consumers. and unless your business model depends on cutting corners or milking your customers, you've got nothing to fear from reform. [applause] .

[applause] it will ensure that people like andrew are not always make caught by overdraft fees when the son of french credit -- for a checking account. [applause] it will crack down on abusive practices in the mortgage industry. it will make sure that contracts are simpler. it will bring an end to many

hidden penalties and fees and complex mortgages so folks know what they're signing. with this law, students to take out college loans will be provided clear and concise information about their obligations. with this law, ordinary investors, like seniors and folks saving for retirement, will be able to receive more information about the cost and risks of mutual funds and other investment products so they can make a better financial decisions as to what will work for them. all told, these reforms represent the strongest consumer financial protection in history. in history. [applause] these protections will be enforced by a new consumer

watchdog with just one job, looking out for people, not big banks, lenders, looking out for people as they interact with the financial system. that is not just before consumers. it is good for the economy. reform will put a stop to a lot of the bad loans that fuel aid debt based bubble. it will mean all companies will have to offer better products. beyond the consumer protections i have outlined, reform will also rein in the abuse and access that nearly brought down our financial system. it will finally bring transparency to the kinds of complex and risky transactions that helped trigger the financial crisis. shareholders will also have a greater say it often the pay of ceo and other executives. they can reward success instead of failure. finally, because of this law,

the american people will never be asked to foot the bill for wall street's mistakes. there will be no more tax funded it bailouts. . . period. [applause] it's a large financial institution should ever fail, this reform gives us the ability to wind it down without endangering the broader economy. there will be new rules to make clear that no firm is somehow protected because it is too big to fail.

so we do not have another aig. that is what this reform will mean. it does not mean that our work is over. but -- for these new rules to be effective, regulators will have to be vigilant. we may need to make adjustments along the way as our financial system adapts to the new changes. no law can force anybody to be responsible. it is still incumbent on those on wall street to keep the lessons of this crisis in terms of how they conduct their business. the fact is that every american, from main street to wall street, has a stake in our financial system. wall street banks and firms, investment capital, makes it possible for startups to sell new products. they provide loans to businesses. they backed mortgages for

families purchasing a new home. that is why we all will stand to gain from these reforms. we all win. when investors around the world have confidence in our markets, we all went when shareholders have more power and information. we all win when consumers are protected against abuse. the olwen when folks are rewarded based on how well they perform -- we all win when folks are rewarded based on how they perform. in the end, our financial system only works, our market is only free when there are clear rules and basic safeguards prevent abuse. that is what these reforms are designed to achieve. no more, no less. that is how we will ensure that our economy works for consumers, that works for investors, that it works for financial

institutions, that works for all of us. this is a central lesson. ultimately, there is no dividing line between main street and wall street. the rise and fall together as one nation. these reforms will help lift our economy and lead all of us to a stronger, more prosperous future. that is what i am so honored to sign these reforms into law. i am so grateful to everybody who worked so hard to make this a possible. thank you very much, everybody. [applause]

[applause]

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[applause] >> after the president a bill signing, three state attorneys general endorsed elizabeth warren to head the consumer protection agency. she currently heads the congressional oversight panel on the tarp program. this is 15 minutes.

>> good morning. i'm tom miller. what a great day this is for consumers of our country. this is massive legislation. people had analyzed and focus on the various parts of it. that is all good, but what was lost in the shuffle is how important, how good this is for consumers. three things have come together in a way that has not happened before to give consumers protection in this financial transaction. one, and certainly most bank -- basic, it is the creation of the consumer protection bureau within the federal reserve. what happened for so long is that financial regulatory

agencies have the authority for consumer protection. whenever the comptroller or the person who regulates savings and loans, what is their first priority? it is the safety and soundness of the institution. that is the way it should be. the worst thing that can happen is to have one of these banks fail. it is always going to be safety and soundness first grade when you hire someone to do one of these jobs, if you hire a consumer protector or do you hire a banker? you hire the person with a banking experience. what happened is consumer protection has been at the stepchild in the federal government. that changes today. it has the power over credit- card s and other financial transactions and that priority and power, that person can

focus. the legislation gives him or her incredible authority. whoever does this, there is no way they can do it all. there is no way they can take care of every mortgage, every credit card, or every financial transaction in the country. they cannot do it alone and the states cannot do it alone. this legislation secondly provides that the states have the authority to enforce these laws and regulations. they can partner with the federal government to do the whole job. the third element is the enormous cooperation between the state attorney generals and the department of justice and the department of treasury. i worked almost daily -- daily with the department of treasury it on this legislation and it was before the senate. the states are there to help out. the relationship with the states has been built. this is one of the finest days

for consumer protection in the history of our country, i believe. i am proud to of played a small part in it. i am proud of my colleague. now we can partner with this new bureau to protect americans in their financial transactions as never before. i would like to introduce lisa madigan. she is the attorney general of illinois. she has been one of our leaders in the mortgage area. she is an incredible things for her citizens. -- she has done incredible things for her citizens. you oneat to be with this incredible day. >> thank you very much. let me add knowledge all of the work that tom miller has done for decades now. he has a great understanding of the impact of predatory lending.

because what we have seen over the last decade in terms of predatory and on fair lending, it got us where we are today. we wish it would not have taken the almost collapse of our national economy to have these reforms put in place, but today is historic. it is an historic day for the people of the united states. when it comes to the safety and the fairness in erica track -- financial transactions. american families and businesses and now know that be will have to act strong federal enforcement and federal advocacy. the creation of a consumer financial protection bureau is long overdue. with a strong leader at that bureau, we will ensure that

consumers are able to engage in a fair fight with wall street and with banks. for too long, that has been missing. we are also very happy that this new law retained the authority of state level enforcers so that we can continue to go after predatory and abusive and unfair lending practices when we see them. general miller and other attorney general's throughout the country have long been engaged in fighting the most abusive practices of the mortgage giant in our country. it has been over a decade, 12 years at this point, when we first initiated an investigation into first alliance mortgage company. after that, it was countrywide. i have a lawsuit against wells fargo and a new lawsuit against countrywide. these are companies that have

eviscerated lending standards. that was at the heart of our economic crisis. today is not just a historic day, but it is a long overdue day, one where we know that at the state level, we will now have a strong consumer partner. we also know that we have a commitment to ensuring that this type of financial collapse never happens again. i would like to applaud the president for his division, congress for their courage, and all the consumer advocates for their tireless work. especially that of elizabeth warren. i think she would be an excellent head of that bureau. with that, let me introduce the attorney general from the state of massachusetts, martha copley. she has been engaged in numerous substantial significant lawsuits and settlements tralee holding wall street accountable for their practices.

she has been a great partner with the other state attorneys general in this fight. we are proud to have her here today. >> it is a pleasure to be here with my colleagues on this day, the signing of this bill. our congratulations to congressman frank and senator dodd for the tireless work they did. the work they did in this process in working with attorneys general and the reason we are here today is because of the city's financial problems first. you heard tom talk about his work and lisa talk about her work. when i came in as attorney general in massachusetts, where were beginning to look at subprime mortgages. we began and continue to look at how this came about that so many homes are ending up in foreclosure. what is the history behind it? frankly, we talked with congressman frank and senator dodd, which explain to them what we had seen by way of loans

being made or there was no ability to repay. we saw they were making loans only because they could make fees and money off of them. even in our supreme judicial court, this is an unfair and deceptive action. to make loans to people who cannot repay and are destined to fail. it had been identifying these trends, these risky financial practices and products that have allowed us have a remedy that says not only are we going to look to the help of these institutions, but we're also going to provide for consumers in a way that will protect the entire economy. the work begins today also. we look forward to working with our colleagues at the state level and with congress and the bank regulators at the federal and state level to make sure that it is fair, that the

economy turns around. this should should not be to quash innovation or to put a stop to the economy, to make sure that we are focusing on things that will help the economy. it is a pleasure to be able to state that we see the federal government as a partner for consumer protection and for turning this economy around. thank you. >> do you have an opinion as to who should head the cfp? are you concerned that lobbyists will have undue influence? >> i think i answered personally. i personally believe that elizabeth warren, whose idea this was an to work tirelessly to see this become a reality. i think she would be an

extraordinary head for this bureau. she is somebody that is not only extremely intelligent, but articulate in a way that all of us can understand the importance of consumer protection as well as the history of how we got here today. i would throw my endorsement to her. >> i do not think that anybody would quarrel but with the choice of elizabeth warren. not only was this her idea, but she was such a passionate advocate for the legislation. we worked with her. we all owe a lot to her. in terms of the rules and the lobbyists, we are ready for the fight. there will be a fight. we will be working with the new head of the euro -- the bureau and his employees and staff and that will be an enormous fight. it is incredibly and pour in to the american consumers. -- is incredibly important to the american consumers. lobbyists have less power with

this administration than history. they have gone through this great battle to pass this legislation, fighting off exactly the kind of institutions and forces you have talked about. i am quite confident that they will. they have kept their distance from lobbyists. barack obama campaigns in iowa and believe that his core that this government, this administration was about the public interest, not the special interests. i think that ulrich -- prevail in terms of the rules. we'll look back decades later and see how important this legislation was. >> there is a third vote here for elizabeth warren. she is from massachusetts, of course. we have the incredible privilege of working with her as we look at regulations that the state level. i had the pleasure of call writing an article with her about the need for a consumer

protection focus. not only is she very smart, she is very articulate, and she understands how to translate very complicated talked into what the rest of us can understand. pat is really important for somebody to head up this agency. she is very reasonable and she understands the relationship between the consumer protection peace and promoting a healthier economy and making sure that the bank institutions are sound, but the whole economy is sound, too. she would be a tremendous choice. i cannot think of anybody who would be better. we have seen the lobbyists' activities through this process. the administration desired to move ahead and to be transparent about what is happening. i am encouraged and we are enthusiastic for being able to move forward in a way that is true to the. of this legislation.

>> any other questions? i want to emphasize what my two partners said. the enormous gratitude that the state attorneys have to the congress and to the administration. to this at a ministration fought for years before this legislation and they fought for consumer protection and for the role of states to work with the new department on consumer protection. at least two times. maybe three times. it was the administration that brought it back. at least four or five times, the role of the states were declared dead. it was the administration who brought it back. we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the obama administration and the members of congress. >> thank you.

>> tomorrow morning, we will talk with california representative barbara lee who heads the congressional black caucus. after that, texas congressmen on this week's washington post series on national security. it then the president of the national committee to resort -- preserve social security and medicare on the future of social security. what "washington journal" each morning at 7:00. >> this weekend, clark hoyt on the changing world of the newspaper industry. >> i worry about some of the standards and maintaining journalistic integrity. >> sunday night on c-span. >> founder auto secretary said

-- she has asked for more time to consider that offer. she was fired from her previous position monday night when a video surfaced in the media. the secretary took responsibility for the firing. this is 15 minutes. >> in the conversation, i started off by extending to her my personal and profound apologies for the pain and discomfort that has been caused to her and to the family. over the course of the last several days.

i wanted to give her the opportunity to express what i am sure has been an extraordinary range of emotions that she must have and still probably does have. she was extraordinarily gracious. i wanted to make sure that she understood that i regretted the circumstances and i accepted full responsibility for them. we talked briefly about the process and then i asked if she would be interested in figuring out a way for word that would take advantage of the extraordinary life experience that she has had. she has been a claimant's in a case against the united states department of agriculture and

has experienced some of the prejudice and bias that we still today are dealing with against claims against the department. she has had a broad range of experiences at usda and understands many of the programs. she has an extraordinary history of helping individuals in trouble and she has gone through a very difficult period in the last couple of days. as a result of that experience, she has a unique set of skills which i think would lend themselves to assisting and helping usda as we deal with trying to turn the page on our civil rights chapter, which has been difficult to great the last 18 months, we have spent a good deal of time and effort to try to resolve thousands of claims that have been filed against the usda. we are continuing that work. we had an opportunity to

discuss a unique opportunity here at usda that might be of interest to her. she asks for the opportunity to think about it, which i certainly respected. again, i expressed my deep regrets in apology to her entire family. i advised her that i would be meeting with the press to publicly apologize to her and to express publicly my regret. with that -- >> you said that you take full responsibility. clearly, you seem to have jumped to conclusions early on. why? was there pressure from the white house to make this conclusion here? >> no, there was no pressure from the white house. i want to make sure everybody understands. this was my decision and it was a decision that i regret having

made in haste. you ask why. for the last 18 months, we have really focused on trying to address the longstanding history of civil rights claims against the department. there are outstanding claims brought by black farmers, hispanic farmers, women farmers, and native american farmers. these are not just a few isolated claims. these are tens of thousands of claims. i made it as a goal when i took this office that we would try to reverse that history, we would try to close that chapter, that we would be a department that would not tolerate in any way, shape, or form discriminate -- tolerate discrimination. i still hold the believe very firmly and i know surely dead as well. -- shirley does as well.

one of the lessons i have learned is that these types of decisions are required time. i did not take the time. i should have. as a result, a good woman has gone to a great difficult periods. i will have to live with that for a long, long time. >> when he made the decision to dismiss her, had only seen the clip that was shown on the web? >> i saw a transcript. i was out of the office. i was an ohio. i saw a transcript. it was just a portion of its. >> she has told cnn that cheryl cook called her and asked her to resign and said that the white house had made the decision.

is that true? >> first of all, i indicated to shirley my personal regrets and responsibility that she received multiple phone calls. that is a problem that i could have corrected if i had done his job properly. having said that, there was no pressure from the white house. this was my decision. i was not party to those conversations. it may very well be that during the course of the conversation, ms. cook indicated that a white house liaison had been contacted, but i do not know that she necessarily indicated that there was any pressure. that was not the case. this was something that i decided. i have to accept full responsibility for this. >> [inaudible] >> we have a number of people in

the white house that we communicate with from time to time when there are issues just to keep them informed. this was my decision. i appreciate the concerns that folks are expressing great this was my decision and i made in haste. >> what do you say to other employees? >> this is a teachable moment for me and i hope a teachable moment for all of us. it is important to understand that we -- that each of us represents this department. each of us represents the administration and the president. we have got to be very careful about our actions and our words. we have to make sure that we think before we act.

i did not think before i acted. for that reason, this parliament has gone to a very difficult time. -- this port woman has gone through a very difficult time. >> [inaudible] >> we went to a process of reviewing what took place. there will be changes. there needs to be a more deliberative process, obviously, and i need to do a better job of reaching out to get in touch before a decision of this magnitude is made. that is a very serious lesson i learned. i was very sensitive and remained sensitive to the civil rights issues involving his department. again, when you are dealing with tens of thousands of claims, it is something that needs to be resolved that has not been

resolved and must be resolved. we have done two things. we've made a concerted effort to try to resolve these cases. we have also begun a process of looking at our entire operation from an outside consultant to take a look and see whether or not there any other things that we are doing or should not be doing that would potentially lead to claims in the future. we want to put a stop to that. this is a great agency. a lot of hard-working people who care deeply. she is one of them. they are proud of this agency. this is part of our history and we need to close the chapter on. that was foremost in my mind when i made a very hasty decision, which i deeply regret. >> can you elaborate a little more? had you met her previously to today's conversation? what would she not given a more

senior position previously when you were hiring new officials? >> i may very well had visited with her or met her in the context of the larger group meeting. >> you do not recall a specific time? >> no. i do not know for certain whether the development jobless want she specifically saw. i know she was recommended for that job. given her life experiences, as we begin the process of more aggressively doing advocacy and outreach, this is a person, having gone through that process, having gone to the last couple of days, she is uniquely positioned to be able to

identify with a number of different people who might intersect with this agency in an effort to try to make sure that we do not continue to make the same mistakes that we made in the past. i do not really want to go into details. i am happy to do this after she has had a chance to think about this. i want to honor my commitment to her to give her a chance to think about this. i want everyone to know that i value that experience and i think there is a way in which, despite the difficulties that i have put her through, there is an opportunity for the department to be strengthened. at the end of the day, that is what people in this country want. they want to do right by this woman, but they want to make sure that this does not happen again. if there is a way of strengthening the departments, that is my responsibility to explore. i am hopeful that she sees it that way. >> secretary, have spoken to

president obama about this? >> no. >> this is a position that had been looked at previously to this incident? or would this be a new position created as a result? >> it is a position on these to be filled. >> just to be clear, you saw the transcript of the initial video clip. were you aware that it was a partial transcript? >> i had not been aware of it. i talked with her about the fact the officead e-mailed thursday prior to this video becoming an issue. i did not receive the e-mail because it was not addressed properly to me. in other words, the e-mail

address, there was a problem with the e-mail address. it never came to my attention. >> [inaudible] >> she received some indication of this clip being available and she sent an e-mail to me which i did not get. it was not addressed properly. it was also sent to the deputy secretaries attention. we did not discover it until after the fact. that is one of the issues that we are going to address in terms of this review. >> you are taking a personal responsibility for this today. president obama it is your boss. are you saw in the white house for any of this responsibility? >> it is not my place to exalt anybody for anything. i am accepting -- adult anybody

for anything. this is a good woman who has been put through. hell. i could have done a better job. i want to learn from that experience. i want the agency and the department to learn from that experience. i want is to be stronger for it. i want to renew the commitment of this department to a new era in civil-rights. i want to close the chapter on a very difficult period in civil- rights. i accept responsibility. i do not think that the buck stops with me, as it should. >> you decided to fire her and then you notified the liaison at the white house? >> i requested her resignation

about the same time -- these things sort of crossed in time. i am not certain in what period of time the white house was contacted, but at these calls were being made, the white house was aware. the decision to do what was done was done by me. it was my decision and it was communicated and one of the lessons learned here is that this type of decision should have been communicated by me. it should have been done in a much more personal way. it should have been done with far more thought. it should have been done with far less haste. all those are my responsibility. i asked for her forgiveness and she was gracious enough to extended to me. for that, i am thankful.

>> c-span is now available and over 100 million homes bringing you a direct link to public affairs, politics, and history. created by america's cable companies. >> coming up later on c-span, a hearing on the gulf of mexico oil spill compensation program. after that, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke testified on capitol hill. the senate today agreed to extend unemployment benefits. the measure now moves to the house for a vote. here is part of today's debate. here is barbara boxer and tom colbert. i want to say that the senator from vermont speaksn very clear wor and when he says this debate is about whose side you're on, he couldn't be more on target. i mean, we have a situation

where we know when president obama took office and the democrats increased the majorities, we inherited the worst recession since great depression. those aren't just words. that's a fact. and we inherited the worst deficit ever because under the republicans the hugest tax cuts ever to people earning more than $1 million a year or $1 billion a year went right on the credit card. two wars went right on the credit card. nothing paid for. and then at the end of george bush's term when we started to see jobs being lost, 700,000 jobs a month, that's when we took over. and we took some tough votes and we said to the american people, we're going to focus like a laser beam on jobs and this economy and we're going to get

back on our feet. and, yes, we're going to tackle that deficit. i happened to have the privilege of being sent here by my state when bill clinton was president of the united states. and you know what? he inherited huge deficits, mr. president. and he inherited a tough economic time and we proved that we could both balance the budget and create 23 million jobs. and when george w. bush took the keys to that oval office, it took him a matter of minutes, figuratively -- a matter of minutes to turn surpluses into deficits and to bring down the jobs market until we got to a point where we were losing and hemorrhaging jobs at 700,000 a month. this is important for us to remember. because it is this day where we say to our republican friends, if you care about the people who are trying desperately to get jobs, if you care about people

who have been hit by this great recession, then come with u us -- come with us. work with us. let's make sure that we are there for those who deserve to have this help. and, by the way, if i could say, the rules that go along with getting this unemployment extension, people don't talk about that much. you have to prove that you are ready, willing to work. you have to prove that you are actively seeking a job. you can't have been fired for cause. and, by the way, you have had to have paid in to the unemployment insurance fund as well. this is unemployment insurance that the workers have paid into. and these are people who are actively seeking work. and guess what? when they get there, they find out there are five job seekers

for every job. so we say to our friends on the other side of the aisle, where's your heart? where's your heart? a couple of them proved that they stepped up and -- and voted with us on this. that's all. and when history is written, i think this time is going to go down as a time when right triumphed over wrong because we did get these votes. but guess what? even though the other side knows we have these other votes they are stalling and stalling and stalling. and having us vote on amendments that would give the wealthiest americans their tax cuts without paying for it. so when a deficit is caused by helping those who earn a million a year or a billion a year, oh, they're happy with that. but when you try to help mainstream america, middle-class america, the hard-working people, oh, my goodness.

where are they? they're not here. only to delay, they're here. they're here to delay. this is an important moment in history because we always had bipartisan support for extending unemployment compensation. by god, we had it when george w. bush was president in 2003, the republicans joined with us and extended unemployment. no problem. so i don't know where this is coming from. and you're going to hear, oh, the deficits. that's hogwash. they admit it. they admit it. they don't care about deficits when they're cutting taxes for their friends. they said it. it doesn't matter. i have chapter and verse quotes from their leadership. so this is about values. it's about whose side you're on. and i'm on the side of the american people, the working people, most of us. bernie sanders is on that side and the republicans who are joining us in this vote today are on that side today.

this is a history-making day. it's the first time we've ever had a standoff on this issue. it's the first time we've ever seen the republican party walk away from working americans like this. and, again, when i was here and we balanced the budget, we created surpluses, the republicans weren't with us on that. i can honestly say i voted to balance the budget and we did it. and we know how to do it and we're going to do it. but don't turn your backs on people who paid into the unemployment compensation fund. it's insurance and they paid into it and they have to be actively seeking work. i want to read to you a couple of stories from my state of real people. but before i do, i want to talk about mark zandi. mark zandi, a chief economist at

moody's was one of the top economic advisers to then republican presidential candidate john mccain. he says that every dollar invested in unemployment benefits, such as we're going to vote today, produces $1.61 in economic activity. the c.b.o. estimates it i is $1.90. why is that? it's because the people who are getting these funds to survive are going to spend it in the local economy. they're going to go out to the supermarket. they're going to go to the local gas station. economists have all -- of all stripes agree that there's an actual return on investment here. let alone the morality of standing up for people who, through no fault of their own, cannot find a job. let me read when a sacramento woman said to me. days go by when i hardly sleep at all, she wrote, worrying

about our bills. since my benefits were cut off on july 1, at the end of my first extension, we've had to concentrate all of our income on paying the rent and buying food and gas. i have not been able to pay any of our other bills. i do not know how long we can make it like this. i don't know how long we can make it like this. and our friends are stalling and stalling and stalling. two months already they've stalled. a city planner from los angeles writes, "the effects of the recession were especially acute for anyone whose industry was decimated by the financial crisis. since municipalities are struggling and real estate development is frozen, jobs in my industry are few. my unemployment check stopped abruptly before the week of the fourth of july. i thought it must be a mistake only to find that the benefits ended because congress didn't pass the federal extension."

another californian said, "i'm very scared. i'm very scared of what might happen if i lose the unemployment income. we don't want to lose our home. my children catch me crying at time and ask me, "were are you -- why are you crying mom?" i can't tell them. please pass the bill until this economy strengthens and more companies start to hire again." if people on the other side of the aisle can have a good night's sleep knowing this is what's happening in the greatest country in the world on our watch, then fine for them. but i have to tell you, mr. president, this is a defining moment of who we are as a nation -- as a nation. i actually have an experience of a political analyst -- i would say -- someone who comments on

politics say, well, you can understand why people might need two yachts, one on each coast. you know what? we better get back to the basics here. people who need to feed their families. people who need to pay their rent. people who don't want to lose their homes. now, we have to do everything we can to revitalize the jobs market. we have taken it from 700,000 jobs lost a month under the republicans and we've turned it around, but not fast enough, not far enough. that's why the bills we pass here are so critical. but we have no cooperation on that. it would be one thing if the other side said, you know, let's not do unemployment, but let's work on jobs bills. oh, no. they don't want to work on jobs bills. we have a small business jobs bill where we're praying to god -- i am -- that we get one or two republicans. and this is a bill that's

supported across the board, this small business board. by chambers of commerce, everybody -- and i know, mr. president, how hard you've worked to make sure our community banks can start lending again to small businesses. i've been to nine cities in my state. i met with small businesses. they want access to credit. this small business bill is a terrific bill. and we can leverage without accost -- without it costing the federal government a dime. these loans to qualified small businesses through qualified and strong community banks and leverage all of this to be a huge stimulus and actually has because of the paybacks to the government we even make a little bit on it. but we don't have our friends helping us with that either. after this stall this unemployment bill, which they'll stall into the night. hey, it's their right. it's their right. but it's my right to talk about

how i feel about it. they'll start stalling small business just like they stalled the tax breaks that they claim they want. they stalled the bill that would have given the research and development tax credit to businesses all over this great nation that need that tax break. they've stalled a lot of other tax breaks to businesses. there's huge tax breaks for small business in the small business bill that they are stalling. so this is a moment in history. this is a moment when partisanship is way ahead of the needs of the people of this great nation. and i think it's a sad day when some of my republican friends go down here and start to demean the people -- the people like the ones who wrote to me. the woman who said, "i'm scared of what might happen if i lose

this unemployment income. we don't want to lose our home. my children catch me crying and ask me, why are you crying, mom? i can't tell them. please pass this bill until this economy's strength -- this economy strengthens." i'll make this commitment, if we have to stay here until 1:00 a.m., 2:00 a.m. i don't know what the other side -- they've got their plan of delaying this. we'll stay here until we get it done. but we're getting it done because it's the right thing to do. because it's the right thing to do to people who are actively seeking jobs, who have lost jobs through no fault of their hone, who have -- their own and paid into the compensation fund. and then we're going to work to create those jobs so we don't have to be here again and againing to this. there are things we can do to set the stage for economic recovery. we've done some of them. i've met the workers, i've met the workers in my state who were

working on the 405 freeway, the 215 freeway, the 805 freeway, the sacramento airport, the tunnel extension, the doyle drive extension. all up and down my state, i've met those workers who have those jobs because of the economic recovery act. and our republican administration in california has stated that at least 150,000 jobs have been saved or created, and other studies show it's more than that. it's not enough. we have to keep working at it, and i am sad to say that all we can hope for are two or three republican votes at that. we are grateful to those brave republican senators who help us. we are grateful. i thank god for them that they have the courage to stand up and

say yes to the american people, yes to america's families and no to partisan politics. i am so grateful to them. now, when i say that, it probably hurts them on the other side there. i don't mean to do that. i'm just being honest about how i feel about it. if anyone ever tells you one vote doesn't make a difference, let me tell you one vote makes a difference. we swore in a new senator from west virginia to take the place of a leader, robert c. byrd, who lived his life for working people, for the workers in the mine, and how appropriate it was that his first vote was to help working people, working people who through no fault of their own can't find work. so, mr. president, i'll wrap up at this point. i am ready, so ready for this final vote, and if we have to stay here through five motions and debate the fact that the

wealthiest americans, billionaires shouldn't have to help us with this recession, i'm happy to do it. i'm a believer that we all have to do our share. we all have to work together, and hopefully tonight, whatever time it is or early hours of the morning, my constituents, 200,000-plus in california, 200,000-plus, will be able to look at their kids and smile a little and say honey, we still have a chance, we're going to get out of these tough times. honey, we're going to do it. and that's -- that's what this place should be about at a time like this. creating the policies that create the jobs, working together to do it, but never forgetting there are people who just need that bridge until when

they go for jobs there is not four other people there for the same job, mr. president. and that day will come if we can work together, and i make that commitment. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: you know, i've sat and listened to my colleague from california, and i am somewhat amazed to think that she would imply that we don't care about the unemployed. the fact is we do. i went through the list of the things she mentioned and the senator from vermont. i wasn't here in 2001. i wasn't here in 2003. i wasn't here when both wars were initiated. i had no part in any of that. but even had i been, the fact is is we can help two groups of people with this unemployment insurance. there isn't anybody on our side of the aisle that doesn't think

we ought to pass extended unemployment benefits, and to state or imply that is absolutely absurd. it's not about stalling. the majority leader of the senate did not allow one amendment, not one amendment to allow us an opportunity to have your vote on whether we ought to pay for it. the question isn't whether or not we help the unemployed. every time we have offered ways to do that. as a matter of fact, five times it's been rejected that, in fact, our grandchildren shouldn't have to pay for the unemployment benefits of the people that are unemployed today. five times it's been rejected. multiple times, we have chosen to not do the responsible thing for two groups of people. it's very easy to get on the senate floor and throw darts at people who have a drastic disagreement on where we stand in this country today,ut to

imply they don't care is out of bounds. the people in oklahoma who are not getting an unemployment eck today i care about just as much as the people who are getting -- that don't have a job that aren't getting one. but there is another group of people that i'm pressed to serve in oklahoma as well, and that's their children, and the assumption that this body can make that we can't make the hard choices to eliminate things that are much less important, much more wasteful, absolute waste of federal dollars and eliminate those things to pay for unemployment insurance is out of the bounds of reality. my colleague from california mentioned several times that all the peoe that are getting these extended benefits have paid into a fun

they have paid zero. this is the extended benefits. the extended benefits are 100% paid for by federal tax dollars. it's the 26-week, the routine notre dame that is paid for through the unemployment fund, so the extended benefits, long-term benefits don't come from any pot of moneyxcept the pot of money of our grandchildren's future. so let's -- let's put to rest -- there isn't a republican or a democrat or an independent in this body that doesn't want these folks to get unemployment -- extended unemployment benefits. we do. the question comes is at a time when we're going to borrow $1.6 trillion this year alone, that's what we're going to borrow, against the future of our children, of whether or not maybe we can find $30 billion that doesn't comenywhere close to the priorities of helping people who are unemployed today.

so i reject out of hand the idea that we don't have any compassion the fact is we do. as a matter of fact, our compassion is both short term and long term because we're thinking about the habits of congress that continually puts the credit card into the machine and borrows against the prosperity and well-being of the generations that follow us. so let's not have any more talk about the fact that we don't want people to have unemployment. we do. we do want them to have unemployment. multiple times, we had offered ways for that. and it may -- it may, in ft, pass this afternoon or early this evening that we're going to extend them and not pay for them, but as the senator from colorado -- i mean from california said, it's a defining moment. it certainly is.

is the federal government in this time of difficult economic situation, are we going to at least make some small attempt to rein in the $300 billion worth of waste, fraud and duplication in the federal government? and the answer we get is no. discretionary programs over the last two years, not counting the stimulus. we can have the stimulus debate some other time. discretionary programs in the last two years have risen 19.6%. when the average wage in this country went up less than 2%. the federal government is now twice as big as it was in 1999, not countinghe stimulus. we he 6,400 sets of duplicative programs that the body won't touch. none of them have metrics.

they are all designed to do good things for people. they're highly inefficient, they're highly ineffective, and yet what we'll do is not that hard work to get rid of the things that aren't working. we'll just charge our children so we can say we took care of unemployment. well, hard times require hard decisions. and what we're seeing is the easy way out. the easy way out is to not pay for this. the easy way out is to charge it to our childrennd our grandchildren. there's no difference in the level of compassion. everybody wants to take care of those that are unemployed unempe that are struggling. the easy way is to put it on the back of our children and grdchildren. the question reall comes down is will we do the best right thing for the country? will we do the best right thing for the country or will we do

the easy thing? the politically expedient tha i can do class envy, i can make somebody look bad because they didn't agree with me on the timing of something, or will we really act as a body that wl ensure both caring for the now and ensuring the future? you see, it's easy to spend money that you don't have in the senate in thenited states of america. the bias is for it. the hard thing is to take and do the best right thing. and my colleague many of which on both sides of the aisle, in numerous cases over the last five and a half years, have too often done the easy thing.

and we have all these fingers pointing that this administration did this and this administration did this. i'll tell you what, there is plenty of problems for every administrati, every political party to be considered guilty on, because too often both groups have done the short-term politically expedient thing rather than the best right thing for the country. you know, i had at one of the events that one of my staff attended this weekend an individual in oklahoma who was -- who lost his unemployment insurance, and he said you tell dr. coburn to beure and continue to pay for it because i want my unemployment insurance, i need my unemploymt, i won't be able to make my house payments unless i get that, but i don't want that to come from my children and grandchildren. i want it to come from the excesses and waste of washington today. so that there is another

viewpoint even though we hear like that is a critically nonpertinent viewpoint. this isn't a partisanssue. this isn't a delaying tactic. this is a real philosophical difference on how do we get out of the mess that we're in. a lot of my colleagues aren't happy that i'm a republican a lot of times because i go after my party just as much as i go after anybody else's. but the fact is is core principles matter. go look at the history of republics. the senator from california talks about a defining moment. the defining moment for the athenian republic was when they started spending money that they

didn't he on things they didn't need. here's our option today, and the reason we didn't have motions is because we were given no opportunity to amend. that's the only reason you have motions to suspend the rule. it has nothing to do with a delaying tactic. it has to do with real date and offering of amendments, a senator's right to offer amendments in this body. and the senator from california would be doing the same thing if the shoe was turned the other way. if she were precluded from offering amendments, she would find out a way to offer an amendment. if she felt from a position, a conscientious position that can be defended on the basis of facts. you don't have to agree with it, but you can't deny that there are economic factors that should play in how we pay for unemployment insurance. youan demean us, you can say 're mean, you can say we don't care, but the fact is none of that is true. it's an absolute untruth. so the defining moment is will we embrace the quality that

built this country in the first place, and that's being responsible for the problems that are in front of us and not shifting that responsibility to generations that follow. that's what this debate is all about. younow, when we left here for one break, we h agreed with senator reid and senator lin about extending unemployment insurance and we were toldy the eaker of the house that she wasn't about to set the precedent of starting to pay for unemployment insurance. well, why not when we have a $1.6 trillion deficit, when we have $13.3 trillion worth of debt as i stand here today, when we are mortgaging the future of our children, we're stealing opportunity away from them as we sit and do it. why not? why not meet the challenges that are in front of us by responding in a way that says meeting people's needs today are

important and it's important we not take away from the needs of the future as we do that? and yet, we're lectured that it's a partisan debate. there's nothing partisan about this. in my soul, i want to help everybody out there that's unemoyed and facing a tough time today. but also in my soul is i don't want a mortgage the future of any more american children when we have tremendous amounts of waste, fraud, and duplication that could easily be eliminated. one of the motions that i'm going to offer is going to cut $40 billion fromhe federal government. america, tell me what part of this you don't agree with. the fact is wre going to ask that we quit wasting money on real property. we spend $8 billion a year maintaining property that we don't want. we've got $80 billion worth of empty buildings.

it's costing us $8 billion a year. should we continue to spend that $8 billion or should we not spend that $8 billion and take that $8 billion and pay for unemployment insurance how about collecting unpaid taxes from federal employees and members of congress, $3 billion. currently hired federal employees already adjudicated they owe $3b. i think we ought to get it back. i don't think we ought to borrow from the future of our children and grandchildren because we don't have the guts to say pay up. quit cheating the federal government, employee of the fedel government. that's a small number in terms of the number of kpwhraoerbgs but that's -- number of employees, but that's a big number, $3 billion. let's have them pay up.

why is it that we're not going to eliminate $8 billion to bonuses of federal contractors who didn't meet the requirements to get a bonus, yet we gave the bonus anyway? why not eliminate that rather than charge this to our children? tell me why you won't vote for that. you think we ought to be paying bonuses to people who don't deserve them -- contractors? $6 billion over a four-year period in just the defense department alone. but you don't want to get rid of that? you'd rather charge the money to our kids than make the hard choice of alienating some defense contractor or some government contractor because they got something they didn't deserve in the past when somebody's unemployed who deserves to get unemployment insurance? i don't understand it.

or eliminating nonessential government travel, one of the things president obama wants to do. we snd billions, $14.8 billion in excess on government travel. we're some of the worst abusers of it. and yet we won't discipline ourselves and set an example that we can use a teleconference rather than getting on an airplane and going somewhere. a vid teleconference. and at a thraoeupblg this when we're -- and at a time like this when we're having an economic problem we won't make the tough choices. what i found is video teleconferences are a whole lot easier than travel. we're not going to make the hard choices. we're not going to tell the agencies they have to do it.

weon't even put on a web site all the times that we violate our own rules on paygo. you know, february 12, we passed a law. it used to be a rule in the senate, but now we passed a law. it's called paygo. it says that you can't have new spending unless you pay for it. you can't have new spending unless you pay for it. and since february 12, when the president signed that law, we ve violated it to the tune of $223 billion that we've said, time out, paygo statute doesn't apply. we don't have to pay for it. we don't have to eliminate all the inefficiencies, all the duplication. we don't have to go after any fraud. we're just going to charge it to our children and grandchildren.

i want to -- where's the integrity in that? where's the integrity? where's the character in that? where's the courage to do the tough thing that accomplishes both helping the people who are unemployed but helping our kids and helping our nation? there's not any. there's none. it's the easy way out. unless you think i'm making this stuff up, let me give you some examples of just federal duplication. and i'll just give you four easy examples. we have 70 different government programs, 70 different sets of bureaucracies that spend billions of dollars a year, none of which have a metric to measure whether they're effective to help people with

food that are hungry. why 70? why across six or seven different agencies? why not one or two programs keenly focused with metrics on them that say are we feeding them minority? why not eliminate 68 sets of bureaucracy and overhead? that's a small one. we have 105 different sets of programs to incentivi our young people to go into math, engineering, science and chnology. $3 billion a year. 105, nine different federal agencies they're not in the department of education. they're everywhere. nobody knows the data, but when you bring the data, nobody will vote to make them accountable, make them transparent, eliminate

the overhead, streamline the bureaucracy. no, we don't want to do that. this body has voted against doing that multiple times, when those amendments have been offered. we have a total of 78 job training programs outside of the department of labor costing billions of dollars a year, none of whichave a metric on them. and yet, we don't want to streamline that, eliminate, get it down to twa or three -- get it down to two or three that really focus on the unemployed chronically, some on the new workers coming in, some that are handicapped that might need special assistance. no. we're going to keep the 78 programs that we have because they're somebody's baby,ll of which are highly efficient and none kr-bg be proven with a metric because they don't have a metric on them. they can't demonstrate they're

effective. the debate isn'tbout whether or not we want to help people who are unemployed. the debate is about whether we want to help the people who are unemployed as well as the generations that follow us. i'm amazed and continue to be so that how easily this by can abandon common sense. and i don't know if we don't have it to begin with or that we're like a magnet and it's two positives and so we repel any common sense. but nobody would run any organization -- private, public, business or anything else -- the way we run the agencies in the federal government. and when you start wanting to do something about it, the only thing you get is "we can't." the american people are asking

for us today please do what you can't do, what you can. wh we can do is we can pay for unemployment for the next multiple periods of months by eliminating things that are absolutely unnecessary. you realize that we can save $4.5 billion over the next ten years by not printing stuff that people don't want. it's all online. we can save $450 million a year just by putting common sense in the government printing office. it's been voted down three times on this floor this year. why not? why do we continue to take the easy task when the future of our country is going to be determined on whether or not we take the hard road and do the hard thing that benefits both the coming generations and those that are experiencing problems today. i tell you why it is.

it's because we say we care, but we really don't. we play the game, but we really don't get in the game. getting in the game means that you get criticized, that you offer up ideas, some of which may work and some may not, but you're not afraid to change the game, because our kids' future, our country'suture dends on changing the game. and what we've heard today is the resistance to changing the game. we don't have a future if we don't start making hard choices. it's an easyhoice for me to vote with the senator from california to pay for unemployment benefits. i want those people to get it.

it's a hard choice for me to vote against it and say let's pay for it. if in fact you'll pay for it, i'll vote with you. it's not like we can't find $40 billion. every third grader in this country can find $40 billion in this budget. there's no rocket science to it. there is so much waste, so much duplication and so much fraud that anybody can find it. the question is: do we have the ll to do the best right thing for this country? you know, one of the things i've learned in five and a half years in this body is that when pple use straw men and people use half-truths, it's usually because they're hiding

something. what's being hidden from the american public today? what's this debate really all about? is it just about unemployment or is it about "we like the way things are. we don't want to change the way things are. we don't want to get out of o comfort zone to solve the real problems of america. and so, therefore, we'll use all sorts of tactics to detphregt what the real -- to deflect what the real issues of the day are." what are they? the senator from california rightly outlines that millions of americans need unemployment compensation right now. all for it. what's the oer truth about where we are? the truth is that this country is on an absolute unsustainable course.

the american people have awakened to it. they know it. as the senator from california knows, this isn't new for me. i've been doing this for five and a half years. so it didn't matter if it was the bridge to nowhere, which a republican authored, or unemployment compensation today, i think we use common sense and do the best right thing for america, not the politically easy thing to do. so the challenge before us today is to go home and explain when this bill passes why we charged it to the least of us. at's who we're charging it to. to the least of us. i told a story not long ago. my profession as a physician, i've delivered nearly 4,0 babies. maybe over that; i quit counting. but the thing that always got me

is when i'm delivering a baby and i've got a mother there and a father, and that baby comes out, and to see the glow on the face and in the eyes of those parents. and the glow is about hope and promise for the future and about what things can be, and the potential that's unlimited when that new life is here. and you see it in the parents, and you see them puff up and say wow wharbgs a if he the senator from -- say wow, what a phenomenon. as i think about what we do today, we're stealing that. we're taking it from those kids. because we refuse to have the backbone and courage to do the hard, yet the best, right thing

for this thing. we'll hear a lot of speeches about how bad we areecause we want to pay for it. we will he a be talked about -- we'll be talked down. i don't want anything to go through this body that isn't paid for. you can count on it every time. everybody on that side. -- everybody on that side knows it. it is not a fetish. i actually recognize the long-term future of this country depends on us getting our fiscal house in order. so it is a defining moment, as the senator from california said. but it is not the defining moment she thinks it is. it's a defining moment whether or not this body is going to grab on and truly accept the responsibility given to us by the american people.

will we truly accept it? and how we act on it dermines our commitment to this country. i don't disagree with those that just want to get it through, get people paid for. they have a right to have that position. i'm not demeaning that position. i'm just saying the country can't last if we keep doing it. our kids don't have a future if we keep doing it. if you look at the budget projections for our country, we will run -- even with the tax increases that are coming at the end of this year, we're going to run trillion-dollar deficits until 2020. let me close with one final thought. we have a $4 trillion budget. we're going to run ads 1.6 trillion deficit this year. that means we're going to borrow that from our children.

the deficit by this time next year will be close to $14 trillion. have you ever thought about what $1 trillion is? my colleague from georgia explained it to me. and so i didn't believeim. i did the math. if you take and spend $1 a second -- and so that means you spend $60 minute or $3,600 an hour. $3,600 an hour. the wealthiest in our country probably don't spend that. but let's say you did. how long would it take to you spend $1 trillion? it's 31,709 years spending $3,600 an hour before you ever get to $1 trillion. you get trillion-dollar

deficits, $34 billion at a time, which is the cost of this bill. the w we stop -- the way we start getti out of debt is to stop adding to it. if you go back to the 12th of february when the law went into effect on paygo and you add this bill to it, we're going to be a quarter of a trillion since february 12 that this body will have added to our children's deficit. it's not your debt. nobody in this room and probably very few people listening to this debate are going to pay one penny against that. it's all going to be borne by the children coming. so what's paygo about? paygo is about this for america: it's you paynd we'll go spend.

and you're seeing evidence of it today on the floor. and it's not just you pay. you pay, your children pay, and your grandchildren pay. you're going to pay with real dollars, but your grandchildren are going to pay with lost opportunity, lower levels of education, lower levels of everything in the future. it doesn't -- there's not one problem in front of this country we can't solve. we can't solve it by borrowing money that we don't have to spend on a good thing, let alone a bad thing, but on a good thing while we allow billions -- hundreds of billions of dollars to be wasted every year in this country. so when you hear the cry that somebody doesn't care, you have to ask the question about what do they care about? can you care for those that are unemployed today and also care for our kids? yeah, you can. and it's really not all that hard. i mean be, the examples of waste

-- i mean, the exales of waste and duplication ... there's $100 billion worth of fraud in medicare that we can document. so there's all things we can do. the question is do we've the courage, will we step up to the line, will we do the best right thing for our children and the unemployed? that's the question. it's not that somebody doesn't have compassion for the unemployed. mr. chairman -- mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: thank you so much, mr. president. and, you know, as senator coburn was talking about the need to balance the budget, i was remembering that i voted to do that. and with the leadership of bill clinton and the democrats, we not only balanced the budget, but we created surpluses, and it was a great feeling.

and we did it, and we know how to do it and we will do it again. but let's talk about what's before us right now. it's not about the unemployed versus our children, our long-term unemployed have children. and these children are seeing their dads and their moms with their heads in their hands and they see tears, and they don't know why. i got the letters from my constituents. they don't know what to tell their kids. they're working so very hard. so let's talk about what's before us today. we know how to get to the balanced budget. that's why we have budgeting. theals why we have authorizing. that's why we have appropriations. and that's why president obama has said he will cut the deficit in half at the end of his first term, and i'm confident that will be the case, and maybe we can even do more. we know how to do that. and i would also say that to

hear the sator from oklahoma say that we're being partisan makes no sense at all. i sang the praises of my publican friends, who have joined with us, in making sure that we can extend unemployment benefits today. i thank god for them, frankly. so this isn't about partisanship. it's about pulling together, as a country, and recognizing that we are in the worst recession since the great depression. it is no time for partisanship. it's time to pull together and help our kids and help our families and help those w through no fault of their own find themselves in this predickment. -- predicament. now, i just want to say, why are we treating this like an emgency? that's what we're doing. it's something that has always been done because it is an

emergency. ronald reagan, president ronald reagan, signed three extensions of unemployment compensation without paying for it, because he felt itas an emergency. andecause he understood what we understand, which is that when you in fact make sure that unemployed people have this insurance, which they paid into, by the wear, that they wil-- by the way, th they will spend it locally and that dollar -- that every dollar of that unemployment compensation brings to the economy either $1.61 under a calculation done by john mccain's economic advisor, mark zandi, or others have said -- c.b.o., congressional budget office, says it yields $1.90.

and some of the proposals we've seen from the other side is to cut other jobs, okay, in order to pay forxtending unemployment benefits. and that's not going to help us at this time. so, yes, i remember the wonderful feeling that i had when we banced the federal budget, when bill clinton was president, when we created surpluses as far as the eye could see, the dt was on the way down, and the minute the republicans took over, they put tax cuts to the wealthiest on that credit card, they put two wars on the credit card, spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, and all that work that we did was, unfortunately, reversed. but what's before us today is a very simple proposition. and my friend from oklahoma says he ces deeply about the unemployed. i have no reason to doubt that. he should join us today.

he should join us today in voting to extend these benefits. ronald reagan saw it clearly, extended it three times, put it on the emergency, because it is an emergency, and he knew it was counterproductive to cut other jobs, to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits. we know how to balance this budget. paygo is a part of it. paygo -- you pay for everythg you do, except emergencies. that's what we shod be doing, because to do it otherwise really is counterproducti. i am so grateful that we are nearing the point where we can extend these benefits. and, yes, we've been delayed. we've been delayed for two months. and i read letters intohe record before. here's one.

"i've kept up a relentless job search. i have applied for at least 600 jobs. 600 jobs. and this is discouraging, not receiving any informati back. days go by when i hdly sleep at all, worrying about the bil bills. we've had to concentrate all of our income on paying the rent and buying food and gas. i can't pay for other bills." another californian, "i'm very scared of what might happen ifi lose the unemployment income. my children catch my crying at times and ask me why are you crying, mom? i can't tell them. please pass this bill until this economy strengthens." so this isn't about, again, the way the senator from oklahoma phrases it, he makes it sound like children aren't involved in

this situation. they are. they're the children of the unemployed. and so it is really clear -- it is really clear that, yes, we're going to have to tackle the deficits. of course we're going to have to tackle the deficits. we don't need to be lectured about that, because we're eight party that did t we're the party that created the balanced budget. we're the party that created the surpluses, plus 23 million jobs. and the other side, unfortunately, didn't take them very long to turn that whole thing around. and this economy went into a ditch, and we are working hard to get it out of this ditch. so i would like to close with this: let's take care of this emergency. it's going to help our families. it's going to help our children. it's go to help our local communities when people can go down and buy theas at the

local gas station, buy the food at the local grocery store, and be able to be stable in the community. and let's get back immediately to working on bills that a going to create jobs. the small business bill that the senator from oregon has worked so hard on, the senator from louisiana has worked so hard on, and many of us have worked with them, that's a good bill, that's a 100% paid for. it even has a plus to it. its a going to create jobs -- it's going to create jobs through small business. small business creates more than 0*e6% of the jobs in this country -- more than 60% of the jobs in this nation. we've chance to helphose who are struggling get that bill behind you go to the small business bill. we're going to need 60 votes. they're filibustering that as well. so everything we do takes 60 votes. and if i read the lt of supporters for the small business bill, it includes the chamber of commerce, the regional chambers of commerce,

and businessesnd community banks. they want to see this bill happen. because our small businesses need access to credit. our very good small businesses are being turned away. visited so many of them. they're thriving even in this climate. buthey need to expand, and they can't get access to the capital. so, please let's not see a filibuster there as well. please let's not see delay there as well. let's do this unemployment compensation, get the assistance to the people who deserve it, those who are actively seeking work, who can't find it through no fault of their own, who paid into unemployment compensation fund, let's get that behind us. that will help our communities. then let's get to the small business bill. it's a small business jobs bill.

let's do the right thing. we can get this economy back on its feet, but we need to work >> later in the day, the senate passed the legislation to extend benefits. two republican senators were the only republicans to support the measure. the final vote was 59-39. the house should take up the measure tomorrow. if it passes, it does to the president for his signature. watched live senate coverage on c-span2 and house coverage here on c-span. you're watching public affairs programming on c-span. up next, can feinberg talked about the oil spill compensation fund. after that, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke says that the u.s. unemployment rate will

likely stay above 7% through 2012. affairs>> c-span -- our public content is available on television, radio, and online. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for schedule alert e- mails at c-span.org. >> now kenneth feinberg testified about his role as the administration of that $20 billion bp cut oil spill compensation fund. this portion of the hearing is one hour and 20 minutes. we begin with mr. feinberg is opening stained it. -- mr. feinberg's opening statement. >> i appreciate the opportunity to testify before this committee. the questions that have been raised are what i expected in

appearing before this committee over and over again over the years. i will try to address briefly in some fashion what i am doing and answers to some of these questions and then whatever the committee's pleasure, i will respond. i am in charge of an independent gulf coast claims facility under the arrangement entered into between the administration and bp. i am designing and administrating an independent facility. i am beholden to night did the administration or bp. i work with the people of the cult who are in desperate straits and seek financial assistance from this facility. it will be up and running next month in august. it will transition from bp -- i give bp some credit, they have already paid out over $200

million in claims. we can do better, more efficiently, but unlike 9/11 are some of these other tragedies, there is an infrastructure in place which i will modify. i am accompanied by the people helping me modify that. all from my staff, working with me in transitioning from bp to this the facility which will completely replace bp in terms of the processing of claims. there are already 36 regional offices around the gulf that are accepting claims, processing claims, and we can do it better. but there is an infrastructure in place to help deal with this issue.

this tragedy. i drafted in circulated a draft protocol, merely a draft, and received comments from state attorneys -- state attorneys general, from the department of justice, from businesses and individuals. i have received some very valuable input from the staff of this committee, and over the last week i have been reviewing and evaluating the comments raised by some members said to me by staff in reviewing the draft protocol that i circulated. i will have a new draft in the next few days which i will again sent to the staff of this committee and urged input from this committee as we move forward. the questions posed by the committee members today are the very questions posed by the

staff and my ongoing communications with staff of this committee. no staff of any committee in the congress has been more active in advising need than the house judiciary staff. and i am thankful to them in that regard. finally, in summary fashion, a response to the questions posed by committee members. yes, the process has to be much quicker. we will accelerate it. it must be more transparent -- that data that has been provided to the members of this committee is inadequate, it does not provide sufficient sunshine on help bp has been processing claims. we will do a much better job. i agree with the chairman and i guarantee this committee, we will have at every location in

the called interpreters, translators in vietnamese, cambodian, what ever is necessary to make sure that they understand their rights and their obligations. if they decide voluntarily to file for the protocol. we will, congressman, guarantee to deal with the problem of fraud. in the 9/11 fund, as chairman nadler will recall, in the 9/11 fund, we had 7300 applications. 35 were fraudulent. that is how careful we were in processing claims. the department of justice criminal fraud division is working with us in this gulf coast claims facility is to minimize the likelihood of fraud. we will have internally the ability of fraud at audit and

expertise. nothing will undercut the credibility of this program more than fraud and i am very mindful of that concern, and we will deal with it. attorneys -- we had in and paralyzed from bono program of attorneys in 9/11. i am now working with the american association of trial lawyers, with the attorneys general -- the attorney general of florida and others particularly interested in the pro bono program. we will, i am sure this committee, had a pro bono program up and running to help any claimant who believes that the claim it needs an attorney. that is up to the claimant. we will be able to help process

claims without an attorney. if they want an attorney f. or an accountant or relative, anybody that they want to help them access this program, we will help them. and we will work with them. if they won a private attorney, that is up to them. my calculations and the awards rendered for loss of four physical injury or loss of natural resources, no additional amount for attorneys. they will be between the climate and the attorney. that will not be part of my calculation. on the moratoriums, i have no jurisdiction over the moratorium. bp said aside $100 million to do just with rig worker lost employment are rising out of the

administration's moratorium. that $100 million is in addition to the $20 billion. it is not on my watch. bp and the administration will decide for that $100 million, where the custody should be held, and right now at least i have no jurisdiction over the processing of rig worker claimes are rising out of the moratorium. nor do i have any jurisdiction yet over in the government claims against bp. federal, state, local government claims, lost taxes, lost real estate, sales taxes, clean-up costs, other extended cost, brought by local government, state, federal governments, not part of my jurisdiction. by agreement between the

administration and bp at least for the present, i am dealing only with individual and private business claims. no government claims. that may change, by right now that is the limit of my jurisdiction. the escrow account raised by some members as i expected -- urging me to submit written statements on the representative of bp who he details -- with details in some degree -- where he details in some degree tee details of the escrow account. i am not responsible for or administering that escrow account. i am drawing out of the escrow account to play claims. the details of the escrow account, as one member pointed out, there is not much detail a minute -- available yet on the terms and in -- and conditions of that escrow account.

where will it be deposited? how will it be guaranteed? who would minister the escrow account? i have got enough problems. that is not on my watch. i would think mr. milch has provided some answers. i think that the terms and conditions of that escrow account will be made more available in the next few weeks, certainly in the month of august, as the escrow account is finalized, as this committee has the comfort level that is protected that is safe and secure. somebody raised the possibility of receivership. i think it would be a monumental tragedy is bp was forced into bankruptcy as a result of this bill. it would help nobody. it would not help claimants. it would not help payment of legitimate claims. it would delay everything.

it would put a sizable work force out of work in that region already suffering from unemployment. so just an editorial comment by me -- i will do what i can to make sure that that escrow account pays claes said -- pays claims promptly without the necessity of a horrendous bankruptcy option, which i hope and trust will not be at all imminent. as for congressman nadler's questions about dispersants and late in claims, i think he knows better than anything but probably -- the problem of late and physical claims. he is addressing and now in the 9/11 fund eight years later. i believe the final program of rigid protocol island minister will cover these injury claims. fortunately so far, thank

goodness, there are a modest numbers of the injury claims but nothing like what we confronted in 9/11. the very definition of all late in claims -- of a latent claimants and we may not know it for awhile. i do believe that the final protocol, unlike the current draft, will include physical injuries caused by the cleanup -- not simply by the spill. we're working on that. right now at least i am of the view that we need to get some expertise of the likelihood of late lat --ent -- latent claims. there can be emergency payments without any type of groups whatsoever, the question posed

by chairman nadler is a tough one. yet two for three years from now, there's an opportunity to settle once and for all a claim for respiratory injury, my current thinking is that we should get the best advice possible and require that claimant to voluntarily decide, as in the 9/11 fund, whether to take a lump-sum settlement in full satisfaction for present and future potential injury, or give that claimant an opportunity for a return to the fund later on seeking additional money if the lake and claimed it deteriorates. i am inclined not to do that. there are strong reasons not to do it. but i must say chairman nadler has raised a very important

public policy question about physical injuries and nathan -- late in claims which we will have to address. aboutgot to do something the realtors. the realtors and the real estate brokers are a major political force in louisiana, alabama, mississippi, and florida. i am hearing from them constantly. i am not sure whether or not legally they have a valid claim. under my facility or frankly under existing law, my facility is purely voluntary. they have every right not to opt into our facility and litigate. i am not sure that they can win if they litigate. maybe, maybe not. but i do think the more i visit

the gulf and listen to real estate owners, renters, homeowners, brokers -- the more i become convinced that if i really am going to do justice here, we have got to do something. we have got to do something. and i will have a handle on this within the next week, i would say. i'm very confident of the concerns felt by realtors and real estate brokers about injuries they are suffering as a result of lost contracts, the inability to sell a home, the inability to grant -- rent. i am working for the people of the gulf, not the government or bp, and they make a credible argument that something ought to be done to help them. is $20 billion in up? we will see. i hope so. it is certainly helpful that the

oil has stopped so we have a better handle on the pervasiveness of the spill. so we can stop the -- crawled the likely number of crimes. i am hoping it will be enough. fortunately as you know, if $20 billion proves insufficient, bp has agreed with the administration to step up and pay any additional valid financial obligations that it may have. and that is of very that is a very important point to make. we have the staff and she is in charge of the infrastructure and bp has a 1500 people working in the gulf right now on claims. we will supplement. we will reorganize. we will restructure as

necessary. i assure this committee that we will have the staff to deliver the goods under this facility. two other final points -- what about congressman scott's point? what about the number of people of people who work off the books? how are we going to deal with all cash? lost wages, for example. this is tough. i am told that everybody in the gulf -- there is nothing illegal about cash. i am suggesting that you have to corroborate or prove you're lost. i cannot just take your word for it. how are we going to demonstrate, corroborate, approved lost cash emergency payments?

show me your tax returns. some of the people in the gulf say they lost their tax returns. what about a profit loss? what about a letter from your ship captain dobbin for the payments? -- and vouching for the payments? i will bend over backwards to help anybody who claims lost wages or lost business in an all cash business. i have to work out some criteria. they must receive a 1099 from a facility. i cannot violate federal law. i am very cognizant of that problem. finally, i am very cognizant of the problems raised by various members of what constitutes it -- constitutes an eligibility plan. if you are a beachfront

restaurant and there is well on the beach, you have lost business. it is easy if you're a fisherman and you cannot fish. you cannot harvest trend. -- shrimp. those cases are the easy cases. is the tough case. i own a 20 -- a hotel at 20 miles from the beach. i have lost 30% of my guests because of the spill. i do not use the beach. i did not fish. but my tourism is down. is that an eligible claimants? i sell t-shirts on the beach. that is my job. i sell t-shirts to to arrest. the beach is fine. the swimming is great. nobody is coming to the beach. i cannot sell t-shirts. i live in knoxville, tenn., and

i make the t-shirts that he sells. at some point, if you have to decide, it is a judgment call. this side of the line, eligible. this side of the line, ineligible. if you are on this side of the line, you are eligible because if you brought a lawsuit in alabama or louisiana or virginia or florida, you would win. i do not want you to have to litigate for five years. come on in and we will settle the case and we will pay you. on this side of the line, if you litigate, even under the federal law, which is more lenient than state law, i did not think you are going to win. i think you are on a fool's mission.

i want to do something. various members talk about justice and right thing to do. how i draw that line between a valid claim the, and may be valid claim, and in a valid claim, i am open to suggestions. at some point, this draft protocol become a final protocol. i will have to make some tough decisions. it goes with the territory. i am prepared to do it. it is not just the starting point. if i was not around and there was no facility and people litigate causation, at how far down the chain would go before the courts would say, as a matter of public policy, your claim cannot be recognized? how much beyond that will i go

in the interest of justice and fairness? those are the questions i am grappling with right now. here is my extended opening statement. i tried to enter as many of the questions i could. now i am available for further questions. >> thank you, sir. i want to recognize myself for the first round of questioning. you have addressed many of the questions i was going to ask. you have listed them. i want to explore in a little greater depth. obviously, where you draw the line -- this is a very serious question. for example, i hope you are not going to do what bp did initially and say that people

within a block of the beach can be damaged. that is absurd. for example, a small business in the mississippi, they have been devastated because so many oysters or out of work. the honor has -- what is your current thinking about how far to draw the line? >> first of all, in mississippi, that a claimant who makes a burlap bags would be well advised to rely on a federal pollution control act. the federal pollution control act would withstand liability under federal law of proximate causation well beyond the law of mississippi. that is point number one. whether or not i would recognize a burlap bags manufacturers in

mississippi, based on your hypothetical, where those burlap bags is dependent on fishing in the gulf, yes. whether that a burlap bag manufacturer should get one under% of this loss -- one under% of his loss or 30% of his loss, i would have to look at that. is he a direct victim of this bill? and i would come up with some way of compensate. >> let me ask you this. you raise an intriguing question.

why would you question whether he should get to a recovery of 100%? >> his causation is fairly direct. he may be an industry totally dependent on fishing of the gulf. if he comes to me and says, you know, i do some march in the gulf, fishing. -- i do some work in the golf, fishing. then it is a different question. >> let me go to the question of litton industries. -- leighton's industries. -- latent industries. >> the big problem that you have is that someone comes to you and says my beachfront house was damaged. i lost my job, but i got it back. it is six months of lost wages.

i want to recover. five years later, he comes down with a disease that is directly related to is having an held -- and hailed whatever key in hailed and a few years later, he came down with the disease directly. willie before closed for sicknesses that he cannot possibly -- will he be foreclosed for sicknesses that he cannot possibly have diagnosed initially? is he going to be foreclosed from seeking recovery from that if he already got a recovery for property injury or lost wages? if so, why? >> right now, he would be. in other words, right now, i would say -- is a tough call.

you are giving me a hypothetical which i have not thought of. if someone receives a check for the damage to their property. right now, as a condition of taking that checked, that individual would release the facility, released a bp from any or all feature injuries. >> that is one point, as you prop -- finalize the protocol that should be reconsidered. we have no idea how prevalent this is going to be. this may be rare, god willing, it may be much less.

certainly, we know from experience, that there will going to be -- there are going to be people who have no symptoms, but a few letters later, they will come down with something. we know that a certain number of people -- there is no way that that person can participate? >> i cannot think of a reason why in order to get the obvious recovery that he needs to get on with his life right away because of lost wages or whatever, why they should have to sign a way things that maybe -- that may become extraordinarily difficult and expensive. it seems to me that there ought to be some provision so that if a sickness that can be traced

back becomes evident later, that can be looked at then. >> you pose a tough hypothetical. the other hypothetical deposited in your -- positive in your opening comments is a tough one, but not as tough. if somebody comes to the facility now with a respiratory entry -- injury, i am 20% disabled and offer a total release so that if you become 60% disabled, you cannot come back to the facility. that poses a difficult equitable argument on both sides, not just one side. i found in the nine -- >> on that one, with proper guidance, the victim and the

designers can have some idea of what the likelihood is of a 20% disability becoming a 16 percent -- 60% disability. 50% of the people are going to come down with something, but you do not know who. >> you anticipated my answer. the first one is a tough one. >> let me make it even worse. let's assume that the joke below present himself -- joe lblow has some kind of respiratory disease. >> that is nowhere as difficult for me as your first hypothetical involving business damage with the symptoms at all. that last hypothetical, a blood cancer or whatever, is a medical issue.

at least his physical health has been flagged by the respiratory issue. your first hypothetical is a horror. there, i am selling an economic claim in getting a release and later on, i get a physical injury. that is the toughest of all. >> my time has expired. i will leave you to allow some leeway for these kinds of claims to be considered later as they arise. >> i thank you. i recognize the distinction stemming from virginia. >> i very much appreciate your exposition on how you are tackling this. this is quite different. maybe this is the mother of all claim funds compared to earlier ones because the universe is so much greater. in fact, it is really unknown.

with 9/11, you had a limited universe. i represent southwest virginia right now. we very much appreciated the work that you did to help the victims of that tragedy. and again with the tarp compensation issues. bp already has in excess of 100,000 claims. that may just be the beginning. given -- given that it will take a large number of claims evaluators to evaluate all of these claims, what will be done to ensure there is consistency in the evaluation so that the guy in one village says, my compensation for my fishing laws is nothing compared to what they did in the adjoining state where you have a whole bunch more money? >> she is the expert in dealing

with that question for the last month. we are going -- we are setting pop -- setting up a centralized system that will have local claims evaluators submitting their claims to centralized system. you are going to go down there in the next week's, a train local people in each of 35 office -- offices. congressman, you are onto something here. nothing will undercut the credibility of the system. we have got to make sure -- and we're confident of this -- that throughout the gulf, we will have local people trained to apply the same standards of eligibility and calculation, standardize methodologies, so that nobody will say, there was

bias, inconsistency, or fraud. we will address those problems. >> for the 9/11 fund, you were able to prevent fraud. but that -- the affected population must narrow and easy to determine. what's steps are you going to take to prevent fraudulent claims being paid? >> thank goodness for the department of justice career people in the criminal -- we are talking with them. we are coordinating with them. whistle-blower numbers if somebody since that -- suspect somebody of fraud. we will have some very effective deterrence from the criminal

division, the real experts downtown on fraud. we will also internally have a fraud audits. we will have -- we will retain a fraud experts to check the claims as they come in, verified them, make sure there are not duplicate addresses, duplicate names, false information, the same description that we see time after time. it will immediately triggered segregating that claim. we will do what is necessary to make sure that this committee does not become a critic of the facility in terms of fraud. >> with regard to your role, you mentioned that to bp already has claims adjusters, are you going to fulfil the role of claims adjuster? please be a mediator?

-- will you be a mediator? >> bp is out of the claims business in terms of private, individual business claim spread is dogging transition to me. >> the wall street journal has reported that many affected businesses are concerned that it will be difficult to forecast long-term recovery for some of the aquatic life that they are dependent upon. what assurances can you give fishermen that you'll be able to properly estimate what these damages are going to be? >> i have to definitive answers to those businesses. we have done our best to estimates before we make the offer a long-term damage that you will suffer. we have done our best and we have talked to the experts.

here is a check, if you want it, that will compensate you for your long-term loss. if you believe that that check is insufficient, do not accept it. it is a purely voluntary program. we have done our best to exercise sound judgment as to what your ultimate loss will be. if you think we are incorrect, you are under no obligation whatsoever to accept that a check. you can go about your business. i suspect that that business, if i have done my john wright, will agree -- if i have done my job right, it is a generous check that reflects the long-term damage and then some. that is the challenge. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start by saying how glad i am that you were willing to take this assignment and how grateful i am to the president for asking you to do this. it is a tough job, but we know from your work in new york that you are up to tough jobs. nothing can be perfect when you have a disaster of this magnitude, but i have tremendous confidence in your diligence, your intelligence, your fairness, your ability to administer complex matters. thank you for your service to our country. i want to touch on two quick things. i know other members have questions. i want to make sure that i am understanding the framework hear correctly. i think i am. this fund that you are administering is the alternative to -- it is not a contract

thing. in this litigation, that is correct? when people come in, it is a way to avoid complex legation for damages in this way? >> exactly. >> and that is helpful. if people know that, it will help them understand pair read i want to go to a second issue and just go back -- it will help them understand. i want to go to a separate issue and just go back 35 years ago. the united states withdrew from vietnam and after that, about a million refugees left the country of vietnam. i am lucky that is substantial number of those refugees came and settled in san jose, california. i think the largest vietnamese- american population is in san jose.

i was pleased to talk with a group of vietnamese-american lawyers lately -- recently and they heightened their concern about what is happening to fishermen in the gulf to our vietnamese-americans. it is interesting how developments occurred. the population in my district is so successful. i was talking recently with a school district, there is no d.s.l. for vietnamese students because everybody speaks english -- esl for vietnamese students because everybody speaks english. many of them do not speak english well. what the lawyers have told me is that some of these fishermen, hard-working people, have been already taken advantage of by

lawyers to have misled them. as a matter of fact, a group of volunteers from the vietnamese- american bar association went down to the gulf to try to volunteer their services to the fishermen, but there was suspicion. i am looking to you. what efforts can we make in the vietnamese language for these refugee fishermen? to let them know about their claims and to undo some of the damage that has already been done to them by people who have taken advantage of their limited english skills and exported money from them and hurt them further after this disaster. >> you are highlighting something that we are well aware of. we are in the process, as we speak, of making sure that we have vietnamese and other necessary translators. i have been going down to the

gulf coast and holding meetings. we have already made sure that we have interpreters and that we are meeting privately with the vietnamese organizations. some have come to see me already at your urging. i am confident, as with the 9/11 fund, that we will make sure that language barriers, cultural barriers, uncertainty and, we will make sure that access to this facility is guaranteed through multi ringbolt nterpreters -- multilevelingual interpreters. no one is going to be misled or fail to file because they do not understand their rights under the program or what the benefits are. i assure you of that.

>> that is good news. i thank you for that to treat the vietnamese-american bar association in california has already volunteered. if they can help in any way, i know they would like to. >> i would love to hear from them. i will meet with them. we can get on a conference call. we have already heard from various vietnamese organizations. i would welcome that opportunity. >> thank you very much. >> i now recognize the -- >> good to have you with us. you touched on this, but i want to revisit it. while many have been devastated by this crisis, and are relying on federal benefits, do you foresee the claims process reimbursing the federal government for these benefits?

>> if i understand the question, i suppose the federal government will have a claim, just like a state government, for benefits that it has paid. that is the government's claim. it is not on my watch, but i think the federal government will have a claim. >> are you in the process of formulating a final protocol? will the administration or bp have to sign off on that? or will that be your sole decision? >> my sole decision. >> there is much to be said for independence. would use -- would you agree with a claimant if he or she except the check, a release is affected and that would bar that recipient from subsequent

activity? >> first, under the protocol, very, very generous. we will pay an eligible claimants up to six months emergency payments without any release. up to six months. a lump sum payment of 26 months, you do not give up and you write you may have. -- up to six months. after that, we will offer a lump sum payment for any additional present or future injury in return, yes, we want a release that will prevent that claimant litigating later against bp. >> during the formulation of this protocol, any idea of when

that will be finalized? >> yes. i am confident that the protocol will be finalized in august. we are nearing the end of july. we will be up and running in august. the transition from bp, based on a final protocol you will for the litigants -- but claimants the option of structured settlements instead of once on checks -- instead of on some checks. >> why not, i suppose. once again, you are raising an issue here as you usually do. i had not thought about this question but it is a good one.

>> there would be a tax consequence. >> it is amazing how many -- how few people in the 9/11 fund took advantage of that. >> i now recognize the gentle lady from california. agree. >> thank you. i now recognize the gentlelady from california, miss sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i am sorry. i'm told i went in the wrong order. the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley. >> i thought it was a little soon, mr. chairman. i'll defer to mr. quigley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know this is new territory, and i know you've touched upon the issue of people -- the finality so that bp can have this and so forth. but now i think two members, three members may have touched upon it. when does one claim stop and

another start? if this is conceivably a 20-year event, a person who has ocean property, we're discussing now and scientists are disputing, are there plumes elsewhere. things could take years to -- is that a new claim? are we now going to create a whole new series of court cases in which people decide, well, that -- you signed a waiver for getting wiped out the first month. when did that the first month end and when did that damage get cleaned up? what if 16 years from now, you know, they've lost what they had just because this goes on longer? we've already seen so many unintended circumstances. we didn't know that they'd happen. how do you take that into consideration and give finality? th >> that's a question. i make the following point first. if i've done my job right, i

will be able -- the facility will be able to predict with some degree of certainty the long-term impact of the spill so that when a -- when compensation is tendered, it will have some basis in fact as to the likely long-term impact. secondly, it is important, i think, to point out that finality is often important not only for the facility in bp but for the claimant. i've learned over the years that if you say to a claimant, mr. or ms. claimant, off choice -- you can take money now for your current injury and come back later, when the future is more known, or we can agree that the

future damage is likely to be this and here is a much larger check. your call. very, very often the claimant wants the larger check. in other words, mr. feinberg, you're telling me based on mr. quigley's valid question i have a choice. i can either take a check now for $1,000 or based on your sound judgment, take a check for $30,000. but i can't come back later. mr. feinberg, i'll take that $30,000 check. i think that you've explained to me what you think is the likely outcome. i want finality, and i want the larger check. i think it's important. i do not assume that finality only benefits bp.

i'm trying to help claimants who are trying to plan their future. and when you say to a claimant, well, you know, you can come back in three years from now and, depending on how it works and the oil samples and the water samples, you may get more, or based on my judgment talking to people at lsu or the university of alabama or the university of mississippi, i think that it's going to be three years. and it's up to you, but here's a check for $30,000. in my judgment, trying to help individual claimants more likely than not they'll see the wisdom of taking the $30,000 as long as it's grounded in some degree of certainty. no one knows for sure. but i'm trying to help claimants, and helping claimants doesn't always mean come back later. >> and i appreciate what you're trying to do and how difficult it is. and i wish you the best for all

involved. if it's ever tested, the ability to do this, this is the one. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman and recognize the gentleman from california. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you for being here, mr. feinberg. i've been very impressed with the answers so far, very thorough and comprehensive. i've even been able to understand some of them. so in any event, just a couple quick things. clearly your job is to ensure that people that have been harmed have every opportunity to be made -- dealt with fairly and made whole. in that process, is there any type of a safeguard that would ensure that the -- through the claims facility that payments

made to claimants would not be reduced significantly as a result of attorney fees? is there any kind of a cap, or is that -- is there any -- so they have kind of a free reign? >> this facility is not going -- as we did in 9/11, this facility is not going to get into this issue of attorneys' fees. whatever the claimants' relationship to his or her attorney is a private, contractual relationship, which is frankly not a priority for this facility. now, i have said, congressman, over and over again, i do not believe it necessary for a claimant to this facility to even have an attorney. i can work with these claimants, as we did in 9/11, a, and, b, i am fully confident we will set up a pro bono program where

claimants can come to the facility and we will offer them a free attorney. >> pardon me. that being the case, mr. feinberg, i think it's reasonable to assume that many of these folks went out and retained an attorney that for class action or whatever very early on before they knew of mr. feinberg, and now they're in a contract. you know, i have my own opinions about this, but i think it's nothing short of criminal that somebody that is really harmed ends up with 40% or 50% of what he is harmed for and someone that comes in with their legal experti expertise, and you do all the work and they get 50% of the action. that's an editorial comment. now, mr. nadler, i just came in as he was asking a question. i don't want to ask it again. but was there any clarification

as to the settlement amount? for instance, if the settlement is for the purpose of compensating someone for loss of income, is that subject to federal income tax? >> i'm sure it is. i'm not an income tax lawyer, but if it's compensated -- >> not your deal but -- >> if you're compensated for lost income by substitutes a check from the facility, i'm confident it is subject to income tax. >> the other last question i have, mr. chairman, and this may not really be something that you can answer directly, but i was involved years ago in the "exxon valdez" incident up in alaska. so i saw first hand many of the same issues that we're dealing here with fishermen and with the issues that have impacted their livelihood up there. one of the things we found up there is many of the fishermen got jobs working in the cleanup process. we're seeing that happen, of course, in the gulf, which is, i

guess, a good thing. have you been involved in any of the process whereby folks have been compensated in the way of working in the cleanup, and has there been any comparison with what their income is as it related to fishing? and does that have an effect on the claim? >> it certainly has an effect on the claim. right now under the protocol, if somebody was earning $5,000 a month as a fisherman and now can't fish but bp has put them to work on a vessel of opportunity to help clean up the oil at $8,000 a month, then there's a $2,000 difference in what they were earning before as to what they're earning now, i would deduct that $3,000 from the $5,000 and give them a check for $2,000.

so i'm not involved in the vessel for opportunity program or any effort by bp to hire these folks that are out of work, but i do say in the protocol that that separate wage that they're earning would be collaterally offset from my award. >> in other words, there would be an offset -- >> yes. >> -- for real damage. >> real damage. >> you're really focusing on what real damage is with a percentage factor in there for whatever is an incentive to settle. >> exactly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. now recognize the gentlelady from california, miss chu. >> thank you, mr. chair. i wanted to give you some feedback with regard to the vietnamese fishermen in the gulf coast. i have been in touch with them, and they have some specific feedback with regard to how the process is going so far. first of all, i mean, as you know, they represent a very significant part of the

shrimping community, the vietnamese fishermen are about one-third of the shrimping community in the gulf coast. but they've raised very, very significant concerns. first of all, in terms of the interpreter selection, it needs great improvement. at one of the initial trainings held by bp, they spent trainers who spoke communist diction to refugees who live in the gulf so, there are cultural subtle subtleties that really have to be paid attention to. not every interpreter is competent, necessarily, or is sensitive to the particular population that is there in the gulf coast. and, for instance, an interpreter would need to be very specific about the language needed, particular vocabulary words pertaining to maritime claims and legal issues. so my first question would have

to do with how you are selecting the interpreters. the second piece of feedback that i've gotten has been about the supporting documents that are required to submit a claim. many of the fishermen have stated that they were denied claims or turned away because of the requirement for supporting documents has never been sufficiently defined. will you ensure that the requirements are clear so that all members of the community are able to access the claims process? and more importantly, could you ensure that sample documents are given to provide -- provide individuals with the clarity about what is needed to complete the paperwork? and then thirdly, many of them have complained about the complicated process for filing claims involving a hotline and they get a claim number before visiting the claims office, but even though they've followed these initial steps, they've never received any follow-up. and how could you ensure that

they are able to get that kind of follow-up? >> three questions. >> mm-hmm. >> first, we're relying on the public interest, the vietnamese organizations to assist us. we've met with a couple of them already in terms of providing us the best interpreters locally in the gulf that will guarantee qualification and making sure that they are qualified to act on behalf of the claimant. so we're working with those organizations. if there's an organization we should be talking with that you're aware of, congresswoman, by all means let me know. secondly, the documentation issue, we will provide sample documentation. it's important that the claimant document the claim. but i don't care. i've told claimants in the gulf,

if you don't have one type of document, give us another document, especially for the emergency payments where people are desperate to receive this compensati compensation. if you don't have any official documentation, give me a written letter from your ship captain or your priest or your mayor so that we can at least get you seize emergency payments. and finally, in terms of 1-800-numbers and more efficiency and less delay, as i said in my opening statement, that is absolutely essential. we're working on that now. i am confident that next month, when we're up and running, we will have an accelerated program. >> but will there be follow-up for these folks? that's what they're asking about. >> absolutely. i assure you, congresswoman, we will be processing emergency payments within 24 hours. we will be cutting checks within two days thereafter. we will make sure that the process is much more efficient

and accelerataccelerated. >> now, you know, there are local leaders that are very much in touch with the community and know about these cultural sensitivities. i'm wondering if you can have an adviser committee of those local leaders, the trusted leaders. already you have said that people are skeptical, angry, dispirited, worried, and that it's going to be your job to sell this program. and so i'm wondering if you can have a group that can continuously give you this sort of feedback on an ongoing basis. >> we do. i agree 100% with you that this program can only be effective and successful by relying on local people. this can't be done from washington. i'm spending a great deal of time in the gulf. and relying on credible people, officials, neighbors, people that are trusted is the only

surefire way to get people to access this facility and take advantage of it. i can't help people if they don't sign up. and i think the only way to get people signed up who are inherently suspicious and skeptical is by relying on local leaders, yes. >> thank you. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. i now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. iszen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. feinberg, it's good to see you as always. you know, when we have go-to people that can be well regarded by the press, well regarded by both sides of the aisle and then go to a very difficult area with the reputation for fairness, honesty, integrity, and competence, those aren't available in all the people we send, but that last one is seldom that has such a history as you have of competence. you've done a good job of laying

out, as you did in your opening statement, a lot of the parameters. let me just go through a couple that i'm particularly interested in. one, i'm going to ask you a question not in the form of a question. you said no lawyers are needed to file a claim. no one need share one penny of their loss with an outside lawyer or an outside preparation person. is that correct? >> that's correct. ? and you said that you will anticipate hiring attorneys and i assume some other clerical people to assist people in preparing their claims. >> correct. >> that is great news. and i hope that that will be well covered from today. i have a couple of questions that are sort of down in the weeds a little bit. but there are a large amount of people who have lost their income because of the oil drilling ban. you're not compensating people who were laid off because the

president had an ash tear moratorium on drilling. >> not on my watch. >> but if those people, those tens of billions of dollars of income, those people who work offshore for very high wages and then come ashore and eat in restaurants and, you know, stay in hotels or rent apartments and so on, if they're laid off and they head out of the area, isn't there a ripple effect where you will be compensating people for loss and you really -- all you know is that hotel on the beach or that restaurant on the beach had its income lost and you really won't know how much of it is from the loss of fishing versus the loss of oil drilling? >> well, that's a tough evidentiary question. i mean, you're right. i'm compensating for damage arising out of the spill, not the moratorium. how you define that, when you get the documents that said this is what i made last year, this

is what i'm making this year, that's a tough question. >> you know, i have absolutely no sympathy for bp. if you're -- if your $20 billion can compensate everybody, that's great, if they need to give more, that's great. but i do have that great question of aren't we in a predicament of which we're tying your hands because the facts you're presented are an effect, but there are multiple effects there including the scare tactics where in many cases people can come down but are scared away? all of that is going to end up being directly in the proximity of the shoreline part of the loss. >> congressman, as usual, i mean, you're raising issues here that are very, very challenging. the loss of -- the loss of income of the motel due to bad tourist press that the oil -- the oil and the beaches happen to be perfect, there's no oil on

the beach, how we are going to address some of these issues, evidentiary in deciding eligibility and amount, formidable. formidable. >> now, i have one question i don't believe was asked earlier. you have the direct effect on the individuals, but we have the communities. when you make somebody whole that had a direct loss, the community hopefully, if it's salary related, they're going to get some of that revenue. but certainly these communities have losses both because oil is not being drilled and because of the loss of fishing and so on. how do you view your role relative to the various parishes and so on? i mean, these are the people we talked to who aren't even being allowed to protect their shoreline and then on top of that, they're saying where do i make up for the lost revenue. >> i have no jurisdiction at the current time over any governmental unit that files a claim for lost revenue, lost

taxes, add valorem, real estate taxes are down, sales taxes are off. right now, this draft protocol and the new protocol that i'm working on that i'll share with this committee completely exempts from my jurisdiction any governmental claim against bp. >> let me ask you a follow-up question because time is short, because you are still many the process of negotiating. and perhaps it will take additional funds. but these communities in many cases are providing services similar to the ones that you said you're providing. they're providing counseling. they're providing, if you will, legal advice and so on. can you or will you consider trying to get authority to provide some funds so that you may contract these various parishes and related areas to perform some of these services or to compensate them if they're performing services that benefit you? >> i will certainly pass on that constructive idea. again, it's not part of my job.

i just want to say one other thing about the lawyers, congressmen. you'll recall in 9/11 as a direct result, direct result of questions that you posed, we set up this very successful pro bono lawyers' program. and as i said earlier, building on what we did with your help in 9/11 pro bono, i hope you can have a similar pro bono program here, and i plan to do so. >> lack forward to seeing that. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i thank the gentleman. i now recognize the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, mr. feinberg. i have a few questions for you, mr. feinberg, about how some of these claims are calculated and the role that lawyers play. i know, as you've just explained, on the one hand, no one should need a lawyer, on the other there will be this battery of pro bono attorneys waiting to

assist. their assistance, i would think, would be whether pro bono or otherwise, would be beyond this facility, give than state law provides other rights without the oil pollution act. there's more that will come into play. correct? >> i completely agree with you. i want to emphasize i'm a lawyer. and the legal community stepped up in the 9/11 fund, it would never have been as successful as it was without the help of pro bono and paid legal counsel. and i in no way want to say anything other than the legal community has a very, very valuable role to play here, and i hope it will step up once again. >> and so i just wanted to clear the -- set the record straight here that, in fact, this facility that you're administering doesn't represent the sum total of every potential claim that might be filed under

state law or other. >> you're absolutely right in that regard. >> okay. thank you. i wanted to ask, then, about the way that the damages will be calculated. we've heard, and i know you mentioned earlier that you've heard, as well, from realtors and you're trying to figure out how to address the issues that realtors have, and i hear from real estate professionals who

their concern has been so pronounced that i am coming up with some mechanism to deal with that concern. >> thank you. as you calculate the impact that this bill is had on the businesses, what i am told from business owners directly is that the focus will be a comparison between this year and last year. if you could speak to that, because this was the year when we would do when they were going to see a great comeback. >> as with the 9/11 fund, if last year is an aberration, give us three years to look at.

when you mention that this was going to be a great year, show me. i cannot calculate compensation on the basis of speculation, but if you have a contract for this year, if you had a charter vote or a rental which was terminated as a result of a the spill, i don't mean necessarily to look at the past year as long as it is not speculative. as long as there's some basis for calculating the damage, i am willing to compensate. basis for me to calculate the dig, iamage willing to compensate. >> speak to your jurisdiction as a representative of south florida, if we see oil on our

shores in south florida, either along the gulf or coming up along the atlantic coast, are you charged with handling those things as well? >> i have jurisdiction over those claims. make sure you understand, it is not necessary under this protocol for oil to show up. what is necessary is that the natural resources are hard, you can't fish, tourism is hurt, i mean, i've tried to spell out, there doesn't have to be actual physical destruction if you lost profits or income or what have you. and i will take a look at those claims. >> quickly, can you confirm that the 90 day period for consider ing payments has not commenced

because the cap has been placed on. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for five minute. >> appreciate very much what you are taking on. as a district judge, i was asked to take over what was deemed the biggest, worst tort claim in texas history that had been going on for 11 years with over 100 lawyers. anyway, i took that on, so i have great sympathy for what you are doing. i have questions. pardon my muddiness, it is something i carry with me. but i was wondering, do you know how you were chosen out of all the people in the united states to do this job? besides being crazy