to avoid environmental disasrs like t1969 saa barbara oil pill by conducting a simp environme impact statement. ironically the minerals manemenrvice known the m. m.s. granted the de wer horizon rig a cgorica exusion fr this process so it did not have to conduct an nvironmental impact statement based on research 2007 in which the m.m.s., e regutor, decided that a deep watespill wod not exceed 4,6 barrels and would never reach t shoreline. at a tragic, ironic twi of fate. none othat turned out to be tr. congressional republic majorianthe bush administraon havthem to use exclusionsor oil developnt. aion by theecretary of e interior in manang the public lands, it said, the

cretary of aicture in maning national forest stem landth respect to a of the activits described in subsecon bhall be subjt to a rebtaumption tha th use of categorica usion under the nepa of 1969 would apply if e activitys conducted pursuant to the mineral leasing act for the purpose of explorati or th development of oil or gs. an expcit exemption made for oil drilling in america by e previous administration. just folwing tepa procs could have led to a review th would have resulted in better safequipment. might have even resulted in an inspecon that might have caht early the flaws in this design. the 2009 government accouability office rort said that during t previous admistration categorical excsions re issued far too frequently and it could lead to

serious proble. well, indeed it did. i findhis paicully ironical bause in isict we have been ghti for a long time to ge rai to dules international airpor we nally got that process approvedast year, but tha ocess required a nepa revie this is a blic trans public, but it had to go through a two-year environmental reviethat cost millions of dolrs o taxpar-funded money for a publicject. but ironically a privatil rig in the gulf of mexico s excluded fm th procs. itdidn't have to d. i see on floor my friend from oregon, mr.menaer. i yield to the man. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate e gentleman's courtesy as i appreciate his leadership. and thinkt is iportanfor people to understand the genesis othe problem that we

aracing here now. we hheard somef our friends on e other side of the sle come to thfloo mehow ting to lay this at the fe of the present of united states. but sadly what has happened here in the gulf h a direct result of policies that we have seen implented byur friends on thether side of t aisle when ty were i charge, particularly under the watch of president bush where it was routine to come to the flr reptedly efforts to undercut environmental protections, where agencies thatere supposed to regulate thindurye stopped wth refugees from the vy ustries, fm lobbyists and assiation executives who are going back now and looking at

it. we h situations that by the end of the bh admistration was clear in the m.m. tt there were ople in that critic agency tasked by law withhe ptection ofhe puic interest were n only avoiding that respsibility, they were literally d with the industry. and look forwa to an opportunity in course of the next few minuto scuss with yoin further the genesis approaches that we should be taki to make sure th we' no lger held hostage to wha even president bush referred to as our aiction to oil. and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. connolly: i thank m collgue and i think his a very good one. and it's en worse than wha 're discussing bau not on did we consciously decide

ring the bush ministration ay prevus congresses, frankly, controed by our friends on the other side, consciousltoxclude such oil drilling from the relar environmental review that could ve dtected problems but it was rse than that. t me give you an example in measures that could have at ea mitigated the impact of this disaster. canada, as my friend from oregon knows, requires deepwater rigs to have conng plans for offshore oil drilling, includinthe capality tdrill relief wells soon after contructing primary wells. if ts well,his deepwate horizon well had predrilled such relief wells it woulhave allowed thelosing of the ak buthey weren't required to do so. norwaand brazilequires something called acoustic lves whichre bp devices for closing the pipe of a blowou prenter. in 03nder the bush ainistration,heute

mal management service concluded that the minerals magemenservice concded that e acoustic sis not recmendecause it ndto be very cost. i woy to my friendrom oregon, as he knows as ofune 7 e respse t this oil ill co $ billion d climbing. that $550,000vestment an acousticell, a valve could ve saved billionsdollar and could haveaved an ecosysnow at incredible jeopardy. i yield again to my frndrom regon. mr. blumauer: thank you. well, i'm inking as i'm listening to your presentation talking about what cou have happenedwhat should have happened and looking at the magtude of the vastatio that we are facing in an ongoing disaster. i was reflectg on m experice here in the house nder rlicacontl and

thbush administratwhere their first instinct, the getleman will recall, because was an imrtant ected official across the potomac and had a front-row view of what was enhe, that the vice president convened a secret energy consultation group. his energy task force which to this day has not been revealed as whoere the mbers although we're certaithat there we people from b.p., for itance, that were there, that frothe outset it was all aboutrying to cut through these red tape items, the environmental protection, thgs that got in the way of energy oduction a not focusing on priorities that would have reduced on ssil fuels. indeed,here were 105

recommendatio. only seven dlt with -- ined renewable energy. and we watched in theears at followed, theush administration actually proposeduts in the rneble energy budget andad tax breaks that they woed on th the republican aderip to pro incentivesor more dirty o proction and constently fought against effos at we brought to t floo including in some to raise the fuel efficienc standar thahadn'tn increased in a quarter century. and i'm reflectinon t and saddened that that was the thrusfor mostf e la cade instead of putting us in position where we wo protectns.nhave better mr. connolly: again, i e

th my friend from oregon completelyand ase points out this di't hppen ban a of god. this happed because of lax or no regulati, regulation knew was nessary and weook a chance. we tok a chance. and we tk a cha why? because of the aighty doll. we took a chance becau of big oil moneymaking sure that it influenced the ocess an make sure it was exempteom normal regulatory revnte - revw. and you havtosk yourself in the kinds of circumstances, what would go wrong? let me enumerate what has gone wrong. retail jobs for fishingnd seafood on ice. $659illion in annual vae on 1.27 billion tons of seoo

caht in e gulfthe largest amount of seafood iamica, not the cost of the vue of fish processing retail or people's salary in jeopardy. $5.5illion auavalue of commrcial fishing industry in thlf coa, including th value of fish harvest processing and retail in jeopardy. $12 billion of expenditures for 25.4 milln recreaonal fishing trips the gulf of mexicat r $9 biion in wages for tourism-relateagenci in the gulf of mexico employing 600,0 peopl th's what's riskor a mindless drill, baby, drill approach instd of a thoughtful, careful approach atalances this kind of socing of oil with the readily available altertive energy sources that wshould have, could have invested in as well.

since this oilpillov 27,000 claims have be fid by pple with businesses whose livelihood has been harmed or lost entirely. ey fil clas, damag with b.p. b.p. would he paid $84 million ilost income claims to people whose jobs have already beenost in the gulf. over 78,000 square mil o the lf are cled to fishi day becaof this spill becae it's not safe. florida estimates that the oil spill could cut florida tourism in hal the larst single source of rue for the state of flori eliminating 195,000 tourism-related jobs and elinating 10 billi dollars of tourist generated economic activity in flora one. i see our colleague from coloro, mr. polis, is on the floor, a i yield to him. mr. polis: thank the gentleman from virgia. is disaster great

proportions is indicativef dereguti and the influence of the specialntert in the oil industry and the prevalence othose interests withinhe bush administration embedded into the regulatorystructure. these ierests within the dertntf the inteor foughtooth and nail with secretary sal czar's attempts to bring- salazar' attempts to bring bk oil and gas stry. they fought with claims of vere economic hardship. well, as the gentlen om virginia talk about, i think the people of the gulf coast will be experiencing severe economic hardshiuch worse than athing that these oil compies are worriedbout. all actors involved with is unmitigated disasterave take stepso try to limit theiow liability b.p. ansocean have tried to spread theiprits amongst sharehlders. they'vbeen giving dinds. they're trying to decentra thr coffs.

they'reke to schemi to get themselv off the hook and put taxpers on t hook. these oil cpanies arying to meuver to get taxpay bailouts for tirwn bad practices andheir own flu to pventhat was preventable disaster. the usof highly toxic disperseanthave exaceated the damage leading to underter ooms of oil. it turns out that the emergency response plan of b.p. wa rdled with errors, d auties. it en listed people who were no longer e asnt of contact in the e of disaster. we need and i'm sure we will have a full public accounting -- flacies and the flaws of b.p. and their contracrshat ve led to this disasternd it's critical f our congress to ma sthat these maneuvers tget off the hook for their own failur to

prevent thi catastrophe will t meetith success and that he respoibily will reside wi.p. and thr contractors. nepa requires an assessment of envinmental pactor any joproject on deral lands. for loophes plaedn th policy in 2005, including th categocal exclusion saying oil drilling doesn't haveny risk a, trefore, ouldn't need to an environmental assessmen the deepwater horizon was ted tategorical exclusioin 2007 unr the bu admintration. ironic because nepa was first initiated in 1968 as response to an o spi offshore, yes, off the coast of califora, stripped of the very proon at we one of the reasons for its passa by the bush administratn. we as a congress need to address statutory side, and

i know that secretary salazar is worng hard to fig the entrenched interests from the oil and gas iustry o seek influence the actions of the department of terior. i thank my colleague virginiaor helng raise this impoant issue, and i yield ck. mr. connolly: i thank my colleague from coloro, and i yield again tour friend from oreg, . umenauer. mr. bnauer: thankou, and i do areciate oufriend from history here because we --e hear pple come to the floor to somehowlay this at the ft of presinobama who has been bu since theoment he took office dealing with a series o disasters that he inherited, but thapoach that has bn takenthe republicans when thewe in the majority actually s the stage for this. in 2003 ty added exemptn for all oiland gas

construcon activits from thprevention -- from the provisions of the ean water act. added stipution that the b.l.m. had onl days to make drilling permit decisions. ey had new authority from the partment of interior to permit newnergy ojts in th outer contintal shelf thout eqte oversight or standas. and then oviding on topf hat $2 billion for already profitable mpanies todrill in ultradeep water. it is bsolutely scdalo that wee had this steady assault. luckilye stopped in 2003 when the other body usedhe filibuer constructivy. but we faced t in 2005 as they actuall were ableto puthose ovisionin place which our friendrom colorado and you, sir, mr. connolly, he pointed t. it continues to be -- to

bedevilo. and sadly,ome -- bediv. ilus. and sadly, some of our - bedevil us. ansadl some on the other side of the aisle have not go t pnt. mrs.achmann, who has no short and of opinion on this, introduced lislation that woulhave required, would have required that the secretary of interior waive any appication of fedal l that requires perm uer lea for drilling. all of those nagging litt requirements y time oil got pensive. ov $100 a barrel throitll out the winw. andet has the audacity t try

and shift responsibility ude this. i think it is something thate l eed be focusingn and not allow the people who helped create is pblem to rewre histo. mr. cool: if the gentleman yields back, i againm in mpte conrrce. thisidn't happen somehow by happenen stance. this ppened conscious decision by congress' ctrol by our friends on the other side and bthe bush admintration to find all kinds of waivers and exemptions from norma regury review and from simple commonsen proctions inthe evensomething digo wro,all at te alterof oil exploratioand fossil fuel energy dependence, quite fnkly. anit couldave be pvented

d it could have been mitigated. there was -- ather one of colleagues who during the campaign of 2008 accused the democraticongress at came into power after the elections 2006 of being the drill thing congress and she cald and both the east a wescoast to unrestrain oil drillng for the sa of energy independence. a wohy goal. buthat'sot the only an. and we have- we hacked away the cos anthe benefitshen we opeup reunreried o drilngn priste coasts. let e talk, if i may, ju about own homstate of virgi what could go wrong in virginia. i am aember of the virginia deletion w has oppos unrestcted opening up of our shores toil drig beuse f the feared consequens if

wt's at stake? touri in virginia beach alone in virginia generas $1.4 billion in annually economi activity. tourism in virginia beach one supports 15,0 jobs. virginia has the longest stretch of undeveled barrierslds the entire ea coast irreplaceable habitat birds in the eascoast flay. lo to an oil spill off virginia'coast if it were mparable to the oil spi that s hit the gulf coast. in fact, close to the h the entire chesapeakbay uld be covered byilm of oil toda if that oil spill had occurred here instead of occurring in the gulf coas drling threatenthe presence l of the united states navy in virginia, triblymportant in

terms of military investment in our -- in the commonwealth of virginia. theecretary of defense wrote a report issue in may tha the oil development wold impair navy operas in 70%he area. thdepartment of defense said that oil developmencould preclude live ornance aircraft carrierovements, shipng ad othe training. offshore o development could rest in t navmoving an aircraft rrier out of norfolk, reducing jo opporunities and contraorinirginia. we have a lot at stake econically in my state. re's theonmental conquences, but tre's also e presence of e navy that cod be jeardized we moved to the drill, baby, drill phisophof offshore oil illing a again i yld to my frnd from ogon. mr. blumenauer: thank you. and i appreate your putting in ntnot just the potentl

reat to your state of virginia b to all of us here who wo and celebrate our capital region and e chesapeake b having those precious resoces at risk. i appreciate ur exploring a imsion thai st admit i really hadt thought rough equatey. the threat of unrulat, insc, offshoroiling drill -- o drilling could pose to military readines and your int about what could happenn tes of naval opations and trainin one that i don'k has been giveice in this debate. i've been spending a lot of time working oit this is new information to me and ieeply appcie your putting it out before the erican pubc this evening. i think th we are

wrestling wh has many dimensis at require us to step back anexpand the scope ofnquiry. e need r our fixing a broken regulatory system. we've refenced the ft at the ainistration, despite the previous administration talking abouthe addiction to foreign oil,id nothingbout it and in fact evenfter we reined control, woed against our effortso tryand increase efficicies. it's going to take time. needs to move quickly twe'd out the m.m.s. -- weed out the m.s. i wish ey could have cleaned house earlier but obviously these this take time. it's hardo undue 12 yea of running rough shod over safety anenvironmental regulations in 17 months. but it is al aivid ll for

new energy fute in hich the deepest war is the last place we look, not thirst fo new energy sources. ani woullook forward to discussinthat further but i know you have, m connolly, some specifics in terms some of the legislative ovisions that we ve been working on as deats in congress and why on't i yld back to you for a moment before ctinuing th m thought mr. connolly: i thank my colleague. yes, you know,e need tclean upthe mess we inheted from previous cgresses and frankly from e prio administration. today, for example,he house passed s. 3473 whi increases advced eanup fuing id for by b.p. so tha the coast guard canse those funds for oil cleanup. i've iroced bill just tonight th wld prevent e evasion of the nepa process, moving foarno more

categorical usions for deep water oil drilling. they have to ps the nepa review process just like my tnsit systemid in a ublic project. h.r. 5214,e big l bailout prevention act, introduced- intdud by o cleague, mr. holt fr new jersey, would raise the oil liabilty cap from $75ilon to $10 billio the taxpers aren't left holding e g beuse of an accidencaused by the negligence of an oil company such as b. our colleague from the sta of shington, mr. slee, is introducin lislation to reire oil wells se the best available sety techlogy which might borrow from technology thatlrea vailablend being used by and norway. anada, brazil and ofoue u, mr. blumenauer, have introdud or will soon introduce legislation to repeal the oil and gas tax loopholes and direct the funds

to cln energy we'vgo theltimate solution, t off ssil fuel depend and look to, in a megfulay, those alteative sourceof energy that coulreallyelss our dependence, if not wean us entirely of the depeence of foren oil. in my home state of virginia, e tential offshore wind power i enormous. arng pot tension for offshore oil -- the potential for offshore oi whether we should drill,aby, drill off the ores of virginia, the entire estimated reserves, maximum, offhe shore of virnia, with thelargest coast line on the eastst is the equivalef no more than six days of oil supply. do we really want to risk the tourism industry, our vironment, perhaps permantl and thpresence of

e vy in state thahas alrebeen home to the united states navy for six days'th of supply? ihink not. and so, the democrats ins house have in fact introduced legislaonhat wi address and remedy this situation and make sure tnever aain are ameran citizens put at risk by e neglectave and the unregulated behave o -- behavior ooffshoreil drilli. mr. blumenauer: thank yo i preciate the leslative approach tt you bring tohe jo i can see the experiee and leadership that you demrat dealing with e puic in a very direct and personal way i locagovernment,ith some spectacular ssses across the river from our nations capital is evidenced he simple ommonsensepprothatou're

taking here in ter of beg practical,eing direc things that will make a difference. spir that you bring to the capitol. mr. cnolly: if colleague will yield, ihank him for his courtesy and graciouess but i woulsay that clearly my colleague from orego a mel for all of us, espeally those of us nehereo the congress, for his vinmental leadership and for his legislative. mr. blumenauer: i wou like to pivot on the la poi you made which i think is -- thenal analysis is the most important. it is important to understand histor it iortant to not allow peoplehoot use in is mess reite ittooint fingers, to obscure,o try and ge partisan advange from sething that they sadly helped create in e first place. th would be a tragedy in and of itself. but it is where we gorom here, whaed from these

lesons, what we understand i required, it is outrageous to me at the spilloff the santa barbara coast that inspired the first earth day was -- with see essential same tecologies we have available today -- wought with see ltisy the samtechnologies we have avaibltoy. all the resources that we thrown at it by the federal vernmentas ud basically by the industry to have more and more esoteric, sophisticated, deep dilling opporni no dealing with making surehat it was safe, so we're trapped time 0 year ate negative end of this eation wherehen the ultimate dister, which wa prictabl perhaps not avdable, but it much worse becausof the focus. but it's the transition to clean engy technologthat i would conclude my remarks, i see we've

been joined by our friend wve ferced eaier, o colleague, congressm holt, ho's g some great gislation moving. b i would just nclude my observations t do not want to be ia position wherewe continue to be tethered to the oil spigot. to have the unit states consume 10% the world's oil supply going back fth to work everyay. th it is past time for uso moveorward and ippreciate the leadersp of both you entlemen in oulivable comties iues, where we provide mtools to l government and more oices to people so ty n't to burn gall of gas to get a gallon of milk, that here a more sensitive land uses, that we fight agastindless sprawl, that we give pple an alternaveo the tomobile i se they don't wantdror

cat afford to er maybe there's some peoe we all know who probably shouldn't drive, ginghem oiceto walk and use trant, cycles, b able to make a system that is mo sustainable, that complteby a can eney fure with title, -- tal, wi, solar, geothermal, and vestmenin making r facilities now more ergy efficit. ave e capacity rightow wih what we know howo do, things that we have off the helf or most ready for stallation, we could be completelyyotoom, save consumers and taxpays money preservour national security. i hope this is onef the lessons we cay away, not only

takilegislion and taking e taxper off theook but ma sure we are not in this depdency theuture. tha yound i really appriate your leadership i preg this today and yr courtesy and permittg me to taket. mr. conlly: i thank y so mu. thk our collgue hs do uch a superb job. thank you for joining ust tonigh i see our friend, mr. ht, is he and yield to mrholt. mr.olt: i thank my good frnd fm virginia and i, too,ant ay tribute to the work that our collgue from oreg has done under th umbrella ofivility, having to do with transportion and housing and the location of st offices in town therere so many things ov the years that mr. umer

ha rked on to try to me communies vable and suaible. sustainablin the way they producand use energy and vable in the sense of getting the best quality of life through our ansportation disions, our housg decions. and what iso heartbreaking out the castrophe that's under way in the gulf of mexico ght nois that it did not have to be. as i left to join yohere on the floorthey werehowing on of the news networksh flappi, opping, sadly trying to g air, trying t get out of the oil, clearly doomed. we've seen theirds watching ashore -- washingashore it did not ha to apen.

the oilpill isnpedented incale, but it is not unprecedendin our experience. l spls -- in fact, i was talkthhe administer of the enviental precti agency yesterday ande -- ministrator of the environmental proteion agency yesterday and she said, do you know how many oil spills we' deali with daily? not on this scale but it can b expected, shod be expected ha yourill you wil spill. and for b.p., as our cleague om oregon w saying, fo b.p. to go in thiwith preparaon whatsoever -- i mean, they talk aut ty're company that manon risk. ll, -- thatanages rk. well ty manage risk th

knoby definition things can go wrong that's what rieans th's a downside. what preparations, what tudies, what research did ey do for the downside? no now, we are in the process of not oy extending the liability limit and today we removed the per incident limit hat the coast guarisot constrai the lit which they e alrey pushg up against, but we also must make sure that there a -- an within the mirals managem the leases, from the e who

o llt the royaies on theeases, for those who enforce t standards, we haven't ne that. we must do that and west do atoon so that ifny oil drillings going to continue that prepatis e made for the downside. i hope fact, that we wean ourselves on ts archaic el as soon as possible. hat do the word fossel mean to many people? at mns out of da. what we are talking about here, what the -- these companies have bn developing ever more sophisticated technologs to do is to bind ourselves more strony to an archaic y of powering our ciety and our economy.

it is arcic. shoulbe movg away from it as rapidly ossie so that this w't hn again becae need t happen again. i tha my friend for drawing our colleagues' attention to ths antalking abt ose things that we'll bdoin over in place liability -- lifting the llity lits, to put in place research programs and relatoryrograms for the future. mr. connolly: i thank our fenfrom jsey an thank him for his leadship as well. leme close by pnting out that the's a danger to bper sckerpublic policymak. those who lived by drill, baby,

drill now have to examine n only the csciees butthe nsequences of the acons th flowed from attrident call. drill, baby, drill has now become spil, baby,spill. the governor of louisia today, bobbal, when he was in ts bo in 2005 said the following -- we have choice. ny of my colleagues do not ant usrilling foroil off the coast of florida and do not wantto drill for oil off thcoast of california. i'd ahose cleagues to join th m providing inives so we can drill f oil in thdeepaterof the gulf of mexico. the people of louiana, he sa, welcome this productn. e know iis gd for r state, our economy a our -- our country and our economy. wonr ifhe governor of louisiana ight pse today in

calling forheernment's stce tcleauphe worst oil spill and arguably ne of the stonmental disas ever to descd our cotry, tt whetherhat ublic pocy statement made sense then and whether it see now. the consueesf that philosophy ofnrestricted oil drilng irreecve of the environmental concerns, irrespectivef the needs for reasonable and prudent relatory oversight totect he public omrecisely this kind of untited disaer dave w actually happene because a whole bunch of people in a position now bett put l ahd of ething else including the public re i yield back. i yield to my frnd from new jeey. mr. lt: i ank the gentleman. oupoke earlierabout the

liabil. a very important princie that has been to some eent and shou bto the full exnt ameran law in this area which is pluter pa. that should be e -- tat has beenheasis of the superfund program. that sh bthebas fo the oil liabily leslation. b.p.as said they will py reasonable costand that of thing. we shouldn't have to take r word for it. e shupet have take the word of-- we shouldn't have to take e rd of a company thatas flaant corne in the past uge co te and naraenvironment. whether you'rtalkinout the texas cityefinery,

whher you're talking about the blowouts on the north -- on the noh ore the north slope of alaska, where y're talking about blowouts the pipeline in alaa, wheer you'realking aboutailure to level with the american public and evethhe coast guard and the eerts on h mucil was escing from well. yonow, the number keeps shifting and the oil compy, i think,as not been fully forthcoming. sthisompany as us to ta their wordor it that they ill y, that they pay will -- ey wpafor the cleanup, pay for the dislocation. want that established in law. th suld be the liability limit shoulbe raised to many

ils of dollars itheris a mit at all. now, sehere in the -- here inthe coress, particularly om the other side,e said, well, but you'll driveut the mom and pop, y'll ive ou the independents. ll, yohave to have the ability to repair -- well, to re a rair and pay for any dageshen you go ito siness. the point of the oil lbility legislationto prote small businesses. it to see -- it to otect our environnt adhe life of ameran citizens and t well-bei and econo rtunities for american itins.

and that is -- and that means that the coideratn should be how much damage can be done and the liability shoulbe the liability l shod be large enough to cover the damage that n beone. noask whether, oh, thiis going to put too muc burden oa smalcompany. the considerion should be, what is the damage, anthere shoulde adequate liabilityo cover that. i'm hopul that he next week or sill rae this liility limifromhe hay small mb of $75 million to at lst $10 billion. and i thank thntleman for oining me this -- in this effort. the american public crying for it. they want tonowhat in law and ifact b.p. wi be held

respoible f the damage they've done. mr. connolly: i thank my coue from new jersey a agn thnk hmu for his participn tonight and s leaderip, especily in leadinus in a giative remedy. i nt to end with this -- on ju 10, 2008, onef our colleagu actlly said t llowing --here are 3,200 oil rigs off the coast of louia. during katrina not a ngle dropas spilled. actuay600,000 gal was spilled, but morehan seven llion barls have pumped from theseells. yet on 1/1000 was spilled. we will suggest that joh mccain revisit his reservations about anwr and go against e drill-nothing congress. they are not mutually

exclusiv in fact, this republica colleague said, we wilsuggest that the fir joint town hall meeting forack obama pros posed by mc-- proposed by mccain bld on one of those ofhore lisiana rigs. surely i hope our colleagu d not mean this rig, the one th bl up, cauon fire, cost a number of lives and led to the argest eironmentalisaster american history. mr. speaker, yld back. the speaker proempore: th gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: for at purpose does the geneman from virginia rise? mr. connolly: mr. eake i hat the housdo now adjourn. the speaker proempore: the question is on the mion to adjorn those inavor say a. those opposed, no. e ayes have it. the on iisgreeto. accordingly the house stands adjourneuntil 120 p.m. on mondaye the government will build bp to get the money back. the house returns on monday, live coverage here on c-span.

>> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and on line. you can connect with us on twitter, facebook, youtube. >> earlier this week, and a c- span crew took a tour of and the wisdom in a march that has been affected by the oil spill. they spoke with a local shrimper who is striving airboats for pp as part of the effort and also theepublic affairs officer john miller.

>> that white bloom, that is there to try to take up the oil that is near the shore.

they are trying to protect it from hitting the shore. i have been in this area quite a bit and i have seen less and less along the shores. they change it every day as it gets absorbed. they change it out and they put a fresh one in.

>> when the oil touches the grass, it will kill it. we have the wave action from the marshes. we should be sending on land ran now. that is how bad it erodes right now. once the grass is gone, it will erode that much quicker. we can clear this seaweed. we are probably 50 feet from the shoreline. there used to be land here. this is closer to the shoreline and is causing erosion.

and some people are angry but what are you going to do? get out here and help clean it. >> obviously there is a lot of well in the grass. you cannot see it in the water. >> this is extraordinarily thin.

it is difficult to see whether it burns more than it evaporates. that is the way that we have to treat it. >> there are a lot of birds over there. >> we are very fortunate that wildlife has not been affected here as it has been elsewhere. >> get in that march their.

-- marsh there. >> will it survive? >> there is a lot of heavily oiled areas. >> [inaudible] >> thank you very much.

for nominee elena kagan, we take you inside of the supreme court. hear from the justices as they provide insight about the court, history. >> the guuf of mexico oil spill as one of the main topics of today's white house briefing. press secretary robert gibsobs talks about the economy, access to bp representatives, and new legislation.

>> it's like 90 today, is in it? the president will meet with small business owners and workers here at the white house and have remarks in the rose garden. he put forth a series of proposals to help small businesses grow and higher and will continue to have congress grow on these points. this is essential to getting americans back to work. these are the topics that he is about an hour or so ago. >> did they discuss picking up the salaries of those who were

laid off? the stock keeps going down. of its value. -pis the ministration concerned that the company might that be financially able to pay these costs and we might drive it into bankruptcy? >> i don't want to get to comment on stock prices. our approach on this has been the same from the beginning. we are there to insure that a british petroleum is doing everything it have to do as the responsible party in this disaster. whether that is paying for the response, the environmental damages and the recovery, paying the claims of those whose economic livelihood has been damaged by this. we will insure that the

taxpayers do not but the responsible payer does pay the costs of what has transpired from this disaster. >> do you think that they should stop paying dividends speaker pelosi suggested that a few minutes ago. >> the president commented on friday with the governors f the gulf and we will stay out of their legal obllgations to shareholders and simply reiterate what the president has said which is that if you have the wherewithal to pay a dividend and you have the wherewithal to finance a very expensive ad campaign, then you should not nickel and dime anyone in the gulf that has seen their livelihoods damage as a result >> the ceo will be in

town next week tootestify. is the white house considering talking to him? >> while he has been part of the ad campaign, in the structure, the role of person is going to be the chairman of the board. whether it is on claims war on redundancy or directives, there are ccntinued concerns. i would not rule out that the president might see the chairman of the board. the corporate structure of the company makes the chairman of the board the relevant entity.

>> you are no more inclined to see him today than yesterday? what about getting approval from the board? >> line to stand. . . -- understand. . . .

>> where is the inflection point of those two lines? >> it that is for you to judge. i think it is a legitimate question given what our colleagues about the stock priccs. a i didn't say it wasn't relevant question. i said this week and a half ago -- our pointtis not to fame through method acting. environmental and economic damage has been wrought by this disaster. that wasn't going to fill a hole or put money into the bank account of a shrimper that is not fishing. that is not going to help a hotel worker or hotel owner on a

beach in florida. what is is insuring the obligation and responsibility company has a responsible party are taking care of. we will continue to do that. that is our job under the law and that is the president's commission to the american people and the citizens of the gulf. >> whether the anger is being shown is going to far or not far enough, when you are shown a communications strategy about this bill, does the affected hhve and what words come out of -- >> if anything, we have been called guilty for not being overly dramatic, for not showing flashes offanger. i would point out you are asking the opposite question.

if you reject the first, it's haad to make the premise of the second because of the first. -- the cause of the first. the cciticism that somehow we have been too harsh, i don't think that matches up with the reality or the rhetoric we have used. our focus has not been on anything other than in sharing the responsibilities of those responsible for this disaster, that they keep those commitments. that has been the president's charge from the beginning and that will continue to be the president's and the team's charge going forward. + >> will that affect the relationship anyway with great britain, with bb being a london- based company? >> i do not. i see no reason that would. >> [inaudible]

>> we arrange a call earlier in the week to discuss a whole host of issues. mr. that is obviously relevant for the to to speak about. sanctions on iran that have recently passed. the next steps ttat may be taken either by this country or by our allies in europe. i expect they will speak about upcoming meetings -- is it working now? the upcoming meetings at the end of the month, our continued response to the challenging international economy, we may get into talking about bp, and if they talked over the weekend,

and sure they will talk about the world cup. >> late yesterday, oil arrived off the coast of [unintelligible] key. officials in florida see this as an example of unified command failing aad not having a confidence coordination -- can you explain why? >> i do not know the circumstances of that. i would talk to omebody at the joint information center. >> it was reported about a week have ago that the month before the explosion, in april, deepwater horizon informed federal officials they were not able to control the well for

some reason. they continue to operate [inaudible] cannyou shed any light onto why that happened. >> i do not know the circumstances you are talking about. i would be happy to look at -- let me look. + i don't know what the circumstances are and i don't know if you have talked to interior orrmms. >> president obama has announced -- as a knowledge the feelings of the federal government to deal with the explosion and the aftermath. did president obama apologized to the families better visiting with him now, apologize for the way the government failed them? >> we will have a readout of the meeting that is going on as you speak. the president has not failed in his remarks of the past several weeks to include the regulatory failures of what was thee

minerals managed service, under both his administration and previous administrations. we had a report that came out that mentioned problems from 2005-2007 in a different district offices. there is no doubt there is a regulatory failure in this case. secretary salazar had been working to reform mineral management service and it's clear in the steps they have taken out in breaking apart thi3 regulations and royalties are not done by the same group of people. i think that is what any of us so anybody that is working in the gulf war -- in the gulf or

any waters throughout this country, pursuing smarter regulation. >> does the president feel personally responsible for the fact that the federal government failed demonstrably to regulate this oil rig and people lost their lives as a result? >> i think he has spoken to that. >> in light of concerns about the moratorium and what it will mean for the loss of jobs going forward, is the administration rethinking that at all? >> no. i want to be clear. we had a discussion about thhs the night before the report came out. it is important to understand the context. you have wells that are in varying degrees of drilling depthh. the president made the decision along with the team to pause those permits.

the accident -- we do not know exactly what caused this explosion, but it happened after the drilling had reached the3 during the process of capping this will well. none of those rellvant permits have gotten to that point. the president believed rightly that doing that at that depth, without knowing what happened on the deepwater horizon well didn't make a whole lot of senss. we believe and understand that there has to be something done for those whose livelihoods have been caused because the work on these deepwater rigs. the president has been very clear with governors, senators, ann paris presence in louisiana on friday in saying you cannot have all of these people around the table saying we don't trust

bp to do anything and then take them at their word for the credits they were currently working on at deepwater. i think the president understands this is not without some economic -- this as economic cost. at the same time, without the president thought it would not be responsible to continue on a path that might cause without knowing the cause of the previous accident, caused something to happen again. >> are you saying that the board would have to approve a phone call? >> i never said that. the board structure has not precluded a phone call. the president would like to talk to, if he does, the relevant structure thaa governs the company.

that is the chairman of the governance structure. rporate%- >> but all conversations don't have to be about technical matters or legal matters. it could just be reaching out to the ceo of the company. >> there has been contact between thad allen and others with a whole host of people at bp, we have talked about the full redundancy. the top cap is, depending on estimates, physically capable of taking in over a 24 hour time frame 15,000-17,000 barrels of oil. those are not precise numbers. there are other things we believe can and should be done to increase the amount we are capturing.

as i talked about yesterday, the normal process, there are choked and chill winds that are supposed to forre the mud into the blowout preventer. we believe those lines can be used to take oil going up into the top cap and out through vents in order to control the pressure, up to the surface at a point which we think it could be saved. the letter went to british petroleum and i hink came back today from doug suttles on their plan moving forward moving service vessels and as we increase our ability to draw oil, but also have a redundancy in place in the event that something happens. >> no plans in the future for a

phone conversation? >> if there are, we will let you know. >> i'm not looking at the ceiling for the view. [laughter] as the responsible party, i'm going to pay you in charge. -- i'm going to put you in charge. i don't doubt it will be done. >> when the president meets with wall street banks and gives them a piece of his mind, he meets with the ceo. why is this different? >> some of this is based on corporate governance structure. >> they'll have the same basic structure. many of those banks have a board of directors.

>> it depends on who elect the board of directors and what their charges. >> are you saying the company is unique? the way their corporate board is structured, the chair of the board and the board make irrelevant decisions. >> why doesn't he just picked up the phone? in touch with bp. >> with all relevant members of+ the company. >> on the issue of who is in pharge, i know that you keep saying the federal government is in charge, but we keep hearing that either nobody is in charge or bp isn't charge. what we keep hearing all racketeering is either bp is in3

but the federal government on the ground sure does not seem to be in charge. is the president getting that message? >> i have not seen that hearing. >> that has been what is coming up from the gulf all along. are you not aware of this feeling. >> [inaudible] >> it has not changed and people down there -- why do you disagree? >> it is we're going to see the mayor of grand isle today who met with the president on friday and laid out maps, which you all saw, about the four passes that grand isle has that could come into the bay and heard fishermen. he met with the president. the coast guard got to work with the mayor. they have approved a plan to close those passes. i think the coast guard and thad allen down there doing the job that must be done. >> so this centers and paris

-- prices ss the senators and parish president urges confused? listen to the hearing. responsible to pay the salary%- of oil workers laid off by other companies because the government chose to put a moratorium on offshore drilling? >> part of the problem is not knowing what caused the disaster at the deepwater horizon well. believing that pausing what was happening is a result of the disaster by bp. >> this may be the impetus for this renewed vigor for an examination, but is not because, strictly speaking. legally, how is that fair?

the fact the government is now concerned that perhaps they're ready number of causes and other -- caused the know what accident. we don't know -- there is an investigation going on to determine and the president believes strongly that continuing to do that didn't make any sense. this accident shone a light on the fact that maybe are drilling regulations need to better. by -- like >> i don't wwnt to assume what caused it. >> we are currently involved in a disaster responses caused by this.

[crosstalk] as a cause of the disaster. >> [crosstalk] >> because we didn't know what the cause was. >> is it the administration's view that the government should look into the possibility of stopping bp from paying dividends until it pays the claims? >> i am not going to get innolved in their legal obligations about dividends. the president was clear on this -- the answer is not whether or -pnot they're going to pay their dividends, but if they're going to pay -- they're going to spend $50 million on ad campaigns, we should not hearr about claims not being paid. most of the small businesses and some of the bigger businesses, those claims have not been dealt with. the numbers that you hear are about how claims have not been denied.

denial of claims is not this far problem. it is dealing with the amount of claims and ensurinn those are answered. if the company is going to pay large sums of money, they should not legal -- should not nickel- and-dimed by claims process. >> following up on the corporate governance structure, to you feel the dozen or more than dozens of ceo's the president has met with over the course of this the best ration on anything from health care to financial regulation, all those companies had a different governance %+ructure? >> i do not know the corporate governance structure of every company that has been to the white house. >> but was the corporate governance structure and relevant? why is it relevant there? >> bp is the responsible party and the people that make the decisions are going to the board and the chair of the board. >> beyond the corporate

governance structure, just the simple question it now -- why has the press in insulated himself from any direct person to person contact with bp executives from the get go? >> i don't totally agree with the premise oo your question. the president represents the full force of the federal government. the full force of the federal government is in contact with bp on a number of occasions throughout any given day, as you heard the admiral and others tell you. >> doesn't the symbolism of the president speaking directly -- >> the president is focused on the response. the president is focused onn doing what is right. he is focused and mmking sure bp is doing everything it can to stop the leak, that the environmental and economic damage is done by this disaster are paid for. we are going to have natural

resource damage assessments that will take years to fill. that is what our focus is right now, not symbolism. >> were you able to find out what the administration's stand is on what these families are asking about the limit on benefits? >> the administration is concerned that offshore oil workers may have fewer rights under the law than onshore workers. he will tell the families he is committed to working with congress to make sure any disparity in the lot is addressed and the families receive due compensation. >> [inaudible] >> i assume so. it will be part of the congressional debate. >> with the market share drop in bp share prices, it is purely a result of the political rhetoric

and not the fundamentals. is there a concern the rhetoric referring to british peeroleum instead of bp, that that kind of response is actually working against the pledge to make sure taxpayers -- >> i want to refer you largely to the answer i just gave peter. our foous has not been -- our focus has them on what is right, phil and responsibilities. it has not been on gratuitous language. >> [inaudible] >> i hate to refer back to the many answers i gave in the first week or so. the oil pollution act of 1990 set out quite clearly that -- who the responsible parties are and what they are required by

law to pay for so that we don't have what happened in previous accidents like the exxon valdez where taxpayers are on the hook for the cleanup. the president has set legislation because one of the things they talked about and the bipartisan meeting was there is no doubt we have to update where we are on the oil pollution act of 1990 because it is 2010. as the president has heard from people involved in that debate who have said that in 1990 when we were worried about double hauling tankers, nobody contemplating -- nobody contemplated drilling at 5,000 feet. that is why we set legislation that dealing with liability. >> if bp were to file for bankruptcy, how the government make sure taxpayers -- >> i'm not a bankruptcy lawyer.

it wants to bb [unintelligible] on assets. -p>> the house and senate passed sanctions against iran, do you want to go for it? >> that was also brouuht up in the bipartisan meeting. obviously, we have said throughout this process that's un sanctions are not a magic bullet. there are steps we can take as big gooernment, there are steps congress will take, there are steps european community and allies' threat the world but a vague and back -- we're working with a bill in congress. >> [inaudible]

you are now more receptive to congress going forward on this front? >> congress is moving forward and we wanted to ensure, and i thinn a really congress wanted to ensure that we got through yesterday what we got through. now, we will look at other avenues. >> on afghanistan, it was made clear that the operations will%+ begin much later than originally contempllted. does the white house regard -- >> some operations in kandahar are active now. >> of the general said this contemplated at linkage of operations is going to be delayed. is this a setback because [inaudible] >> i would say two things -- one

going to be determined by our ability to work with local populations. eventually, we're going to hand3 through the afghan national security forces, army and police, we will hand over the responsibility for security to them. we have got to have -- that was a big part of marja was getting the buy and from local populations. we have resources like we haven't had since the beginning of this war. weeare in a position we have not been in at any point in this war because of the lack of resources. i think we have seen what happens when -- the general aad

ambassador and others have seen what happens when noo taking into account the local population -- what happens with those mistakes and we deeply regret and everyone involved deeply regrets. the key is to get the active belief and by in said that the long term -- and the buy in and the strategy we believe is right has a chance to succeed. >> it is much slower going than you had hoped. >> if thh general -- he is far better positions to do that. >> senator bill nelson has asked for some clarification assto whether there is any way of inhabiting the government's use of offers of foreign vessels to help with mediation, skimming,

and the other operations. what is the administration's position? is it an impediment? >> admiral allen said today we're using equipment and vessels from countries like norway, the netherlands -- there has not been any problems with this. if there issthe need for any kind of labor, that would obviously be granted. -- if there was the need for any kind of waiver that would obviously be granted. if it needs to happen, we will make sure it happens. >> how would you describe the ccnversation on whether cap and a trade came up specifically or energy taxes as a part of clean energy bill going forward. are opposed to the president ony this score. how contentious was that conversation during the meeting? >> no part of the meeting was

contentious. the biggest thing that came out of the meeting was bipartisan approval in the house and senate, both sides, on agreeing three year-sident's proposed spending freeze on non- security discretionary spending was held up by all of the leaders as a good idea, one that they would seek to hold their bodies to, democrat and republican alike as a way of making some progress on our medium and long-term deficit issues in the next fiscal year. energy certainly came up. we talked about the notion of certain provisions for the pollution act of 1990 not necessarily being as up-to-date to deal with a crisis at this

depth in 2010, particularly liability caps on economic million. comprehensive energy reform came up as a way of talking about and dealing with our investments in research and development and jobs for the future. >> [inaudible] >> there are meetings today on capitol hill on the democratic side on a pathway for word. the bill has been passed by the house and i anticipate energy legislation will be taken uu some time over the course of the next several weeks in the senate. hopefully we can get something done before congress adjourns this year. >> can you talk about the reports about handing over bahgram to the afghans?

>> i would point to to the department offense. >> [inaudible] >> i don't have anything on that now. + >> with the miners in west virginia, the president went to the memorial service. there was a memorial service last month for the victims of the bp disaster. why didn't the president go? >> [inaudible] >> was it considered? >> let me look at the schedule. if i don't know the answer to the first is likely at one of the answer to the three follow- ups. >> was there an attempt to meet with the families in the gulf of he was there? >> not that i know of. >> is the white house trying to arrange a meeting between the white house and the chairman of the board? >> there are concerns we number of things. i would not rule out.

>> [inaudible] the families is a drilling is our economic lifeline. what are you going to allow now and is there a danger of you cutting off our livelihhod? >> i don't think senator landrieu was there. i know that governor jindal and senator vitter were there. he is and have to wait six months for them to come to him. as they look to these issues, it is looking at them sequentially to figure out a regulatory structure that works for deepwater drilling. that does not have to wait six months. obviously, we are looking at a number of ways to ensure their economic livelihood.

i would not be surprised if you had people in some of these parishes and have kids that work on rigs and ids that fish in the sameefamily. 37% of the gulf is closed to fishing because of an accident involving a deep water drilling operation. the president, while understanding of the economic cost of pausing those ongoing drilling permits, while understandinn of that, he believes we ought to have a sense of what happened and insurer the regulatory structure ww have in place going forward insurers their protection. as you said, you cannot tell me we can't trust bp on any of this, but we're going to ake

their word for it on drilling. >> [inaudible] >> there are. none of which know the cause of what happened on the night of april 20th. >> if somebody says they will be here for several hours -- are the only meeting with the president? >> i know they are over there now, but i don't know the rest of their schedule. >> they are eether in the east room -- i will double check. i don't know whiih one. >> [inaudible] >> i guess technically -- i am spatially challenged. >> [inaudible] >> let me check on the schedule.

>> there are several agenda items that the president has said he would like to see the senate and congress accomplish. [inaudible] what is on the list? [inaudible] you arr working off last year's report. they talked extensively about extending unemployment insurance, extending tax extenders' that have to be done. they talked specifically about financial reform getting to the presiient's desk by the july 4th recess. as i understand it, the house is

going to take up in the next day or o the small business lending initiative the president and many believe are tremendously important to getting needed capital to small business owners. i think that's something he would like to see. i on't think immigration is going to get done by the july 4th break. the president is working n -- the president is working with democrats and republicans. he went to the republican caucus and this is a big part of that. i don't think it's going to get done by july 4th. in terms of the supreme court nominee,,we are confident that elena kagan will be through the confirmation process before the august recess. >> the request and in non-

security discretionary freeze. does the administration plan to -- why just a freeze? [inaudible] >> one of the things we have to be careful about is choking off the economic recovery. we have to deal with our medium and long-term debt and deficit issues. obviously, we have to make some headway in the short term as the president talked about, on wasteful spending. this is a way of accomplishing some progress on the medium and long-term issues without choking off the economic recovery. >> is in kandahar -- will you be able

to report the progress there that you had hoped to? >> i willlrefer you to hat was briefed at tte pentagon. we are focused on what ultimately has to happen to ensure long-term success. having the active participation of those at a local level has been crucial in other campaigns, in other wars, and is obviously crucial even as we are adding additional resources. it is important to understand the flow of troops the president has authorized continues on paste -- continues on pace. it allows us to do things in afghanistan that quite honestly, we've never had the commitment >> i want to ask if you have a reaction to the pentagon's report about the is marking of grades? >> let me get something for you on that.

the president -- we have no more than toommitment respect the service and memory of those wwo died in service. to preserving our freedom as a country. that should be everyone's charge. >> any idea how widespread this was? >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] what kind of questions would be asked? >> i think -- what we have outlined as necessary as part of

this response -- again, i don't doubt a meeting would involve the discussion of the capabilities for hydrocarbon capture and burning at the site of the well. what is being done to clean up oil that has leaked, what is being done to deal with damages specifically to precious natural resources, they're obviously is and have been meetings on this and he admiral went to these meetings yesterday insuring that we have a claims process that works for those whoohave been hurt economically by this. topics that we talked to and direct bp to take action on every day. >> the president clearly said those words about kicking blank.

how would this be one of those sessions? >> weather is the admiral or the secretary, there -- whether it is the admiral, one of the secretaries, there is action that needs to be taken. whoever meets with for talks to bp will issue those directives on behalf of our government to ensure the response bought -- responsible party is oing all it must do. >> on afghanistan, does the president believe americans will succeed where the nato allies that had the thousands of soldiers on the ground in the area have not been able to do with the locals?

>> this is more than simply -- our strategy is more than one that is regional. cantar is an impootant reason given -- kandahar is an important region because of the3 the general and ambassador and others have worked with our nato allies to secure cooperation from an understanding from local populations on how best to move interests, to ensure that when%- we have an area that our security forces have made progress in, that we cannot just hold area, but prepare that area

through a sub-national government, a local government, and prepare that from a governing side and security sidd, ultimately to hand off and transfer back to the afghan people. >> for several years, that is what the allies -- we have assets now from an allies perssective and -- unlike we have had any point at any time during thhse operations. >> secretary gates came back from europe expressing concern that nato allies are reducing their armed forces and the number of troops in general. is this a topic the president will touch at the g-8 or g-20 meetings. i -- >> i don't know. i have heard at secretary gates

be concerned about this in meetings that we have had the route this process -- throughout this process in afghanistan. >> [inaudible] bp says they will play -- free -- bp says they will pay all legitimate claims. whht is the definition of lynch and ed and two -- >> there is a claims process. this is the source of the letter admiral allen cent more than a day ago to shore it -- to shift some transparency from our perspective on to bp's operations on claims. there is a series of data that

bp claims is proprietary that we would like to have an opportunity to look at in order to ensure the process is proceeding in a way that is fair to those that are arguing that the disaster has caused them harm. this is a process that is going to go through -- there are those who have their direct livelihood's affected. if you're a fishermmn and you cannot because the gulf have been closed as a result of this disaster, there are going to be what i would call it -- the indirect costs of what might be claimed as an economic claim. if you are a hotel owner and have seen lots of cancellations -- there is a whole series of claims in the structure. >> on the run, he always said

that all options, including -- on hereon, he has always said all options are on the table. -- on i ran, there -- the military option is still on thee table. isn't that something that could >> the resolution as passed by the security council calls on all states to exercise vigilance that are not prohibited. i would note over the past year and half that the russians have not transferred the system you%+ are talking about to the iranians. there were reports today that indicate they did not plan to. >> [inaudible]

>> [unintelligible] mixed signals came from the u.s. administration that led them to [unintelligible]

what would you say to those who argue there were mixed signals from the administration? >> i think the votes we saw yesterday from brazil and turkey were disappointing. we obviously have a difference in approach. the iranians were unwilling to live up to be agreement that they made last fall even as late as only a few weeks ago. that is not progress on the issue of dealing with their nuclear program. i would say that iran was obviously concerned about the impact of these sanctions and what it did walk away from last fall, it was trying to get

partially back to only a few weeks ago. we will continue to work with friends and allies to create and maintain the coalition that we have to demonstrate to the world how serious we all take their i think there would leave it mostly at that. >> [inaudible] a lawsuit has been filed y investigators in ohio and colorado concerning the president paz social security number. i did not bring up the breast of it. he reports that investigators

are asking why the president is using a social security number reserved for connecticut applicants. was there -- as the president never had a mailing address in connecticut? >> i know there are faithful readers of your publication >> including you. >> i don't know that i would mark myself as a faithful reader. i continue to be amazed that two years after putting the president's birth certificate on the internet, -- >> without a hospital and without a doctor. >> do you think the president was born in the united states?

>> i don't know. i would love to get the real birth certificate, wouldn't you? >> i've seen tte real birth certificate. i put it on the internet. i appreciate your forthrightness. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> an update on the house -- -pmemmers approved a bill giving the house again ministration power to increase the monthly premiums it charges consumers. -- the agencies to yet to stabilize its finances which have deteriorated because of the financial crisis. the house removed a limit on the oil spill liability trust fund.

currently -- >> currently under federal law, the -- there is a cap of $100 million on the advances of the coast guard can take out of the oil spill liability trust fund. when there is a spill and the need money to respond, they can take $100 million. host: what they trying to raise that question mark caller: -- >> there is a time element to this. the funding for this runs out %+xt week? guest: there is a question of how to deal with the total funding and i'll probably be increased through a series of other bills in the process right now. host: who pays into this trust

fund? guest: well companies mostly. it is financed by an 8 cents excise tax on oil companies. it is oil compannes paying into it. separate tax expense -- and the senate, that wwuld be incrrased to more than 40 cents. on this post to pay all the cost of the cleanup? guest: currently, there liability is complete for the response effort. they are liable for the entire cost of the response effort. over the longer term, they are liable for up to $75 million of economic damages over the longer term, but congress is trying to increase that. the government is saying we are going to get all theemoney from bp, but in the meantime, we need to change the law to allow the coast guard this money. host: republicans say it would

be better if it was not limited -- not just the current one in the gulf. how did democrats respond? guest: theee is a lot of discussion on how to change the liability law in a broader way right now. there are several different committees having issue -- having meetings on that issue. they want to deal with this one issue and deal with the coast guard's immediate need to figure out how to best structure the law. host: what other legislative efforts are underway to address the costs of cleening up? guest: you have a number of committees with a lot of drilling legislation in the works and a lot of committees looking at worker safety issues and at oil company's liabilities to the victims of the families of the oil rig explosion. you have a numbee of different fronts right now.

host: thank you ffr the update. >> on tomorrow's "washington journal" we will focus on the bp oil spill. our guests will include a former ceo from dupont and a congressman from louisiana and the head of the national finnnce resources defense council. that is "washington journal" tomorrow morning live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. >> 23 years ago, president reagan spoke those words at the brandenburg gate in berlin to watch the entire speech on saturday on "american history tv" on c-span3. >> with the confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee elena kagan coming up, c-span takes you inside the supreme court to

see those faces and rarely seen spaces. 3 provide insight about the court. the supreme court, america's highest court, sunday at 6:30 on c-span. >> see what your member of congress said -- searched the congressional chronicle on the c-span video library. every word from the house and senate floor from 1987. for a snapshot on all members of the 111th congress, the -span congressional directory is available at c-span.org/store. >> house and senate conferees began meeting today to discuss the financial regulation bill, legislation to figure out what happened leading up to the 2008 crisis. this begins with senator might crapo of idaho.

>> the financial regulatory reform legislation will directly affect how small and large businesses operate. it will dramatically expand the government's involvement in the economy, restrict the availability of credit and limit theechoices available to consumers. as we know and our insistence -- our constituents experience, the financial crisis continues to recap threat economy in communities across the country. access to credit, access to jobs, and in many cases, faith in the ability of washington to do any good whatsoever all remain lacking. we should examine all of this legislation very thoroughly and take only the very best part in order to make sure we reform our financial markets without

harming access to credit and job growth. as many of our olleagues have stated, we are not starting on a good note. since we just received a base text a few hours ago. we are told this is largely the senatt version, yet as i understand it, there are 300 new pages not in the senate version. it's hard to be sure because it is not identified. there is no red lined copy and we are left in the american public is left trying to figure out exactly what is the new bill we are considering. it would be very helpful if we had a red line copy available for this committee, as congress, and for the american people to see what has been negotiated and identified s the new bill over the last few niihts or weeks and now presented here before us. the process suggests much has committee's active involvement and we are yet again being forced o consider legislation

that we do not understand and frankly which i bet nobody on this committee has read, at leasttthat's the reader pages that have been added overnight. we neee to have transparency and an open process if this conference is to do its job well. with regard to some of the key elements of the bill, i said at the outset, there is very little disagreement that we need to end bailout. the taxpayers should never again be put on the hook for the bailout like was done in the last few years as we have dealt with the credit collapse and the mortgage crisis. there is no company that is too big to fail. although it is appropriate for us and we should include provisions in this legislation to help make sure we resolve these large failing companiessin a way that does the least amount of damage possible to the economy, we should not create a system in which there can be on going involvement of the federal government without reasonable this unending federal bailout

of these institutions. in that regarr, the bill is noticeable for something as much as what is in it as what is not. namely the largest bailout in america -- fannie mae and freddie mac. so far, fannie mae and freddie mac are the largest of all of the bailout we have dealt with. financial industry, the insurance industry, the takeover of the student loan industry, and if you look attthe bailout, the $145 billion the taxpayers are already on the hook for with regard to fannie mae and freddie mac, which is expected by experts to go up to 350,000 -- $350 billion before it is done is absolutely absent frommthis legislation. .

and that number is higher today than that. concluded the institutions have effectively become government entities whose operations should be included in the federal government budget. if we did that, the dead picture

we talk about in congress would be dramatically changed. -- the debt picture wouud be dramatically changed. i have also been concerned that the derivatives title does not protect and users. the people who manufacture goods, the people who provide those things that our economy moves on and to need to have a closing -- driving derivatives market in which to operate. -- thriving derivatives market in which to operate. you should never let the good graces go to waste, and this has not been allowed to go to waste. the creation of a large new, virtually uncontrolled agency is said to be aimed at wall street. there were folks on main street in every city in america, small communities and large, who are worried. my time is gone. i hope we can deal with some of these issues aggressively and

come forward with legislation that hits the issues that we are aiming at rather than broadening it for the rest of the caleconomy. >> the enator from south dakota. the senator from iowa. >> is this the time [unintelligible] thank you. i asked my full statement be made part of the record. i want to compliment chairmann dodd and chairman peter sent for their leadership in putting this together. i might observe ttat my friend from alabama made the statement of trying to find out what went wrong. we know what went wrong. it went wrong in 1999.

for 65 years, a classical -- glass stiegal rove's through the korean war and the tumultuous years of the 1960's nd 1970's and broadcaster liberal presidents to conservative presidents like ronald reagan. and cast our financial system sound. in the 1990's clufthese whiz-kid wizards of wall street t devised ways of developing monday. they had no way of evaluating it. they had no way of making or

maximizing their promise. what they said was to do this, all we can do is do it through the investment banking system. in order to make a loo of money, we need access. access to the money that is in the insurance industry. we need access to the money in depository banks. wall street led the effort in 1999 and i might say aided and abetted by the clinton administration.. i am proud of the fact i am one of 82 voted against it. what these whiz kids in wall street did is they put this together. deposit banks and investment houses. and it is this stew that made a sick. to my way of thinking, some say you cannot put the genie back in the bottle. i happen to believe you can. i happen to be in a small minority who believes if you want to straighten out the

system we have to go back to glass stiegel and separate account depository banking and insurance and make things more transparent in the derivatives market as it pertains to the investment houses. i know that is a minority view. i still think that is the only way you will solve this. as part of this -- far as this bill goes, i want to compliment senattr lincoln for a statement and her -- her statement and her leadership. they have to be transparent and they have got to be tightly controlled. glass steigel worked for all these years. i would close by saying i defy anyone here on this committee, to anyone on wall street corner york to show me one person, one

trader, one whiz kid one of ttese entities who lost their home, their money, and everything and put out on the street because of what happened. i defy someone who can show me one of those persons. we can assure you thousands of americans who lost their homes, lost their businesses, who lost jobs and tore out on the street because of what wall street did. it is up to us to make it right for the future. thank you. >> the senator from tennessee. >> thank you. i want to thank you and chairman dodd and others for having this conference and i look forward to participating. there is no issue i have enjoyed working on in the three years and five months i've been here than financial reform. i look around and think about what an unusual place washington is.

so different from the rest of our country. we began this congress working on health care. to thwi if te-- two of the drivg forces were the cost to individuals and try to lower that a we proceeded to pass a bill that increased the cost of both of those. here we are today. in the middle of an economy that is slow and we're concerned about, we're passing a financial reform bill that is not only going to limit credit but it is going to increase the cost of credit and probably, and most likely, make us non-competitive with the rest of the g-20 when the g-20 is setting sttndards. there is nothing in this bill that does anything but harm to those countries -- companies

across our country that makes things, that go out and need tt borrow a line of credit from a bank. maybe they are making heavy equipment and they will hedge the cost of metal prices so employees and maybe they aae selling that product to another ccuntry and want to hedge so they know they're getting paid in u.s. dolllrs as i know them today. maybe they are seeking credits. maybe it is a mezzanine credit that a bank will not ordinarily give to them. this bill does everything it can to destroy the ability of that company to seek capital to create jobs. at a time in this country when we're trying to create jobs. only in washington. let me say this. this bill has some good things in it. we have a lot of smart stuff on both sides of the aisle that

have worked on it. no doubt there are some good+ provisions. what it does not do is address the core issues of a crisis. we can talk about all this that we wish. the fact is that there are loans given to people across this country that had no ability to pay it back. that is what has brought down every single financial institution in this country that has come down. that has been the problem. there is nothing in this bill to deal with underwriting. nothing in this bill to do with underwriting. we have the issue of fannie and freddie which were enablers and i'm not about to say they created this crisis. it is amazing to me. we would not have the ability to deal with them on our balance sheet as we deal each year with our budget. what i would say to the chairman, i am obviously disappointed. i have worked over the course of the last year to support a bill.

i want to see regulation take place, appropriate regulation. i am disappointed with the product. i am under no illusion that when be a product i will be able toll support. this is going to be the law of the land and i realize that politics, unfortunately, in this body overtake substance and i realize we have an administration that has an ideology they will push and push but over the course of this conffrence, i will say to the chairman and presiding officers that it is my intent, even though i may not be able to support the legislation, to try to make this bill stronger for those people across our country that are out trying to create jobs. i want to say i'm just met -- we talked about wall street. i met with 375 community bankers. not one of them supports this legislation. i thank you for the time and

thank you for the courtesy. thank you for the effort. i hope this conference yields a better bill than we have before us today. >> the senator from south dakota. -p>> the administration put forh a proposal to reform financial- services regulation. ssnce then, the house and senate have held dozens of hearings in both chambers at have had comprehensive legislation. we began today the merging of these documents. i think it is important to note to there are [unintelligible] with the bills than differences from both sides of the aisle. i applaud the hard work of chairman dog andd and chairman frank. a package of reforms that makes

changes to regulations since the great depression is commendable. i think we make important reforms by creating systemic risk oversight, by giving regulators the tools to resolve [unintelligible] a better system of regulation for depositories, and banks and non-bank financials, by setting up a system of regulation and actors to thrive. i think that through months of negotiations [unintelligible] ouu legislation better protect consumers and gives tools to

regulators to do their jobs and provide certainty to businesses. alss, it fills the regulatory gaps that have caused the crisis, makes wall street and regulators accountable for their actions and put more cops on the be when it comes to bad3 investment sectors. more specifically, the senate bill puts common ground and state ag enforcement and an approach to investor protection and broker-dealer and adviser regulaaion. it creates an offfce of national insurance that will provide information regarding national and international insurance issues and strengthens the oversight in regulation of the credit rating agencies.

it recognizes the small businesses and the financial service industry on an important part to the nation's recovery. as we move through this process, we must keep in mind those -- the senate bill passed with bipartisan support. the partisan nature of the bill must be preserved in order to send the president -- send the legislation to the president's desk. i look forward to working with my colleagues to work out outstanding issues and to reform legislation and we can be part of and the american people will know protects them and not wall street's ceos. thank you. >> the senator from thod rhode

island. point where it has again -- we have a long way to go before robust recovery takes hold and becomes self sustaining. the measure is a vital part of our continuing effort to strengthen our economy. principles of transparency, accountability and fairness to wall street. fundamentally transformed how we protect consumers, families, and small business from reckless and abuse of financial practices. under these measures, previous measures, that we are changing now, big banks cannot continue to specclate and take thhs risk, ripping billions of profits while counting on taxpayers to bail them out. they will not be able to make loans they know cannot be

repaad. they will be robustly regulated. i look ffrward to crafting the best possible bill from all the different provisions in the senate and house bill. let me briefly mention a few points that i think are worthy of note. first this legislation establishes a new office of financial research. there represent an important step toward understanding the factors which threatened to rip holes in the financial system. it will provide early warnings to act on the information more preemptively, something that was clearly missing. we are requiring hedge funds and private pooos of capital. this will shed light on these ddrk pools of unregulated money. we're bringing accountability and transparency to the derivatives markets by overturning the law that prevented regulators from surprising derivatives in the

first place. we must bring transparency to the marketplace [unintelligible] to regulators and market participants. we must make as many transactions that are traded, cleared and reported to regulators and thh marketplace. firms should be required to report sufficient capital to engage in these transactions which should rein in the speculation. we must insure that there is effective coordination before the -- between the sec and thh f[unintelligible] we need to ensure that banks are not speculating through derivatives activities. i hope we can adopt a ban on proprietary trading. we also have to ensure a strong compatibility for credit rating agencies. ttey include title 9 of the senate bill and we have to work

to make sure these are effective in preventing the excess of reading offcredit agencies. i want to commend the chairman kantor ski -- kanjorsky. we will be in better shape if we move closer to the house bill. we have to ensure that there is an effective consumer watchdog. there is presumption that this somehow will interfere with business. my sense is that a good consumer protection is good business and if we can provide good consumer protection, we will enhance business, not detract from it. we have a lot of work to do. i ook forward to working with you to make sure this leeislation is a significant step forward. we can bring together the best parts of both legislation for a bill that we will be proud of and the american people will be proud of and will stabilize our

economy going forward. >> that concludes the senatee participation. the senators can go to vote. we are on the republican side. >> let me -- i wnant to thank our house colleagues. i know howwwarmly [unintelligible] >> i think my colleagues feel that anything that would allow members of the senate to leave would be broadly supported. [laughter] the gentleman from california. >> thank you. i do not think anything affected me as much in the hearings i have sat through as the arguments made by the feddthat if fannie mae and freddie mac were not regulated, if the

situation was not addresssd, it would pose a systemic risk if they collapsed. the worry on the part of the fed was that we would do nothing. this institutions would collapse and behind them, it would bring other financial institutions. it was congress, especially with the gse act, tying the hands of the regulators in what amounted to a failed attempt to give every american into a home that led to this systemic risk. this moral hazard as economists were warning us about. the case in point as we go through, there were at the center of the housing market. there were largely responsible for the prrliferation of subprime and alt-a mortgages throughout the financial system. how did everyone get into a home?

beyond this, we were muscling to get down payments down to zero. here we had fannie and freddie in order to reach the affordable housing mandates enacted by congress in 1992. fannie and freddie became the largest purchasers of these john colognes. at the end of every quarters, they had to go out and purse of massive amounts of junk botch-- junk. the federal reserve asked us to rein in the excessive risk- taking. in 2005, that debate came to heed in congress. senator dodd helped lead the opposition to it. under the leadership of chuck hegel and richard shelby, senate republicans assed a bill through the banking committee that attacked the heart of the problem, the excessive buildup of leverage and risk within the mortgage portfolios. that bill was written by the

fed. these institutions or leveraged through arbitrageeat 100 to one. this was the warning that the fed was giving us about the pending collapse in the financial system of this was not addressed. as "the wall street journal" reported, the white house, treasury, and federal reserve lined up but he was never able to bring this bill to the floor democrats. i carried the amendment on the house side. mr. frank's comments sums of one line of argument. "and do not want the same focus on safety and soundness we had in occ and ots. i want to roll the dice in the situation toward subsidizing housing." i wwuld like to go to something president clinton said. he said, "i think that

responsibility the democrats have, in resisting efforts by republicans in the congress or by me when i was president to put some standards and tighten up a little on fannie mae and freddie mac." our housing market and financial sector and the broader economy are dealiig with the consequences of that very systemic shock that the fed warned us about. were there other problems? yes. this was the systemic shock that they anticipated, warned about and we did not take action against. in going forward, no regulatory reform effort will be complete or effective without addressing the two institutions most responsible for the collapse of the housing market. despite what some may claim, we're not advocating for the elimination of the gse's. it is vital to plan for the short term to ensure the mistakes of yesterday are never again reiterated. i want to quote brad sherman.

this is "tarp o.a.r.p. on steroids." you cannot have the government lending to failing firms and purchasing their assets, even during teeing the obligation of a solvent financial institution. the government ends up with 60% of the capital markets in terms of the government back stock in that kind of situation. that is a dangerous these institutions are too big to fail, guaranteed by the government. these are the concerns i have going for. thank you. >> we will deal with the distored history -- distorted history.

mr. sherman does not characterize the current bill as that. this history on fannie aad freddie is a partial one on the part of my friend. the fact is that republicans control both houses of congress from 1995 through 2006 and the legislation was enacted by then. by 2007, first in the house and the senate, we passed the bill that gave the bush administration much of what it wanted. unddr that authority, secretary paulson put fannie mae and freddie mac into talking about ignoring them. they have been in conservative -- conservatorship since 2008. they are very different entities. the gentleman said congress forced freddie mae and fannie -- freddie mac and fannie mae. in 2004, president bush ordered

fannie mae and freddie mac to go above 50% in the mortgages they bought that work for people below the median income. i criticized that publicly and said it was not good for those institutions, nor for the people who were getting into that housing situation and joined mr. oxley to regulate fannie mae and freddie mac. mr. oxley put a bill through the house. i voted in committee against it because of unrelated reasons but the gentleman from california notes he'd carried the amendment. he forgot to say he got one- third of the republicans to vote for. the amendment was defeated on the floor of the house. no -- if no democrat had voted, they would have lost heavily. many members voted against the gentleman from california and with mr. oxley. senate democrats offered in 2006 the version of the bill that passed the house under the republican sponsorship and there

was an internal republican dispute and that is what led to their not being any bill. a year later, we passed the bill and it came too late. i regret that. the other point is about subprime mortgagess there were problems, but they were not originated by freddie mae and freddie mac -- freddie mac and fannie mae. congress passed the home owner's equity protection at which gave the federal reserve the authority to regulate some prime mortgages -- subprime mortgages. and more of the bad mortgages came outside the banking system than inside. mr. greenspan for ideological reasons simillr to some of those argued here argued the maaket should not regglate and to intervene, refuse to use the authority. in 2004 and 2005, two of my porth carolina colleagues move to try to regulate subprime

mortgages by statute because th+ fed would not use the authority. we were frustrated because the republican house leadership sent word not to do it. it was not until 2007 when the democrats came back to the majority that we passed the bill through the house to regulate subprime mortgages. my friend from alabama voted for it and many of the republicans here voted against it. after we did that, mr. bernanke finally decided that it was time to use the authority. the fact is, for all the talk we've heard here, 12 years of republican rule, zero legislation to regulate fannie mae and freddie mac. the bill has passed. the gentleman from alifornia tried to tighten uppand toughen the mr. oxley's -- tough and a mr. oxley's -- toughen up mr.

oxley's bill. paul volcker says that sweeping financial reform legislation before congress would make the u.s. a model for tte world. "the u.s. would go from laggard to the parade if we get this legislation passed." i am glad thereeis a chance of getting international acceptance for the basic principles. he expects this to produceeof coherent legislation of package3 be helpful and i would say to my friends from tennessee -- i do not know why he said there was nothing in heee about mortgages. some tough regulation to ban the kind of irresponsible subprime mortgages we tried to get banned before but >> this is the largest rewrite

of the bill since the great depression. work on the bill resumes tuesday morning, including votes on amendments on derivatives and the consumer protection agency. expect livv coverage on c- span3 and c-span.org. at the white house today, president obama met with members of congress, republicans and democrats. here is what the president had to say. for engaging in a substantive conversation and i am going to be relatively brief in summarizing it. at the top of the list was our response to the crisis in the gulf and the oil spill. we gave them an update on all the measures that are being taken. the single largest national response to an environmental disaster.

about the fact that the laws that have been in place have not been adequate for a crisis of this magnitude. the oil pollution act was passed at a time when people did not envision drilling four miles under the c-4 oil. it will be important that based on facts, based on experts, based on a thorough examination of what went wrong and where things have gone right, but also where things have gone wrong, ttat we update the laws to make sure that the people in the gulf, hotel owners, families who are dependent for their lives on the gulf that they are made whole and that we are in a much better position to respond to any such crisis in the future. that was a prominent part of the discussion and i was pleased to see bipartisan agreement that we have to deal that -- with that

in aggreesi an aggressive and fa bleeding white. we have an economy that is on the man but there are people who are out of work. -- on the mend but there are people who are out of work. a major part of our discussion was how could we continue to build on the progress that has been made in the economy? how can we make sure that has an impact on the job growth and a today improvements the people are saying in their own lives? a couple of things we have discussed is passing the package of tax standards and important to give familiesat is confidence they will get back on their feet but give businesses confidence in terms of what their tax records will look like. a prominent area that we want to see movement on hopefully in

this hopefullyperiod -- in this work period is small business. we're seeing problems for small businesses when it comes to being able to obtain loans to expand or hire new people and maintain their inventories. we have got a package of measures that would help in terrs of capitalizing small firms that would eliminate capital gains taxes for start- ups and small businesses. those measures need to be put in place. we need to get that done. the orker preparing this economy is not complete. -- work of repairing this economy is not complete. the financial markets i think deserve certainty but more importantly, consumers and the that there is a regulatory

framework in place that protect consumers, investors, ordinary folks and assures taxpayers that they never again are put in a position where they have got to bail out somebody because of their irresponnible acts. we also think it issimmortant to complete a supplemental, a package that assures our young men and women who are in uniform fighting in afghanistan get all the support they need. we are going to have a busy agenda going forward. there are immediate things we have to deal with. there are medium and long-term issues that we discussed that have to be dealt with. one that was prominent was the issue of how we deal with de bt and deficits. there were constructive conversations about ways that we could start signiiicant

progress, not necessarily commission on some steps. i have called for a three-year freeze on discretionary spending. there was good conversation among leadership in terms of how we adhere to that number. there were some other creative suggestions from republicans and democrats and for the progress we could make on that front. in that same category of thinking about the next generation, i want to close by talkkng about my personal belief that we have to move on an energy agenda that is forward- looking, that creates jobs, that assures that we're leaders in solar, wind, biodiesel, that recognizes we will be reliance on fossil fuels for many years to come -- reliance on fossil fuels for many years to come and

using fossil fuels but we have to start planning and putting in the infrastructure in place and putting research and development in place so we end of being leaders in our energy future. we will have a group of ceos that come in from a wide range of different industries. people from bill gaaes of billto the -- microsoot to the chairman of dupont to come up with recommendations on how we can move more aggressiveey on the energy agenda. obviously, our immediate task is to do with a crisis that is affecting millions of people down in the gulf. we cannot keep our eye off the importance of having an energy policy that meets the needs of the next generation and insurers -- assures the u.s. is the energy leader.

i very much appreciate all the leaders here today who have been very constructive in wanting to explore how we can move them forward. thank you very much, everybody. >> after the meetings, lawmakers spoke to the press outside the white house. you will hear from republicans first, and then democrats. >> good afternoon, everyone. as you know, we just had a meeting with the president that we have periodically with bipartisan congressional leadership. i would underscore the particular area. we spent a good deal of time talking about the oil spill n the gulf and an appropriate response.

my view is that we're perfectly happp to work with the administration on legislation that might be appropriate directly related to this bill -- the spill in the gulf. most of my members will are [unintelligible] using that as a rationale for passing an ash -- a national energy tax referred to as cap and trade. the senate has not acted on the bill. it is completely and totally unrelated to a logical response to the environmental catastrophe we are experiencing in the gulf. happy to work with the democratic majority in the white house with appropriate

legissative responses to the oil spill, buu not interested and i am confident there will be3 the oil spill as a rationale or excuse for passing an national energy tax that is unrelated to the environmental catastrophe. >> i handed the letter -- the president a letter signed by economistt but that said cutting spending would help job creation and get the economy moving. we had this dismal job reporr showing 41,000 new private- sector jobs being created. our debt is 15 trillion dollars. 15 cents has to be borrowed from our kids and grandkids. [unintelligible] to move a budget rarely misses a

significant opportunity to begin to cut spending now. -- really misses a significant opportunity to begin to cut spending now. i pushed them hard about cutting spending. it is important for the future of our country. needless to say, it was -- there was some agreement but mostly disagreement on big changes. secondly, since the health-care bill was signed into law, the actuaries at medicare and medicat medicaid [unintelligibl] is going to explode the budget deficit. this new health-care law is hurting job creation.

i ask the president whether there was any effort to take another look at this. we did not have much time for conversation about it. i am hopeful we will take care law and its massive impact on the american people. >> did the president respond to you on tapppan trade? did he pushed that at all? >> thh president can speak for himself. i think it would be totally accurate to say that the administration continues to support economy wide cap and trade proposal which is a pational energy tax. he is conninuing to advocate we do thatt it is clear to me that the goal is to seize on the oil spill to generate support for something entirely unrelated.

i can tell you that in the u.s. senate, even though the measure passed in the house, there is bipartisan opposition to a national energy tax and it has absolutely nothing to do with the environmental catastrophe we're witnessing in the gulf. >> what is an appropriate response in terms of legislation to the oil spill? >> legislation related to the oil spill. we're in the process of reviewing what had happened. possible suggestions in the changing of the structure of the minerals management service, things related to this catastrophe are entirely appropriate to be considered and i think we will go into that with the view that there is a great possibility we will reach a bipartisan agreement and change things related to deep sea oil drilling. >> did you talk about the idea of stopping bp from paying

dividends while they have these claims outstanding? >> i think the administration and bp ought to be held responsible for their various failures in this. bp should be held responsible and so should the administration and the failure of the government agency. >> i'm juwe want them to clean e spill. they are committed to do that. they're going to have to do that. they carried a labor proposal in the senate which is the latest version of the national energy which is recommended by bp, which is a national gas tax. we do not think passing a

bp-inspired gas tax is appropriate in response to the spill. in related -- we're interested in taking a look at that and say what is appropriate and we want to hold bp to their commitment to pay for the leanup cost, but other costs related to this catastrophe. >> bp should cover the cleanup cost. >> families of the victims are meeting with the president. there is a move afoot to change the way compensation is given to victims. woull you support limits on claims paid to families? >> i do not know enough about that to take a position today. >> is the administration failing? did you raise that with the president? >> the president basically given to report about what was being

done. that was really the extend of the conversation -- extent of the conversation. >> should the government share in paying for this? >> i thought we had a very productive meeting. i felt that we talked about the things we needed to talk about. we are looking at the economy. the economy is doing ok, it needs to do a lot better. the president talked about bp and how they hhld -- have to be held responsible for what they

have done to our country. we're concerned about getting to small business. we have a job-creating bill we have been waiting to get to, but we have to get through this extenders bill first and we are working hard to get that done. the president talked about energy and the house has done their job on energy and we have to do hours in the senate. i explained i am having my chairman in this afternoon to talk about energy. we're going to do a caucus and moving toward doing an energy bill so we can match t up with what is being done in the house. i join you in the preceding the meeting we just had. -- appreciating the meeting we just had with president obama. the focus was on jobs and deficit reduction and the oil spill.

wi want to focus on the oil spill. it is clear there was a lack of integrity on the part of bp when it came to what it told us about the adequacy of their technology, the sufficiency of blowout prevention, and the capacity to clean up. the president has said the attornny general to the region to see what the culpability is in respect to integrity. in terms of safety of the workers on the rigs and safety involved in cleanup, it is an important part of legislation as we will have to [unintelligible] we have to reform leasing and i commend the administration in breaking up mms so that we can

go forward in a way that is a good match for the challenge that we have, whether it is how leases are granted, the premises -- appropriateness of royalties. additional research is needed to get the technology to extract and where we want to go. i [unintelligible] relating to public efforts in this regard. it is about leasing, liability, worker protection, it is about going forward in a way that holds the perpetrator accountable. accountable to the u.s. taxpayer. we will hold bp accountable to the u.s. taxpayer and the businesses in the region,

whether they are fishermen or have tourism as their trade, or whatever it is. the quality of life in the region has been drastically affected. before british petroleum continues to spend money on its public relations campaign and gives dividends, it should honor the commitment it has to these small businesses. they can wait it out with bp which they can ill afford to do, take out loans, which they can ill afford to do, and we insist that british petroleum do what is required by law to do. this is a jobs issue. the energy issue is a jobs issue. it calls out n an eloquenttway for a different energy policy in our country. farther down we have to go to extract a commodity, the more dangerous and risky it is. as the president has said in his inaugural address, we will look to the wind and the sun and the

soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. we have to do this. that is why a new energy change piece of legislatioo must do. we look forward to a bill being passed in the senate and to go to conference to resolve or differences. legislation is needed on leasing liability, worker protection, those kinds of issues are addrrssed in the challenge we face in the gulf. we have to do all this in a way that is fiscally sound so that we are not adding to the debt of our country. i will yield. >> i have to leave. i haveea caucus. >> can you comment on cap and trade? that will never pass. >> it is not the bill they have

in the senate. >> that was not discussed in the meeting. we had a very productive meeting. cappand trade was never mentioned. >> it is the political rhetoric -- that is the political rhetoric. the president was very interested in the agenda. clearly, the tragedy that has occurred in the gulf, which is the result of obviously not only mistakes but negligence on the part of british petroleum and perhaps others to ivor -- who either own or constructed that facility. the president is giving clearly a full time and attention to this issue. we need to get it stoppedd but

we need to make sure that british petroleum is held responsible and makes quick payment to those who never been so damaged by this oil spill. in addition, the jobs bill, a tax loophole bill, and the stopping of shofshoring of jobs bill, we expect to pass that sen. we started a conference on the regulatory reform and making sure that banks and financial institutions do not perpetrate the kind of negligence and activity which has led to this deep recession and so much pain for so many people. next week, we will consider a bill which we will try to get landing flowing to small businesses so they can create jobs. we think that is critically important. the speaker and i and others to

travel around the country, small businesses that are successful buttcannot get capital. we will be dealing with that as well. those are some of the major items on our agenda. we expect to accomplish those and yes, there was significant discussion on making sure that in the long term, nancy's grandchildren and my grandchildren and my great granddaughter are not deeply in debt when we turn over the management of our society and country over to them. everybody agrees that is a significant and most important responsibility. all this in that room had and all americans have -- all of us in that room had and all americans have. the president has set down a budget which exercises fiscal discipline. he has appointed a commission to get us to long term fissal stability and under the speaker's leadership, we have

adopted a rule three years ago on paygo and make sure we pay for what we by and we put that in statute. we are moving for long-term fiscal stability and short term, creating jobs and getting this economy moving. >> did the republicans oppose the energy legislation? >> senator mcconnell said he was against an energy tax. he did not say he was opposed to energy legislation as such. i may speculate that he is. >> whatever it is, the fact is, countries recognize that the country that is the head in the grain economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. he said we want america to be that nation. you cannot ignore the fact that we ave an environmental

challenge. this is a national security issue, it is a jobs issue. it is something we have a responsibility to do. how works out is a matter -- it how it works out is a matter of legislative process. we [unintelligible] is a debate that we welcome and this event shows so eloquently the need for us to have a new energy policy. the deeper we dig and go all the way into the earth to extract, the more dangerous and risky it is. the wind, the sun, the soil. that is where we should be looking for renewals. we have to transition and that

is where we have to have a national debate about before calling any such initiative dead, recognize that is on the wrong side of the future. -pyou have aabetter idea, put it on the table. >> did that issue come up? is it appropriate for bp to be paying dividends? >> it is appropriate o pay small businesses in the gulf for the livelihoods that they have lost because of the negligence on the part of british petroleum. they have a responsibility under a lot to pay these businesses. they have a responsibility under the laww they are claiming -- it depends on how much money. they made $17 billion. they should be paying these small businesses first. they do not have deep pockets

and staying power in terms of lost wages or income to their businesses. some of the people receiving dividends perhaps have deeper pockets. >> is it up to the government to [unintelligible] >> it is up to the government to insist they obey the law. >> to make sure dividends get paid. >> bp must be held accountable. they must be held accountable in terms of the taxpayer. their expenses we are incurring as a government that they must pick up. they have responsibilities to the small businesses and that is the law. >> is there? -- is there disagreement with

the republican colleagues? >> i hope not.+ integrity and adequacy of the technology to go down which hey represented as adequate. whether it is the adequacy of the blowout prevention which they said was adequate for the capacity to clean up. they have failed and mr. zipprich -- misrepresented on every score. when it comes to the obligation to the taxpayer, they will be held accountable. every taxpayer must know that bp will be held accountable to pay. every business in the region who has suffered losses because of bp's activities must know bp