was an extraordinary step forward in that effort. further, this bill invests in the well-being of our troops and

the strength of our armed forces. it keeps tricare strong and ensures that the military families can keep their children on tricare policies up to the age of 26. just as all america can do under the health reform law that we passed. it also reduces strain on our forces by providing for 7,000 more personnel for the army, and 500 for the air force, while helping all of the services rebuild the equipment and weapons systems that have been severely worn down by two wars. maybe because there's an agreement on that, we haven't talked about it very much. finally the bill strengthens our military by providing for a process, to repeal a discriminatory provision. now, i want my friends to listen to this. and they're not going to be happy with me. i am 70 years of age. i was in college in the late

1950's and early 1960's. now, bill clinton was in college the late 1960's. his generion of americans were motivated by the vietnam war. one way or the other. now, frankly, i was a member of the state senate and supported that effort in the state senate. but in the late 1950's andarly 1960's, the motivating force for young people in this country was civil rights. it was about living out the promise of american equality. it was about a commitment of this country, which was the bedrock of this country, that all men were created equal, and endowed not by us, but by their creator with certain unalienable rights. i want to tell my friends, i have some rhetoric here that was used in 1940, 19, 1945, 1946,

when there were some americans you didn't have to ask. they didn't have to tell. because you knew they were african-americans. there was no hiding that. and we segregated them. and i heard strom thurman stand on the floor of the sete -- he was a democrat -- speaking about diriminating against people because of the color of their skin. separate by equal. i've heard the same rhetoric. let me read some of it. the army is the wrong place for social experiments. keep african-americans in their place. i was angered in the 1950's and 1960's when i saw that kind of rhetoric, because i thought that was not the america that i was so proud of. hear that language that was used back in 1948.

and read the transcripts today. in 1965, i was -- excuse me, in 1990, the sponsor of the americans with disabilities act. there was an amendment offered tht said people with aids could not be waiters and waitresses. why? because people wouldn't come into restaurants if they knew that somebodwith aids was serving them. of course, all the scientists andedical personnel said there was no way to transmit aids by handling plates or food. and i pulled out some rhetoric. interesting enough,ing from 19 -- from 1965, when the public considerations law was considered on this floor, and guess what they said. they said if we have african-american waiters and waitresses, people won't come into our restaurants.

that's why we don't have african-american waiters and african-american restaurants. that was not the america for which i stand. strom thurman, however, said, and other democrats -- now, he didn't stay a democrat, as all of you know, throughout his career. id no, we'll keep people separate. and because you're driving down route 1 from new york tolorida and you stop and you're a little girl, ask when howard johnson comes by, can i have an ice cream cone, you say to your little child, i'm sorry, you can't go in there. you're the wrong color. can't stay at that hotel. now in their era, they thought they were being good americans, i presume.

and there were filibusters after filibusters to stop treating people as -- to start treating people as people, with their god-given inalienable rights. ladies and gentlemen, look to your hearts and your conscience. look at the debates of 1948. is there one of us -- is there one of us that would say general powell as chairman of the joint chiefs of staffs undermed the morale and the effectiveness of the united states army? is there one of us? i'll yield to anybody who wants to say that he undermined the morale of our services. no one? no one? this is not a social experiment. any me than that was a social experiment. any more than in 1990 when we wanted to deal with those with disabilities.

it was a social experiment. it was the bedrock of what america is. now, i think it's unfortunate we've spent so much time on this issue. almost every speaker. i talked about the beginning of my talk about the substance of this bill, fighting terrorists, keeping america safe, making sure that we have the strongest armed forces in the world bar none, that technically they are able to confront any enemy, anywhere, any time, because we owe that to the american public, to keep them safe. that is what we're committed to, a strong defee. . barry goldwater said i want to make sure they shoot straight.

he wanted their commitment to this country and service. he saw them as patriots. i don'tant anyone barring me. i don't care who they are. hear me? and i don't want any male member of the armed forces barring any female member of the armed forces. why? because that's against the law and against morality. but i tell you, my friends, this bill is about our nation security. this bill is about people who perform their service to our country. this bill is about making sure that america is safe. this bill is about making sure that we defeat terrorism and keep america safe. let's focus on that. let's not b distracted. let's focus on protecting america, defeating terrorists

and taking care of our troops. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: might inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: 6 1/2 minutes. mr. mckeon: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: the majority leader always has a lot to say and he always says it very well. and that is a very eloquent speech. because we are members of congress we can come to the floor and express our opinion. i'm asking that the members of the armed services have the same opportunity before we have this vote tonight on the murphy amendment. and the reference was made to general powell. and i wasn't on the committee at the time but when don't ask,

don't tell was instituted, he was a strong proponent. and he also mentioned that he didn't compare, didn't believe the comparison held up between the blacks having civil rights and the don't ask, don't tell. so while i think that your comments were very, very well spoken and i think all of us should have that opportunity to have that great debate, i think we should follow the process that has been established where the secretary appoints this study. they make the study and then after the study is presented to us in december, after the miliry has a chance -- i will be happy to yield as soon as i make my comments -- that after the study is released, that we follow the process. i don't know why we're so afraid to stick with the policy, to listen to the members of the armed services, to give them the

portunity that they have. i have letters from each of the chairmen and members of the joint chiefs saying we owe it to them. we should not break faith with them. they went out in od faith after the secretary set that policy. and now, we are short circuiting it. i would be happy to yield to the majority leader. mr. hoyer: i agree with my friend and i talked to bob gates today and i talked to h two weeks ago about this issue. i was concerned about issue and shared his view that we ought to solicit thviews of how and why we ought to proceed. that is why i worked to make sure that this amendment, which was the exact same amendment that was adoed in the senate armed services committee today didrovide for the chairman of the joint chiefs, mike mullens who has made his comments pretty clear.

secretary gates and the president of the united states have to certify that they -- that the processes are in place. i understand the difference opinion here is that and is sympathetic with your view. mr. mckeon: reclaiming my time. because here's what's actually going to happen. and as i talked to the cefs on the phone, one of them said very clearly, i know how this works around this here and i know how the amendment was written,e take the vote tonight and we follow through the process, but it becomes a sham, because the headline, as he said would be don't ask, don't tell, don't ask don't tell is repealed. and it's already on the headline. i just saw the news alert, senate votes to repeal don't ask, don't tell. he said understand that. but those troops in afghanistan, when they see it, when they hear

it, they're going to see it's repealed. why are you asking me my opinion? it's done. it's a done deal. we may understand that by law it will follow through this process. in reality, it will be set tonight. and that's whye should have had more than 10 minutes, five minutes on our side, to discuss this. all we were given is five minutes. and that's why we have had to take time. this bill -- we could have spent time talking about all the wonderful things in this bill and yet we had to talk because this thing is going to have more impact on our military and on our country -- you smile, mr. leader and if you feel that, why don't we just follow the process. and i would be happy to yield. mr. hoyer: i smile only because that rhetoric was the same

rhetoric that was used in 1946. mr. mckeon: i have not read that. and i'm not quoting from that same rhetoric. mr. hoyer: i'm not saying that you are quoting. mr. mckeon: and collin powell said it's not the same. in fact -- i thank my friend here. this is mr. powell's quote. skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteric. sexual ownertation is perhaps the most profound of human bavioral characterics. comparing the two is a convenient but invad argument. mr. powell's argument.d such time as i may consume. the cha: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. murphy: mr. speaker, when i served in baghdad, my teams did not care whether a fellow sold year was straight or gay. if they could fire their assault rifle or run a convoy down

ambush alley and do their job so everyone would come home safely. with our military fighting two wars, why on earth would we tell over 13,500 abled bodied americans that their services are not needed? this policy hurts our national security and has cost the american taxpayer over $1.3 billion already on this unjust policy. our troops deserve a congress that puts eir safety and our collective national security over rigid and a close-minded ideology. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support the brave men and women willing to take a bullet for our families. i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman

reserves. any member seek time in opposition? >> madam chair, i rise in seeking the time in opposition. the chair: for what purse does the gentleman from missouri arise? mr. mckeon: mad dack chair? the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckeon: thank you, madam chair. i wish to yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee. before doing that, i ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on amendment number 79 offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, be extended by 30 minutes, evenly divided between opponent and proponent. the chair: is there objection to the request? >> i object. the chair: objection. mr. mckeon: in that case -- the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. mckeon: i yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the committee, mr. skelton.

the chair: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for one minute. mr. skelton: madam chairman, the bill for us is an excellent piece of legislation. it's one of the best that our committee has written. it's strong on our attempt to quall terrorism. it takes care of the troops. it looks after their families. on this issue before us, inquiry was made of secretary gates and the joint chiefs of staff chairman, in a letterated april 30 states, there have i strongly oppose any legislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process. further, i hope congress will not do so as it would send a

very damaging message to our men and women in uniform th, in essence, their views, concerns, and prospectives do not matter on an issue with such a direct impact and consequence for them and their families. i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i yield 30 seconds to the leader on this issue, mr. matheson of ah. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for 30 seconds. > if anyone is willing to put on this country's uniform and put his or her life on the line to protect our freedoms deserves our respect and should not be subject to discrimination. repealing this flawed policy is the important way for us to show that respect. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. purpose the gentleman will suspend? >> parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman will state his inquiry.

>> could the chair tell me if it might be in order for the time to be extended on this very, very important matter before the house, at least equal to the time that might be taken by the eaker of the house? the chair: with the unanimous request to extend the time, and it was defeated. the gentleman from california is ecognized. >> ma'am, may i ask unanimous consent then that the time be extended equal so that the time that the speaker may claim to speak on her side of this issue might be allotted to the minority? >> objection. the chair: can the gentleman state a specific amount of time? >> i wish we could. we don't know. i just think five minutes per side is not sufficient on a matter this important before the house, and i think -- the chair: the gentleman will restate his sms consent request.

>> i ask unanimous consent that the time on this amendment be extended by 15 minutes per side. the chair: is there objection to the request? >> i object. the chair: there's objection. >> madam speaker? the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts state it? >> do the record of the house contain the length of the time of the speech made by the minority leader of the health care bill under a one-minute recognition? the chair: the chair cannot serve his historian. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: parliamentary inquiry. the chair: the gentleman from california will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. mckeon: is it proper for the gentleman who this amendment belongs to object to debate on his own amendment? the chair: any member may object.

>> even to their own, which they should want to object? the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: madam chairwoman, may i yield five seconds to the sponsor of the amendment to say why you don't want it discussed fully? the chair: the gentleman may yield. mr. mckeon: the gentleman doesn't wish to respond. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: i yield myself as much time as i mayonsume. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: next monday is memorial day. americans will pause in many ways and in many places to nor and celebrate the courage, sacrifices, and patriotism of those who have served and are serving this nation in the armed forces. the hill newspaper carried a special insert entitled "a tribute to the troops."

among their contributors were mrs. michelle obama and dr. joe biden. they co-authored a piece emphasizing that, and i quote, it's our sacred obligations as americans to take care of the menwomen, and families who protect and serve this country. i could not agree more with them. we do have a sacred obligation to those who care to serve. that is why the today i rise in strong opposition to the amendment being offered by representative murphy that would have congress act to repeal don't ask, don't tell, even before the comprehensive review directed by the secretary of defense is completed, and even before congress has received the comprehensive views of those who will be most directly affected by any change in the law. they have unhesitatingly and selflessly respondedn a magnificent manner, without hesitation, putting mission and nation ahead of self and family.

now the proponents of repealing don't ask, don't tell want to rush a vote to the floor, disrupting the process that was put in place earlier this year to get input from those people most affected by this decision. after making the continuous sacrifice of fighting two wars over the course of eight years, the men and men of our military deserve to be heard. congress acting first is the equivalent of turning to our men and women in uniform and their families and saying, your opinions don't count. i've read into the record letters from the secretary, the chairman of each of the servic, asking us to not do this. don't disrespect the military. give them the opportunity to have their input. the secretary also sent us a

letter, and his letter said, i believe in the strongest possible terms that the department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough objective and systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change. a critical element of this effort is the need to systematically engage our forces, their families, and the broader military community throughout this process. our military must be afforded the opportunity to inform us of their concerns, insights, and suggestions in order to carry out this change successfully. therefore, i strongly oppose any gislation that seeks to change this policy prior to the completion of this vital assessment process. further, i hope congress will not do so as it would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform, that in essence, their views, concerns, and perspectives do not matter on an issue with such direct impact and consequence for them and their families. now, i know that this amendment and those proponents will say,

well, we're going to take this vote, but we wll still follow the process. we will have a survey. but you alknow -- i mean, you have to know that when the surveyers go out into the field, they're already going to have heard on the news as was already reported on fox news tonight, the senate repealed don't ask, don't tell. so how are ey given an opportunity to -- i mean, this is a sham. it is a total sham from here forward if this amendment pass tonight. you have the chairman of the committee, a man who's devoted years of his life to our young men and women in uniform, and it's not an easy thing for him, but he stands up to say no on this amendment. i join him in saying no on this amendment. most of the members of the committee, if we had had a chance to bring this up in committee where it should have been, it wouldn't be here tonight. i yield back the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman om pennsylvania is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield 30 seconds to the chairwoman on the house armed services committee, mrs. davis from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mrs. davis: madam speaker, we are listening to our troops and military leaders. i held two hearings on this hearing. this process was set to understand how to implement reform, not whether it should happen. that is contained in the amendment. don't ask, don't tell weakens our national security by asking service members to lie, firing them for being gay, and telling able recruits we don't want you. please, america can do better. vote yes. the chair: the gentleman fr pennsylvania is recognized.

for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi arise? mr. skelton: -- >> iequest unanimous consent -- in opposition to this amendment. the chair: without objection. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from michigan, a eshman congressman and former lieutenant commander, mr. peters. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. peters: i strongly support representative murphy's amendment. we must allow our military to recruit and retain any qualified patriotic and courageous american who wants to serve our country. during my service in the united states navy reserve, i served with many dedicated men and

women who were always ready to serve their country any time and anywhere. i was never concerned about their sexual orientation, just their ability to serve the united states honorably. i urge passage of the murphy amendment. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recogniz. >> i yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from minnesota, the highest ranking enlisted soldier , timwalls. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. >> the greatest privilege of my life is serving this nation for almost 35 years in uniform. i know how important it is to fill our service with motivated volunteers. we are blessed in this nation. that's exactly what we have. it's time for us to honor their professionalism and know that they're ready to end this discriminatory practice. it allows for the sdy of implementation.

we do this all the time in the military. took us six months, you change frohats to ber rays. the process will be orderly. it will be right down thline the way it needs to be, and at the end of the deparke -- day, don't question their ability to do it. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois arise? the gentleman must state his unanimous request. >> as a 20-year army veteran, i don't wear it on my sleeve. i support ranking member mckeon and chairman skelton. this is devastating to the war fighters and the combat infantryman. i yield back my time. the chair: the chair would remind people that members may seek unanimous request, but it is not for debate. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> it's my privilege to yield 30

seconds to the gentleman from georgia, my mentor on civil rights, the freedom writer and great civil rights leader, mr. john lewis. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 30 seconds. . mr. lewis: just like the military helped end segregation based on race, we should have put an end to don't ask, don't tell long ago. it is an afront to human dignity and to the dignity to every men and women serving in our military. we cannot wait. we cannot be patient. we must end discrimination in the military and we must enit now. discrimination is wrong and we must end it. the chair: e gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. murphy: i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman has the only time remaining. the gentleman from pennsylvani is recognized. mr. murphy: i reserve the balance of my time. do we have any time? how much time. the chair: gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes. i mr. murphy: i yield myself the balance of my time -- i yield the speaker one minute -- 30 seconds. the chair: the speaker of the house is recognized for one minute. the speaker: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership and service to our country. mr. speaker, this weekend on memorial day, america will come together to honor all who have served our nation in uniform and those brave americans have no better friend than our chairman of the armed services committee, mr. skelton. today by repealing the don't

ask, don't tell policy, we honor the service and sacrifice of all who dedicated their lives of protecting the american people. we honor the values of our nation and we close the door on fundamental unfairness. under don't ask, don't tell, more than 13,000 men and women have been discharged from the military. thousands more have decided not to re-enlist. fighter pilots, infantry officers, arabic translators and other specialists have been discharged at a time when our nation is engage nd two wars. that is why i support repealing don't ask, don't tell and that support has come from all over the country. nearly eight out of 10 americans want to end this era of discrimination. the current chairman of the joint chiefs said it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve

openly woulde the right thing to do. we have in place a policy that forces young men and women who lie about who theare in order to defend their fellow citizens. for me personally, it comes down to integrity. theirs as individuals and theirs as institutions. chairman powell has said now thinks this real stricttive policy shld be repealed. and in a letter to congress, 51 generals called for repeal of this policy saying they had dedicated our lives to the rights of our citizens to believe whatever they wish. passing this amendment today respects the time line of the pentagon's implementation study group. the repeal would take place only after the study group completes its work in december, 2010 and

after the president, the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense all certify that repeal will not hurt military readiness or unite cohesion. no one in this body would jeopardize our national security. america has always been the land of the free and the home of the brave nd the men and women in uniform make it so. they have been willing to fight for our country. let us honor their service by committing to the values they fight for on the battlefield. i urge my colleagues to vote for the repeal of this discriminatory policy of don't ask, don't tell and make america more american. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 30 seconds remaining. mr. murphy: i yield myself the balance of my time. thehair: thgentleman from pennsvania. mr. murphy: former air force

sergeant david hall was walking in this gallery and he mentioned to me, he said, sergeant hall wasn't asked and he didn't tell. he was kicked out of the air force. he already served in the middle east. he said to me, and i quote, i assure you, i'm still fit for military duty. stop discharging patriotic americs who just want to serve the country that they love. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: on that, i demand the yeas and nays. recorded vote. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote?

pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlemanrom pennsylvania will be postponed. >> the house voted 234-194 voting to repeal the amendment on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. in a few moments, president obama's news conference on the safety and regulation of offshore oil drilling. survivors of the drilling rig explosion testify on capitol hill. >> clay was, in the parlance of today, a rock star. >> david and jeanne heidler on henry clay on "q&a."

>> c-span, our content is available on television, radio, and online. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and you too. signup for our e-mails at c- span.org. >> president obama says the federal parliament is in charge of dealing with the oil spill in the gulf of mexico, and says it is the highest priority. he spoke about offshore drilling safety and regulations for the more than an hour. -- for a little more than an hour. >> good afternoon, everybody.

i want to update the status on the oil spill. it is causing tremendous hardship on the gulf coast, managing a precious ecosystem, and one that led to the death of 11 workers. yesterday, the federal government gave bp approval and forward with a procedure known as a top kill to stop the leak, involving plugging the well with densely packed mud. this procedure offers no guarantee. we are exploring any reasonable strategies to try and save the gulf from a spill that may otherwise last until the relief wells are finished. the american people should know that from the moment the disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response. as far as i'm concerned, bp is responsible for this horrific

disaster, and we will hold them fully accountable on behalf of the united states, as well as the people and communities victimized by the tragedy. we will demand a pay every dime for the damage they have done. we will continue to take full advantage of the unique technology and expertise they have to stop this week. -- this leak. make no mistake. bp's operating in our discretion. i have designated thad allen as the national incident commander. if the ordinance bp to do something to respond to this disaster, they are legally bound to do it. when they said they would drill one relief well, we demanded a back up and ordered them to drill two. they are really the process of drilling two.

as we devise strategies to stop the leak, we are relying on the brightest minds and most advanced technology of the world. we're relying on scientists and engineers from our own laboratories and from many other nations, a team led by our energy -- energy secretary. we are relying on experts who have dealt with oil spills from across the gulf. the federal government is also directing the effort to contain and clean up the damage, which is now the largest effort of its time in u.s. history. the federal, state, and local governments have the resources and expertise to play an even more direct role in the response of that. i will be discussing this when i make my second trip to louisiana tomorrow. so far, we have 20,000 people in the region working around the clock to contain and clean up the oil. reactivated 1400 members of the

national guard in four states. we have the coast guard on site. we have more than 1300 vessels assisting in the containment and clean-up effort. we deployed over 3 million feet of booms of booms is being searched 2 parishes facing the greatest risk from the oil. we will continue to do whatever is necessary to protect and restore the gulf coast. admiral allen announced we're moving forward with a section of governor jindal's barrier island proposal but could help stop the oil from coming ashore. it will be built in an area that is most at-risk and were the work can be most quickly completed. we're doing whatever it takes to help the men and women whose livelihoods have been disrupted and destroyed. everyone from fisherman to restaurant and hotel owners. the small business fenestration has approved loans and allowed

many small businesses to defer existing loan payments. bp is paying economic injury claims and will make sure that the victims of this disaster will get the relief they are owed. we will not abandon our fellow citizens. we will help them recover and rebuild. in the meantime, i should say that americans can help by continuing to visit the communities and beaches of the gulf coast. of talking to the governors a couple of days ago when they wanted me to remind everybody that except for three beaches in louisiana, all of the beaches are open. they are safe and clean. as we continue our response efforts, we are also moving quickly on steps to ensure that the catastrophe like this never happens again. i have said before that producing oil here in america is an essential part of our overall energy strategy, but all drilling must be safe. in recent months, i have spoken

about the dangers of too much -- i have heard people speaking about the danger of too much government regulation. i think we can all like knowledge there have been times in history when the government has overreached. in this instance, the oil sometimes corrupt relationship with regulators meant little or no regulation at all. secretary salazar took office and found the minerals management service that had been plagued by corruption for years, the agency charged with providing permits and in forcing laws governing oil drills. the corruption was underscored by a recent report that covered activity that occurred prior to 2007. it can only be described as appalling. secretary salazar took steps to clean up the corruption. that more reforms are needed.

for years, there has been a scandalous the close relationship between oil companies and the agency that regulates them. that is why we have decided to separate the people who permit the drilling from those who regulate and insure the safety of the drilling. i announced that no new permits for drilling new wells will go forward until a 30-based safety and a garment review was conducted. that is now complete. there are aggressive new operating standards and requirements for offshore energy companies, which we will put in place. after leaving the recommendations with secretary salazar and other members of the administration, we're going to be ordering the following actions. first, we will suspend the planned exploration of two locations off the coast of alaska. second, we will cancel the pending least they'll in the gulf of mexico and the proposed lease veil off the coast of virginia. third, we will continue the

existing moratorium and suspend the issuance of new permits to drill new deep-water wells for six months. four, we will suspend action on 33 deep-water port were drills currently being drilled in the gulf of mexico. it has also been made clear that for years, the oil and gas industry have leveraged such power that they have effectively been allowed to regulate themselves. one example, under current law, the interior department has only 30 days to review and exploration plans submitted by an oil company. that leaves no time for the appropriate environmental review. the result is, they are continually waved. this is just one example of a law that was tailored by the industry to serve their need instead of the public. congress needs to address these issues as soon as possible. my administration will work with them to do so. still, preventing such a catastrophe in the future will require further study and

reform. but as i left friday, i signed an order establishing the national commission on the bp deepwater oil spill and offshore drilling. there are in number of ongoing investigations, including an independent review by the national academy of engineering. the purpose of this commission is to consider the root causes of the disaster and offer options on what safety and environment precautions are necessary. the laws on our books are not adequate to prevent such a spill, or if we did not enforce those laws, i want to know. i want to know what worked and what didn't work in a response to the disaster. where did oversight of the industry breakdown? i want to make one final point. more than anything else, this is an economic and environmental tragedy. it is a tragedy. it underscores the urgent need for this nation to develop clean, renewable sources of energy. doing so will not come a reduced

threat to our environment, it will create a new, and that american industry that can lead to countless new businesses and new jobs. we have talked about doing this for decades. we have made significant strides over the next three to go the last year when it comes to investing in energy efficiency. the house of representatives has already passed a bill that would finally jump start the transition to a clean energy economy. there's currently a plan in the senate, a plan that was developed with ideas from democrats and republicans, that would achieve the same goal. if nothing else, this disaster should serve as a wake-up call that it is time to move forward on this legislation. it is time to accelerate the competition with countries like china, would already realized the future lies in renewable when to. it is time to seize that future selves. i call on democrats and republicans in congress to enter this challenge once and for all.

i will close by saying this. this oil spill is an unprecedented disaster. the fact that the source of the leak as a mile under the surface, where no human being can go, has made it enormously difficult to stop. we are relying on every resource and every idea, every expert and every bit of technology to work to stop but. we will take ideas from anywhere. we are going to stop it. i know that does not lessen the enormous sense of frustration felt by people on the gulf. every day, i see this continue, and i am angered and frustrated. i realize that this entire response apart will continue to be filtered through the fiscal prism of politics, but that is not what i care about right now. what i care about right now with the containment of this disaster and the health, safety, and livelihood of our neighbors in the gulf coast. for as long as it takes, i

intend to use the full force of the federal government to protect our federal citizens in the place where they live. i assure you of that. all right. i am going to take some questions. i will start with jennifer. >> thank you, mr. president. you just said the federal government is in charge and officials in your administration have said this repeatedly. how do you explain that there were more than five weeks into this crisis, and bp is not always doing what your asking, for example, with the type of dispersant being used? if i might add one more, to the many people in the gulf were frustrated and feel somewhat abandoned, what do you say about whether your personal involvement, your personal engagement has been as much as it should be, privately or publicly? >> well, i will take the second

question first, if you don't mind. the day that the rig collapsed and fell to the bottom of the ocean, i had my team in the oval office that first day. those who think that we were either slow on our response or lacked urgency do not know the fact. this has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred. personally, i am briefed every day. i have probably had more meetings on this issue than just about any issue since we did our afghan review. we understood from day one the potential enormity of this crisis, and act accordingly. so, when it comes to the moment this crisis occurred, moving forward, this entire white house and this entire federal government has been singularly focused on how we stop the leak

and prevent and mitigate the damage to our coastlines. the challenge we have this that -- have is that we have not seen a leak like this before. people are going to be frustrated until it stops. i understand that. if you're living on the coast, and you see this sludge coming at you, you are going to be continually upset. from your perspective, the response is going to be continually inadequate until it actually stops. that is entirely appropriate and understandable. through the most junior member of the coast guard, or the under-under- undersecretary of noah, or any of the agencies under my charge,

they understand this is the single most important thing that we have to get right. now, with respect to the relationship between our government and bp, the united states government has always been in charge of making sure the response is appropriate. bp, under the oil pollution act of 1990, is considered the responsible party, which basically means they have got to pay for everything that is done to stop the leak and mitigate the damage. they do so under our supervision, and any major decision they may cast to be done under the approval of thad allen, the national incident coordinator. this notion that the federal

government is sitting on the sidelines, and for the last three or four weeks, we have been letting bp make a bunch of decisions, it is simply not true. what is true is that when it comes to stopping the leak down below, the federal government does not possess superior technology to bp. this is something, going back to my involvement, two or three days after this happened, we had a meeting in the situation room where i asked bob gates and mike mullen what we have that could help bp. we do not have technology when it comes to dealing with this particular crisis. one of the legitimate questions that i think it might be asked is, should the federal government have such capacity? that is part of what the role of the commission is going to be, to take a look and say, do we

make sure that a consortium of oil companies pay for specific technology to deal with this kind of incident when it happens? should that response team that is affected be under the direct charge of the united states government, or a private entity? but, for now, bp as the best technology, along with the other oil companies, when it comes to actually capping the well. when it comes to what is happening on the surface, we have been much more involved. the burns, the scheming, those have been happening more or less under our direction. we feel comfortable about many of the steps that been taken. there have been areas where there have been disagreements. i will give you two examples. initially on this topkill, there were questions in terms of how effective it could be, but also the risks involved.

we were operating at such a pressurize level, a mile underwater, and in such frigid temperatures, that the reactions of various compounds and various approaches had to be carefully. that is when i sent stephen shue down. he put together a team, a brain trust, of some of the smartest folks we have at the national labs and in academia to essentially serve as penn oversight board with bp engineers and scientists in making calculations about how much money you could pour down, how fast, without risking potentially the whole thing blowing. in that situation, you have got the federal government directly overseeing what bp is doing, and thad allen is giving

authorization when we fill the risks are sufficiently reduced. minority mentioned the second example, which is the wanted to drill one relief well. one you keep on missing the mark. it is important to have two to maximize the speed and effectiveness of a relief well. thad is down there, and it is his view that some of the allocation of boom or other efforts to protect shorelines have not been as nimble as it needs to. he is making sure that the resources to protect the shore lines are there nitti. -- there immediately.

there has never been a point during this crisis in which this administration, and down the line come in all these agencies, has not understood this was my top priority, and understanding that if bp was not doing what our best options to tell them to do something different. if you take a look at what has transpired over the last four to five weeks, there may have been areas where there were disagreements on dispersants, and these are complicated issues, but overall, the decisions that have been made have been reflective of the best science that we have, the best expert opinions that we have, and have been weighing various risks and various options to allocate our resources in such a way that we can get this fixed as quickly as possible.

>> you say that everything that could be done is being done, but there are those in the region and those industry experts who say that is not true. governor jindal had this proposal for barrier. they say if that had been approved when he first half, there be 10 miles already. there are fishermen who have not been trained. there are industry experts who say they're surprised the tankers have not been sent out there to vacuum, as they did in 1993 outside saudi arabia. then, of course, there's the fact that there are 17 countries that have offered to open, and it has only been accepted from two countries, norway and mexico. how can you say that everything that can be done is being done,

with all of these experts and all of these officials saying that is not true? >> let me distinguish between -- of the question is, -- if the question is, are we doing everything perfectly out there, the answer is absolutely not. the question is, are we come each time there is an idea, evaluating it and making a decision, is this the best option we have right now based on how quickly we can stop this leak, how much we can mitigate, the answer is yes. take the barrier islands idea. when i met with governor jindal, i said, i will make sure our team immediately reduce this idea, that the army corps of engineers is looking at the feasibility of that, and if they think, if they tell me this is the best approach to dealing

with this problem, we will move quickly to execute. if they have a disagreement with governor jindal's experts as to whether it will be effective, whether it will be cost effective, then we will sit down and try to figure that out. that is essentially what happened, which is why you saw an announcement today where, from the army corps of engineers perspective, there were some areas where this might work, but there are some areas where it would be counterproductive and not a good use of resources. so, the point is, on each of these points that you mentioned, the job of our responsiveness to say, ok, it 17 countries have offered equipment and help, let's evaluate what they have offered, how fast can it get here, is it actually going to be redundant, or will it add to the overall effort? in some cases, more may not actually be better.

decisions have been made based on the best information available but says, here is what we need right now. it might be that a week from now or two weeks from now or a month from now, the offers from some of those countries might be more effectively used. now, it is going to be entirely possible in an operation this large that mistakes are made, judgments prove to be wrong, that people say in retrospect, we could have done that, if we had done that, it would have turned out differently. in a lot of cases, it may be speculation. the point was addressing from jennifer was, this administration maintains a constant sense of urgency about this. are re-examining every recommendation and idea out there? are we making our best judgment as to whether these are the right steps to take, based on

the best expert that we know of? and, on that cancer, the answer is yes. on that question, the answer is yes. choctaw -- chuck todd? >> oh want to follow up on the question as it has to do with the relationship between the government and bp. you have made the case on the technical issue, but onshore, admiral allen admitted they needed to push her. the senator said this morning it is not clear who is in charge. why not ask bp to step aside on the onshore stuff, make it an entirely government thing, obviously, bp pays for it? also, can you respond to of the katrina comparisons that people are making about this? >> i will take your second question first. i will leave it to you guys to

make those comparisons, and make judgments on it. what i am spending my time thinking about is how do we solve the problem? when the problem is solved and people look back and do an assessment of the various decisions that were made, i think people can make historical judgment. i'm confident that people will look back and say that this administration was on top of what was an unprecedented crisis. .

>> what the admiral said day is that if b.p.'s contractors are effectively as they need to be, then it is already the power of the federal government to rio redirect those resources. the point being the coast guard and military are potentially have good information and we're making the right decisions. if there are mistakes being made, we have the power to correct those. we don't necessarily recon figure the setup. what we have to make sure of is that on each and everyone of the decisions being made about what

beaches to protect and what is going to happen with the marches, if we build a barrier island and how is this going to have an impact on the ecology of the area over the long-term. in each of those decisions, we got to get it right. >> i understand. >> and part of, part of the purpose of the press conference is to explain to the folks down in the gulf that ultimately -- it is our folks down there who are responsible. if they're not satisfied with something that is happening, then they need to let us know and we will immediately question b.p. and ask them why isn't x.y.z. happening. and those skimmers, those boats that boom, the people who are out there collecting some of the oil that has already hit shore, they can be moved and redirected at any point.

and so, understandably people are frustrated because look this is a big mess coming to shore. and even if we got a perfect organizational structure, spots are going to be missed. oil is going to go to place that is maybe somebody thinks it could have been prevented from going. there's going to be damage that is heartbreaking to see. people's lively hoods are going to be affected in painful ways. the best thing for us to do is to make sure that every decision about how we're allocating the resources we got is being made based on the best expert advice that is available. i'll take one last stab at this. the problem i don't think is b.p. is doing whatever it wants and nobody is minding the store. inevitably in something this big, there are going to be places where things fall short.

today that our teams are authorized to direct b.p. in the same way that they would be authorized as if they were technically being paid by the federal government. if either circumstance we have the authority we need, we just going to make sure we're exercising it effectively. steve? thank you, sir. >> on april 21st admiral alan tells us the government started dispatching equipment randly to the gulf. you said on day one, you recognized the enormity of the situation. yet, here we are 39, 40 days hair, you're still having to rushmore exhiment commit and more boom. there are &s of the coast unprotected, why is it taking so long? did you really act from day one

for a worst case scenario? >> we did part of the brob you've got -- you've got, let's take the advantage of boom. the way the plans have been developed. i'm not an expert but this is how it has been explained to me. predeploying boom would have been the right thing to do. making sure there's boom right this in the region at versus spots where you could anticipate if there was a spill of this size the boom would have -- would be right there ready to grab. unfortunately that wasn't always the case. this goes back to something that -- that jake asked earlier, when it comes to the response sent, the crisis happens, i am very confident that the federal government has acted consistently with the sense of urgency. when it comes to prior to the accident happening, i think

there was a lack of anticipating what the worst case scenarios would be. and that's a problem. part of that problem was lodged in m.m.s. and the way that agency was structured. that was the agency in charge of providing permitting and making decidings in terms of where -- decisions where drilling could take place but also in charge of enforcing the safety provisions. as i indicated before, the -- the i.g. report, the inspector general's report that came out was scathing in terms of the problems there. when ken salazar came in, he -- he cleaned a lot of that up but more needs, needed to be done and more needs to be done, which separated out the permitting function from the functions that -- involve enforcing the various safety regulations. but i think on a whole bunch of

fronts you had a complacency when it came to what happened -- what happens in the worst case scenario. that -- i'll give you another example because this is something that some of you have written about. the question of how is it that oil companies kept on getting environmental waivers in -- in getting their permits approved. well it turns out that the way the process works, first of all, there's a thorough environmental review as to whether a certain portion of the gulf should be leased or not. and that is a thorough going environmental evaluation. then the -- the overall lease is broken up into segments for individual leases and there's a review has is done. but when it comes to a specific company with its exploration plan in that one particular area, they're going to tril right here in this spot --

congress mandated that only 30 days could be allocated before a joran answer was given. that was by law. so m.m.s.'s hands were tied. as a consequence, what became the habit predating my administration was you automatically gave the environmental waiver because you couldn't complete a environmental study in 30 days. so, you -- what you have got is a whole bunch of aspects to how oversight was exercised. in deep water drilling. that -- that was very problematic, that's why it is so important this commission moves forward and examines from soup to nuts why did this happen, how should this proceed in a safe and effective manner and what is required when it comes to worst

case scenarios to prevent this from happening. i continue to believe oil production is important, domestic oil production is important. but we can't do this stuff if we don't have confidence that we could prevent crises from -- like this from happening again. and it is going to take some time for -- for the experts to make those determine pations and as i said in the meantime, i think it is appropriate, we keep in place the moratorium that i have already issued. chip. >> thank you, mr. president. first of all, elizabeth bern balm resigned today. was she fired or forced out? if so, why? should other heads roll as we go on here? secondly with regard to the minerals management service, secretary salazar yesterday basically blamed the bush

relationship there and you seem to address that when you spoke in the rose garden, when you said for too long a decade, most of the years the bush administration, there has been a cozy relationship between the agencies and the agencies that permits them to drill. you knew when you came in, and so did secretary salazar about this relationship and you continued to give permits under questionable circumstances. is it fair to blame the bush administration? >> let me make the point i made earlier. salazar came in and starting clean house but the culture has not fully changed in m.m.s. absolutely i take responsibility for that. there wasn't sufficient urgency in terms of how those changess needed to take place. there's no evidence that the corrupt practices that had taken place earlier took place under the current administration's watch. but a culture in which oil

companies were able to get what they wanted without sufficient oversight and regulation, that was a real problem. some of it was constraints with the law as i just mentioned, but we should have busted through those constraints. now with respect to miss birnbaum. i found out about her resignation today. ken salazar has been in testimony throughout date. i don't know the circumstances in which which occurred. -- in which this occurred. can i tell you what i said to ken salazar, which is that we have to make sure if we're going forward with -- with domestic oil production that the federal agency charged with overseeing its safety and security is operating at the highest level. and i want people in this who are operating at the highest level and aren't making excuses when things break down.

but are intent on fixing them. and i have confidence that ken salazar can do that. >> yes. >> juliana. thank you. we're learning today that oil, the oil has been gushing as much as five times the initial estimates. what is -- does that tell you and the american people about the extent to which b.p. can be trusted on any of the information it is providing, whether the events leading up to the spill and any of their information. >> right. well. b.p.'s interests are alined with the public interest so -- to the extent they want to get this well capped. it is bad for their business. it is bad for their bottom line. we'll be staying on them about

that. i think it is fair to say, they want this capped as badly as anybody does. they want to minimizes damage as much as they can. i think it is a legitimate concern to -- to question whether b.p.'s interests in being fully forth coming about the extent of the damage is aligned with the -- with the public interest. their interest blue sky be to minimize the damage and to the extent they have better information than anybody else to not be fully forth coming. we have to identify what they say about the damage. this is where our efforts fell short. i'm not contradicting my prior point that people were working as hard as they could and doing the best they could on this

front. but when the initial estimates came and it was 5,000 barrels spilling into the ocean per day, that was based on satellite imanry and satellite data that would give a rough calculation. at that point b.p. had a camera down there. but wasn't fully forth coming in terms of what did those pictures look like and when you set it up in time lapse photography, experts could then make a more accurate determination. the administration pushed them to release it, but they should have 30ushed them sooner. it took too long for us to stand up our flow tracking group. they have now made these more

accurate ranges of calculation. now keep in mind that that didn't change what our response was. as i said from the start, we understood that this could be really bad. we're hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. so there aren't steps that we would have taken in terms of trying to cap the well or skimming the surface or the bushes or preparing to make sure when this stuff hit shore that we could minimize the damage. all of those steps would have been the same even if we had information that this flow was coming out faster. eventually we would have gotten better information because by law the federal government if it is going to be charges b.p. for the daniel that it causes is going to have -- for the damage it causes, is going to have to

better information. >> helen. of afghanistan? why are we continuing to kill and die there? what is the excuse? don't give us the bushism if we don't go there, they'll come here. >> helen, the reason we originally went to afghanistan was because that was the base from which attacks were launched that killed 3,000 people and i'm going to get to your question i promise. we went there because the taliban was harboring al qaeda that launched an attack that killed 3,000 americans. al qaeda escaped capture and they set up in the border regions between pakistan and afghanistan. al qaeda has affiliates that not

only provide them safe harbour but increasingly are willing to conduct their own terrorist operations. initially in afghanistan and in pakistan but increasingly directed against western targets and targets -- of our allies as well. so it is absolutely critical that we dismantle that network of extremists that are willing to attack us. they are currently -- well, they absolutely are a threat to us. they're a significant threat to us. i wouldn't be deploying young men and women in harm's way unless i thought they were a threat. general crystal's strategy, which i think is the right one, is that we're going to clear out taliban strongholds, we're going to strengthen the capacity of

the afghan military, and we're going to get them stood up in a way that allows us then to start drawing down our troops but continuing to provide support for afghan in an evident to create a stable government. it is difficult but at the same time we got to work with pakistan so that they are more effective partners in dealing with the extremists that are within their borders, and it is -- it is a big messy process, but we're making progress in part because the young men and women under general mckrill tall's supervision as well as partners are making sacrifices but on the civilian side, we're starting to make progress in terms of building capacity that will allow us then to draw down with an effective partner. okay. >> jackie collins. "new york times." >> thank you.

okay. i want to follow up on something, an exchange you had with chip. leaving aside the existing permits for tril in the gulf, -- drilling in the gulf, before, weeks before b.p. you called for expanded drilling. do you now regret that decision and why did you do so knowing what you have described today about the sort of dysfunction in the m.m.s. >> i continue to believe what i said at that time which was that domestic oil production is an important part of our overall energy. it has to be part of an overall strategy. i also believe that it is insufficient to meet the needs of our future. which is why i made huge investments in clean energy, why wind and biodiesel and a whole

range of other approaches, why we're putting emphasis on energy efficiency. but we're for the going to be able to transition to these clean energy stwreages right away. we're years off and some technological break throughs away from being able to operate on -- on purely a clean energy grid. during that time we're going to be using oil. to the extent that we're using oil t makes sense for us to develop our oil in natural gas resources here in the united states and not simply rely on -- on imports. that's important for our economy, that's important for economic growth. so, the overall framework which is to say -- domestic oil production should be part of our overall energy mix continues to be the right one. where i was wrong what -- was in

my belief that the oil companies had their act together when it came to worst case scenarios. that wasn't -- based on just my blind acceptance of their statements, oil drilling has been going on in the gulf for -- sometime. and -- the record of accidents like this we hadn't seen before. but it just takes one. it takes one for us to have a wake-up call and recognize that claims and fail safe procedures were in place and that blowout preventers would function properly and valves would switch on and shut things off, that -- whether it is because of human error, because of the technology, was faulty. because when you're operating at, these depth you can't anticipate what happens. those -- those assumptions prove ton incorrect.

and so, -- prove to be incorrect. so i'm absolutely convinced that we have to do a thorough going scrub of that -- that, those safety procedures and those safety records. we have to have confidence that even if it is just a one in a million shot that we got enough technology and know how we could shut this down not in ann mo or six weeks, but in -- two or three or four days. i don't have that confidence right now. are you sorry now, do you regret that your team had not done the reforms at the minerals management service that you subsequent my called for. i'm also curious as how it is you didn't know about miss bern balm's resignation/firing before

-- >> you're assuming it was a firing. if it was a resignation, then she would have submitted a letter to mr. salazar this morning at a time with i had a whole bunch of other stuff going on. >> you rule out she was fired. >> come on, jackie, i don't know. i found out about it this morning. so, i don't yet know the circumstances and ken salazar has been in testimony on the hill. with respect to your first quest question e -- question at m.m.f., kep was in the process of making these reforms but the point i'm making, obviously they weren't happening fast enough. if they had been happening fast enough, this might have been caught. it is possible it may not have been caught. all right. we could have gone through a whole new process for environmental review, you could

have had a bunch of technical folks look at b.p.'s plans and -- they may have said this is -- this meets industry standards. we haven't had an accident like this in 15 years. we should go ahead. that's what this commission has to discover is -- is was this a systematic breakdown or something that could happen once in a million times, or once in a thousand times or once every 5,000 times? the -- what exactly are the risks involved. now, let me make one broader point, though, about energy. the fact that oil companies now have to go a mile under water and then drill another three miles below that in order to hit oil tells us something about the direction of the oil industry. extraction is more expensive and it is going to be more risky.

so that's part of -- the reason you never heard me say, drill baby drill. because we can't drill our way out of the problem. it play be a part of a mix as a bridge to new technologies and new energy sources. but we should be pretty modest in understanding that -- that the easily accessible oil has already been sucked up out of the ground. and as we are moving forward the technology gets more complicated , the oil sources are more remote, and that means that there's probably going to end up being more risk. and we as a society are going to make some very serious determinations in terms of what ricks are we will to accept? that's part of what the commission will look at. rile tole you though that understanding we need to grow,

we're going to consume oil for our industries and for -- for how people live in this country. we're going to have to start moving on this transition. and that's why when i went to the republican caucus just this week, i said to them, let's work together. were working with lindsey gram who -- even though lindsey is thought the -- on the bill now, but it has the potential to get bipartisan support. we can say it has oil production but we could see what is out there on the horizon. it is -- it is a problem if we don't change how we operate. okay. >> not here. >> mr. president, you announced,

the white house announced on two days ago that you were going to send 500 people to patrol members of the national guard to the border, i wanted to -- if you could precise what other target it is going to be and what your planning -- you're planning to achieve with that, if you could clarify more the mission they're going to have. also, on -- on arizona, after you have criticized so much the -- the the immigration law that has been approved there, would you support the boycott that some organizations are call to -- towards that state. i have indicated that -- i don't approve of the arizona law. i think it is the wrong approach. i understand the frustrations of the people of arizona. a lot of folks looping the

border that border has not been entirely secured in a way that -- that is both true to our traditions as a nation of law and immigrants. i'm president of the united states, i don't endorse boycotts. or not endorse boycotts. that's something that the private citizens can make a decision about. what my administration is doing is examining very closely this arizona law and its implics for the civil rights and liberties of the people in arizona as well as the concern that you start getting a patchwork of 50 different immigration laws around the country in an area that is inherently the job of the federal government. for the federal government to do its job, everybody has to step up. so, i try to be as clear as i could this week and i will

repeat it to everybody who is here. we to have a comprehensive approach to immigration. the time to get moving on this is now. i'm prepared to work with both parties and members of congress to get a bill that does a good job securing our borders, holds employers accountable and makes sure that those who have come here illegally and have to pay and fine and get right by the law. we had the at some point to do that. we got a vote of a supermajority in the senate just four years ago. there's no reason we shouldn't be able to recreate that bipartisan spirit to get this problem solved. now, with respect to the -- to

the national guardsmen and women, i have authorized up to 1200 national guards person in a plan that was actually shaped last year. this is not simply in response to the arizona law. what we find is is national guards persons can help on intelligence, dealing with both drug and human trafficking along the borders, they can relieve border guards so that the border guards can be in charge of law enforcement in those areas. so there are a lot of functions that they could carry out that helps leverage and increase the resources available in in area. by the way we, didn't just send national guard, we have a package of $500 million in additional resources because for example if we're doing a better job, dealing with trafficking make sure that we got

prosecutors down there who can prosecute those cases. but, the key point i want to emphasize to you is that i don't see these issues in isolation. we're not going to solve the problem just solely as a consequence of sending national guard troops down there. we're going to solve this problem because we have created an orderly, fair, lume main immigration framework in which people are able to immigrate to this country in a legal fashion, em moyers are held accountable for hiring legally present workers. i think we could craft that system if even is willing to step up and i told the republican caucus when i met with them this week i don't even need you to meet me halfway. pleat me a quarter of the way. i'll bring the majority of the democrats to a smart sensible

reform bill. but i need help given rules of the senate that a simple majority is not enough. last yes. major? >> good afternoon. two issues. someone in your government has said the federal government's boot is on the neck of b.p. -- b.p. are you comfortable a with that? can you understand why someone in the gulf would consider that a meaningless or ludicrous metaphor. can you tell the american white house what -- what the american white house told senator suss neck not to enter the primary. how will you meet transparency and eth things to convey that answer to what appear to be bipartisan calls for greater disclosure about that matter? yao there will be an official response shortly on the sustac

issue. you will get it from my -- from my administration. when i say shortly, i mean shortly, not weeks or months. with respect to the first -- i can assure the public that nothing improper took place. but as i said there's a response shortly on that issue. with respect to the metaphor that was used i think ken salazar would be the first one to admit that he has been frustrated and angry and occasionally emotional about this issue. like a lot of people have. there are a lot of folks that see what is happening and -- and our r-angry at b.p. and frustrated that it hasn't stopped and so i'll let ken

answer for himself. i would say that we don't need to use language like that we need actions to make sure b.p. is accountable. that's what i intend to do and kep salazar intends to do. but look, we have gone through a difficult year and a half. this is just one more bit of difficult. this is going to be hard, not just right now, it is going to be hard for months to come. the gulf, this spill. the gulf is going to be affected in -- in -- in a bad way. so my job right now is just to

it is not just me, malia comes in and says, did you plug the hole yet? i think even understands that -- that when we're fouling the earth like this, it has concrete implications, not just for this generation but future generations. i grew up in hawaii where the ocean is sacred and when you see birds flying around, with -- with -- with oil all over their feathers and -- turtles dying and -- you know that's -- that doesn't speak to the immediate economic consequences, consequences of this, it speaks to you know, how are we caring for this -- incredible bounty

that we. sometimes when i hear folks down in louisiana expressing frustration, i may not always think their comments are fair, on the other hand, i probably think to myself, these are folks that grew up you know, fishing in these wetlands and you know, seeing this as an integral part of who they are. and to see that messed up in this fashion would be infuriating. so, the thing that the american people need to understand is that for the a day goes by where the federal government is for the constantly thinking about how do we make sure that we minimize the damage on this -- we close this thing down, we review what happened to make sure that it does not happen again. in that sense, there -- there

are analogies to what happened in terms of you know, in financial markets and other areas where big crises happen and it forces us to do some soul searching. i think that's important for all of us to do. in the meantime, my job is to get this fixed. in case anybody wonders in any reporting, in case you're wondering who is responsible, i take responsibility. it is my job to make sure that down. it doesn't mean it is going to be easy. it doesn't mean it is going to happen right away or the way i like it to happen it doesn't mean we're not going to make mistakes. there shouldn't be confusion, the government is fully engaged and i am fully engaged.

thank you so much. fndfnd [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captions performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captions performed by the

national captioning institute] zoo >> the treaty before you is an evolution of agreements that go back to the 1970's and --'s and particularly agreement that is were started in the reaganed a manipulate stration and continued in some form in every subsequent administration. watch the moments at the c-span video library. washington your way. available free online. two survivors of the explosion and fire on the deep water horizon oil rig testified today on capitol hill. the judiciary committee was focusing on liability issues related to the disaster. this part of the hearing is 2 1/2 hours.

the committee comes to order. we welcome everyone, particularly the distinguished witness that is are before us to -- to discuss the legal liability issues surrounding the gulf coast oil disaster. the jurisdictional basis -- basis for this hearing and judiciary is the liability issues under the federal law fall to the jurisdiction of this committee. particularly the death on the high seas act and the limitation of liability act in particular.

we all know the oil spill in the gulf coast is one of the -- is one of monumental proporings, the worst spill in u.s. history. these considerations are particularly within the jurisdiction of this committee. the current state of the law is inadequate to deal with the disasters of this size. the legal landscape, the victims of the gulf coast disaster is e complex and outdated and inconsistent. the remedy available under the

high seas act for the families of those who are killed who were killed is woefully inadequate. they're limited from recovering for the direct loss of support that the deceased would have ven to f f f f f f f f f f f f t sea can seek full relief for the loss, including loss of care and confident provided by the deceased. i'll put the rest of my statement in the record and recognize the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. jamar smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your holding this hearing today on the liability issues related to the gulf oil spill.

i understand the top kill has been successful. that's great news. the most pressing need is to remove the oil has has already been spilled. it is equally important that we make sure that the parties responsible for the spill and not the american taxpayers pick up the bill. the cost of the spill goes beyond coninthatting and removing spilled oil. those responsible must also pay to remedy the effects on america's fafrl sources. additionally responsible parties must compensate individuals and baste governments for their losses. i know that has already begun. the oil pollution act and our other environmental laws insure that the responsible parties pay the full cost by holding them strictly liable for all removal costs and natural resources damages be and economic damages. while this bill has already

exceeded the $75 million cap, it should not be obstacle from obtaining more funds from responsible parties since the act has meaningful exceptions and does not apply to state law claims. moreover, british petroleum has called the cap irrelevant and paid all legitimate claims. and i'm concerned about proposals to make changes for our oil polhution process. following the spill, congress worked for 15 months to carefully research the issue and ultimately right -- write the oil polhution act. 134 members didn't wait 15 days after the most recent spill to push legislation to change important provisions of the act. i napped there's a temptation to punish b.p. for this tragedy but proposals such as raising caps play create legal and financial burdens that force independent operators out of the oil exploration business all together.

we should not create a situation in which only the, so called major companies are able to drill for oil off shore. it would be ironic if legislation aimed at punishing b.p. would have the reverse effect for companies like b.p. to drill off the coast. i'm concerned the obama administration's response to the bill has been slow and insufficient. louisiana governor bobby jindal has characterized the response as a, quote, disjointed effort to date. it is too often met too little too late to stop the oil from hitting our coast. unfortunately the administration's response has in large part consisted of blaming b.p. and railing against big oil while ignoring its own lack of preparation and slow reaction. while our response should be swift and targeted to the problem at hand, we must be careful not to overreact. just as after the exxon valdez

spill we did not stop shipping by tanker, we couldn't stop drilling off america's shores. if we banned every industry that had a tragic accident, we wouldn't drive or fly, we wouldn't take the train or travel to the moon. instead, we have learned from our mistakes, and made these industries safer for the future. and woe must determine what caused this accident and take steps to insure that it does not happen again. but those steps should not include a ban on drilling off shore. at a time when america needs to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, now is not the time to cut off our own sources of oil. until we develop viable alternatives to fossil fuels, we must continue to drill both on shore and off. our immediate goal should be to make sure all possible resources go toward settles k4r50eu78s, stopping the spill and cleaning up the mess and protecting wildlife in the gulf from future

spills. thank you, mr. chairman, i'll yield back. >> are there any other members that want to -- welcome our our distinguished witnesses today or make an observation? of extreme breveity. jerry? >> mr. speaker, and mr. chairman, rather. i hope that doesn't come out of my time. thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing on legal liability issues. vertly every as spect involves different liability issues which we will get to. i want to make one observation. which i'll go into in the questions. that's with respect to the issue of chemical disbursements. we treat chemicals with chemicals that don't clean up the oil. they shift it to another part of the rico system.

it thretches human life. and there's no scientific evidence that the the disbursements can be effective in an oil spill of this magnitude. it makes it hard to determine where the oil is going and prevents liability. already we're hearing of people getting sick because of the use of these chemicals. in fact, there's evidence that they're getting sick from the oil and toxic disbursements. we're air dropping this stuff all oaf the gulf. it reminds me of agent orange and i'm concerned dur the clean-up we're conducting an uncontrolled experiment with all of the marine and human life in the gulf coast region and i -- uncontrolled experiment that could result in thousands and thousands of people getting sick or guying as a result of the clean-up not of the original disaster. now going into questions on that during the question period. and i hope that we can -- we can prevent a repetition of some of the -- of the disasters that we have had before.

this disaster is unprecedented in scope as it is. and i feel we're just going to make it worse. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, you and the distinguished ranking member have covered it. i won't go in great detail at all. mr. chairman, i believe you used the word disaster to describe it. i think that's an apt descriptive term. it is a disaster. and glad to hear the news you shared with us. but i appreciate you all being here. i like to associate my -- myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from texas when he declared we should not abandon plans to drill simply because of the isolated disaster. we need to keep that on the table, it seems to me mr. chairman. i thank you mr. chairman for having called the hearing. thank you to the distinguished panel. i yield back. >> scott? >> thank you mr. chairman, i oppose the oil drilling

expansion for good reason. i didn't -- for the -- for the administration announced a few weeks ago, and i didn't think the small gains for a few cents per gallon of gasoline saved in out years, was worth the risk. and the number of jobs, the proponents argue might be created by off shore drilling in virginia brile in comparison to the number of jobs you seen destroyed by the devastating spill. devastation to sensitive wetland areas and tourism and fish and industry and -- recreation and the -- in the gulf would not be any different than what would happen off the coast of vearnl, particularly when we're looking at the sensitive chesapeake bay. thank you for call the hearing to ascertain the extent of the losses already caused by the sell in helping determine who will be legally liable for the damages. >> thank you, i thank our panel.

as the chairman said, it is very clear that we have limited jurisdiction. our jurisdiction in this committee is clearly as to whether or not we -- whether or not we change liability limitations and their interpretation. for the chairman, i commend him for starting off this hearing by reminding us that in fact we do not control the core of engineers that has failed to act to protect louisiana. we do not control the e.p.a. who only recently sdoofered that the disburseants might or bite not be available for this use. after oil spill after oil spill have occurred from ships over the years, we only recently discovered that we really don't want to invoke the stafford act even though it is been on the books and would have allowed the president to act and act more assertively. there's so many things that are not within the committee's jurisdiction. as ranking member on government oversight, i'm pleased to say those will be dealt with in other committees of jurisdiction. today we're only asked a fairly

straightforward question. are the limitations that currently in place for acts that are not in violation of any regulation include no misconduct, no wrongful act, are the caps high enough at $75 million. under the oil pollution act, if there's as much as one regulatory failure, the caps are off. and so let's understand, all of the clean-up is already the responsibility of the parties and in this case british petroleum as the leaseholder and two, $75 million to be paid if no wrongful act is done whatsoever, not as much as failing to dot the i on an administrative report that may have prevented it. repeat, may have prevented it. if one of those curse, then everyone who says they had a bad day as a result of this, they lost economic advantage of any sort, and even potentially those who were 2r50u789ized would all

have that opportunity. that is what we will be deciding here today. i believe that we should consider whether those caps are high enough. we with should consider within the body whether or not a fund that would exceed that should be in place so that smaller oil companies, smaller than b.p. by definition is everybody and would be able to continue to drill while the american people could be confident, not just if you violate but if you don't, for the clean-up should be in place. those are not within this committee's jurisdiction. i look forward to hearing the narrow question answered is the current law for no misconduct whatsoever and the cap that goes with it, of $5e million sufficient or is congress in such a hurry that even before we know whether or not there was so much as one administrative violation, we want to change that cap. i look forward to the testimony and i thank the chairman, yield

back. >> steve cohen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i got a statement that i'll turn in and it goes through a litany of issues. some mie be more relevant than others, mostly it concerns and it concerns the bush-cheney lack of regulation and lack of oversight and the laissez-faire cowboy type mentality that allowed this to happen. we have got-to-regulations and government needs to act to make sure that people and our environment and our world is safe. the main thing i want to address is mr. jones. i want to express my condolences to you. to lose a child and others have lost children and parents, and -- 11 lives were lost. there's destruction and damage that pains me to see, the gulf coast which is close to policemen phys it is part of our world and the lives that were

lost, and i just express my condolences to you. >> sheila, jackson. >> thank you. i may be the only one on the panel that comes from oil country. i -- at least as i can recognize who has lived in a community that has based its economic independence and contributions to the nation on the energy industry. and maybe the only former oil and gas lawyer who worked for entities that range from oil to natural gas to pipeline and to, to larger multi-national oil companies. but i have a heart. and frank my i first want to thank the chairman for the -- his quickness in moving forward

on this hearing, second i want to say that $5e million is a joke. it is -- it is a sad state of affairs as we begin to listen to the testimony of which we -- we will remain open-minded, that we're in this dilemma. and to all of the family that is have lost their loved ones and those that remain injured, our deepest sympathy and our apology. and we're all in this together. there are those of us that believe there should be a seamless energy policy that includes fossil fuel, we don't believe in the devastation that appeared over the -- over the last month and six weeks. the failing of those who are here who are not victims was to be able to have the genius to do deep water exploration but have no genius to be able to fix the consequences, it is the same story that happened with -- with

the valdez in alaska. and i'm told driven by the same principles. we know how high to move it but we don't know how to stop it. that's the case, what i want to hear today, mr. chairman, is a full ownership on what happens and a full commitment to pay every single penny that is necessary to make the region whole and certainly the families whole and i would conclude my remarks by saying, that i think it is crucial that there is no longer the at some point to play without the opportunity to pay. if we're to engage in the innovative procedures of deep water drilling as we're doing off the coast of ghana, you got to find a way to be able to respond to crises and emergencies like this, a gushing hole that cannot end. and maybe someone will be able to tell me whether or not the

last 24 hours have been successful. you have not been able to determine that. i will say to you, mr. chairman, i think this hearing is about if you're going to play, you have got to pay and 5e million dollars is a disgrace. i yield back. >> maxine waters. >> and thank you mr. chairman. i would particularly like to thank you for the way you million managed this committee and the timeliness of the issues that you deal with and imaappreciative for this hearing today. this hearing today, we're focusing on organizing around the liability issues related to the b.p. deep water horizon oil spill. b.p. previously estimated that the oil spill continues to -- to -- to gush over 5,000 barrels, that's 210,000 gals of oil each day until the -- into the gulf,

some estimates took it as high as 70,000 barrels each day. and i hope these latest efforts to stop the leak are going to be successful, because everything is -- has failed. this disaster is already having a devastating impact on the economy of the gulf coast region and the way of life of many of these residents. many of these residents are still trying to recover from hurricane katrina. the b.p. disaster has doubled their sorrows. during a recent trip to new orleans, i was struck by the stories of the minority fisherman and the port business owners. from week-to-week, fishermen don't know how long their jobs will be on hold. there are issue that is currently exist that must be brought to light regarding the plight of minority fishermen relating to the oil spill. and baron is the president of the louisiana oysters association and the president of