.

>> after the bill signing, they endorse elizabeth warren to head the financial agency. she currently heads the congressional oversight panel on the tarp program. this is 15 minutes.

>> good morning. what a great day this is for consumers of our country. the this is massive legislation. people have focused on various parts of it. what is lost in the shuffle is the tell and how -- is details and how important it is for consumers of our countries. three things to come together in a way that has not happened before to get consumers protection in their transactions. one of the most basic is the creation of a consumer financial protection bureau with in the federal reserve in doing it in a way that has some independence. what have been for so long is that financial regulatory agencies like the comptroller had the authority for consumer protection in these transactions whenever the comptroller of person they are

regulates the savings and loan, what is their first priority? it is the safety of their institution . that is the way it should be. it the worst could happen is have one of these things fail. it is always went to the safety and soundness first. when you hire someone to do with these jobs, it to you why. do you hire us are similar experience? you hire the person with banking experience, not consumer protection experience. consumer protection has been the stepchild in the government. that changes today. with that bureau and the priority, that person can focus. the legislation is 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, a credit card, or financial transaction in the country. they cannot do it alone. what this legislation does is provide the states have the authority to enforce these laws and regulations. make a partner with the federal government to do the whole job. the third element is the cooperation between the state attorney generals and the department of justice burd. i worked almost eerie with the it department and treasurer of this. the relationships with the state have been built. if this is one of the finest day as a consumer protection and the history of our country. and i'm proud to have played a small part of it. i am proud of my colleagues that i think correctly have the

reputation as one of the best for the best and for consumer protection through. one of the leaders in the mortgage area has an incredible thing for citizens of illinois in terms of recovering money and modifications of loans. it is great to be with you and mark on this incredible day. >> limit knowledge to work that tom miller has done for decades. he has a great understanding of the impact.

we wish it never would have taken the complete collapse of our national economy to have these reforms put in place. today truly is historic. it is a historic day for the people of the united states when it comes to the safety in fairness of their consumer financial transactions. american families and businesses can now know that we will have not to stay level enforcement, but we will have truth strong federal enforcement and advocacy. we are very happy that this new

law retained the authority of state level and forces. general miller and general copley have long been engaged in fighting the practices of the mortgage giants in our country. we first initiated an investigation. after that, we looked into and held household finance accountable. i have a lawsuit against wells fargo. they've destroyed the lending standards. this is many wait a long overdue day.

thalibi to applaud the president for his vision, congress for their courage, and advocates for their work. a think you'd be in excellent head of that. let me introduce the attorney general and the state of massachusetts market copley. -- martha cokely. she is: what you accountable for their practices. she is in a great partner. we are proud to have her here today. >> is a pleasure to be here

protect. the work they did -- the reason that we are here today and the reason why we are so pleased to be here today is we see these financial problems first. you heard tom talk about his work and lease a truck about her work. when i came in, we were beginning to look at foreclosure rescue schemes. we had to explain what we had seen by way of loans being made. there is no ability to repay. there were making loans only because they could make money off them they can make loans to

people they know cannot repay. it had been the work at the ground level identifying these trends, risky financial practices and projects. they have a remedy this is not only will we look to the health, though we are going to provide for consumers in a way that will protect the entire economy. we look forward to working at only with our other colleagues but with congress and with bank regulators at the federal and state level to make sure it is fair and that the economy is turned around. this should not be to put a stop to the economy and make sure we

focus on the things that make a healthy economy. we are pleased to be here today. we look forward to that kind of work. it is a pleasure to say the we see them as a partner for consumer protection. thank you. >> do you have an opinion on who should have in it? are you concerned that their lobbying on the rolls making process? >> i think i answered personally. i think elizabeth warren, whose idea this was an to worked tirelessly to see this become a reality, would be an extraordinary head for the bureau. she is somebody who is not only extremely intelligent but articulate in a way that all of us can understand the importance

of consumer protections as well as the history of how we got here today. >> i do not think anyone would quarrel with the choice of elizabeth warren. not only was it her idea, but she was such an effective advocate for the legislation. we were to appear. we all owe a lot to her. in terms of the rules, we are ready for the fight. it will be a fight. we will be working with the new head of the bureau and his or her employees. that of the an enormous fight. it is incredibly important to american consumers. lobbyists have less power with this administration than any administration in decades. this administration is here for the public interest rather than the special interests. they have gone did this great battle to pass the legislation, fighting off the kind of

institutions and forces you have talked about. i'm quite confident that they will. barack campaigned in iowa. he believes of this government is about the public interest, not the special interests. i think that will prevail. we will look back a decade later in sick, how important this legislation was. >> i think there is a third vote here for elizabeth warren. she is from massachusetts. we have had the incredible privilege of working with here. not only is she very smart, she is very articulate. to understand how to translate

complicated topics into what the rest of us can understand . that is important. she is very reasonable. she and her since relationship between the consumer protection peace and promoting a healthy economy. she would be a tremendous choice. i cannot think of anyone who would be better than she. this process we have seen their activity. part of this administration's desire to move ahead and to be transparent about what is happening, i am encouraged. i think we are enthusiastic to do for it anywhere -- to move forward in a way to do this. but before we close, i want to emphasize what my two partners did. that is the enormous gratitude that state attorney general's head to the congress,

particularly the two chairs and the administration. this administration fought for a year for this legislation. they thought specifically for consumer protection and for the role of the state to work the new bureau of consumer protection. alley's two times, the agency required it. it is the administration that brought it back. we in the country go an enormous debt of gratitude to members of congress. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> on tomorrow morning's "washington journal" we will talk with barbara lee who heads the congressional black caucus. after that, mac thornberry national security. then barbara kennelly on the future of social security. let'>> the change in world of te newspaper industry. but i worry about some of these standards and maintaining journalistic integrity as we move from one media world to another. >> agricultural sector tom vilsack said he is offering

schirra deposition at the agricultural department. she is as for more time to consider this offer. she was fired from a previous position monday night when a video for surface in media. secretary bill cited responsibility. this briefing is 15 minutes . >> good afternoon. in the conversation, i started off by extending to hurt my personal and profound apologies for the pain and discomfort that has been caused to her and her 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 had and still probably does have. she was extraordinarily gracious. i wanted to make sure she understood that i regretted the circumstances and that i accepted full responsibility for them. we talked briefly about the process. then i assets should be interested in figuring out a way forward that would take advantage of the extraordinary life experiences that she has had. she has been a claimant in a case against the united states department of agriculture. she has experienced some of the prejudice and bias that we still

today are dealing with in terms of claims against the department. she is had a broad range of experiences and understand many of the programs. she has an extraordinary history of helping individuals in trouble. she is gone through very difficult time. as a result of that experience, she has a unique set of skills which i think would lend themselves to assisting in helping usda as we deal with trying to turn the page on our civil rights chapter which has been difficult. for the last 80 months, we spent a great deal of time and effort to try to resolve thousands of claims that it been filed against the u.s. stay. we are continuing the work. we have an opportunity to discuss a unique opportunity here that might be of interest

to her. she asked for the opportunity to think about i certainly respect that. i express my deep regret and apology to her. -- and to her family. i advisor i would be meeting with the press to publicly apologize to her and to express publicly my regret. >> you say that he expectyou tot full responsibility. he seemed to have jumped conclusions early on. why did you jump to conclusions? was there pressure from the white house to make a good decision? >> no. was there a communication it winds agents in the white house? >> this is my decision. i want to be clear. it was a decision that i regret having made in haste.

you ask why. for the last 18 months, we have rarely focused on trying to address the longstanding history of civil rights claims against the department. there are claims by black varmints, hispanic farmers, on american farmers. -- black farmers, hispanic farmers, and american farmers. there to the house is a claim. the there are tens of thousands of claims. i made it as a goal 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 discrimination. i still hold that believe very firmly. i know surely does as well. -- surhirley says will.

a lesson i learned is these types of decisions require time. i did not take the time. i should have. as a result, a good woman has gone through very difficult time. i will have to live with that for a long time. >> when you made the decision to dismiss her, had you seen hurtful remarks in the full context? did you only see the clip? what i saw a transcript. i was out to the office. i was in ohio. >> of the whole speech? >> it is not the whole speech. it wishes a portion. >> miss sherrod has told cnn that sheryl cook asked to resign and he said the white house made the decision to put the pressure on her. would be able to hear from mrs. cooke? >> first of all, i indicated

her my personal regret in my responsibility for the fact is to receive multiple phone calls. that is a problem that i could have corrected if i had done this 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. clark indicated a liaison has been contacted. i do not know that she necessarily indicated that there was any pressure. that was not the case. this was something i decided. i have to set a full responsibility for this. >> [inaudible] >> we have a number of people in the white house the we communicate with from time to

time when the issue is just to keep them informed. this is my decision. i appreciate the concerns of folks are expressing, but this was my decision. i made it in haste. >> what do you say to other employees of the at a crucial department? if you are worried that they might that they might come up on the internet? >> this is a teachable moment for me. i hope it is a teachable moment for all of us. i think it is important to understand that the -- each of us represents this department. each of us represents administration and the president. we had to be very careful about our actions and words. we have to make sure that we think before we act. i did not think before i acted.

for that reason, this poor woman has gone very difficult time. >> any other planned of how you might examine things in the future? >> the win three process today of reviewing precisely as best we could what took place. there will be changes. one thing is there needs to be a more deliberative process, obviously. i need to do better joppa reaching out to be urging better job of reaching out to get input. and i was very sensitive and remain sensitive to the civil rights issues involving his department. when you are dealing with tens of thousands of claims her, it s something that needs to be resolved. it is not resolved. we had into things.

we have made an effort to resolve these cases. they will also begun a process of looking at our entire operation from an outside consultant to take a live in see whether or not there are any of the things that we are doing or should not be doing that would potentially lead to claims in the future. if you want to put a stop to this. this is a great part of a we need to close our chapter on. >> can you elaborate a little more? had you met her previously to this conversation? if she is a qualified, why would she not given a more senior

position previously? >> experts predict first ball, i may have visited with her or matter in -- first of all, i may have visited her and the larger context before. i do not know for certain whether the development of was one that she specifically sought. 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 who because of these experiences, having been discriminated against and being a claimant, having gone to that process, having gone through the process she describes in her speech, having gone through 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 we have made in the past. i do not want to go into details. i am having to do this after she is had an opportunity to think about this. i want to honor my commitment to ever to get free chance to think about this. i just want everyone to know that i value that experience. there is a way in which, despite the difficulties i have put 23, an opportunity for us to be strengthened. at the end of the day, i think that is what the people of the country want. they want to do right by this woman. they also want to make sure that it will not happen again. if there is a way of strengthening the department, and that is my responsibility to explore. i am hopeful that she sees it that way. >> have you spoken to president obama about this?

>> no. >> it is the position that had been lifted previously? >> is the position that needs to be filled. did you want to ask a question? >> you saw the transcript of the initial clip. were you aware it was a partial transcript? the justice seymour? >> i have not been aware of it and th. c had e-mail to the office -- shia e-mail to the office prior to this video becoming an issue. i did not receive the evil. it is not addressed properly to me. the mellitus -- there was a problem with the e-mail address.

and never came to my attention. see had received some indication of this club being available. she, in an effort to respond, send an e-mail to me which i did not get. it is not addressed properly. it was also sent to the deputy secretary. we did not discover it until after the fact. that is one of the issues that we are going to address. >> you are taking personal responsibility for this today. president obama is your boss. are you involving the white house? >> it is not my place to of stop anybody from anything other than to a set responsibility for what i did. i am accepting that responsibility with deep regret. this is a good woman.

she has been put their health. -- throug hell. should have done a better job ahead t. i want this to be stronger for it. i want to creatrenewed the department. i want to close the chapter. i except irresponsibility. i do not think the box stops with me. >> kecan you describe this. let'>> i am not certain how the

white house was made. the white house was aware. the decision to do what was done was done by me. it was my position that was communicated. one of the lessons learned is that this type of decision should have been communicated by me. it should have been done in a much more personal way. is it had begun -- it should have the debeen done with less . she was gracious enough to extend it to me. for that i am grateful. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> c-span is now available in 100 million homes. it was treated by america's cable company. >> on wednesday, the senate agreed to an unemployment benefits package. and now mr. the house for a vote. here is part of the debate with barbara boxer. it is one hour. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i -- i want to say that the senator from vermont speaks in very clear words 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 ere we know when president obama took office and the democrats increased the majorities, we inherited the wors recession since great depression. those aren't just words.

that's a fact. ande 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 inhered 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 t jobs market until we got to a point where weere 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 w 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 theytepped 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 weahiest 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'reot 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 out 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 loca economy. they're gog 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 stallin and stalling and stalling. two months already they've stalled. a city planner from los angeles writ, "the effec 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 mht 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 -- whyre 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 js 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, howard you've worked to make sure our community banks can start lending again to sml 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. an we can leverage without accost -- without it costing the federal government a dime. thes 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 stal 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 baks 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 th 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 wer 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 sta, 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. have to kp 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'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 bridg 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, but to imply they don't care is out of bounds. the people in oklahoma who are not getting an unemployment

check 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 people that are getting these extended benefits have paid into a fund. 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 money except 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 come anywhere 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 fact, 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 counting the stimulus. we have 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 children and 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 grandchildren. the question really 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 that 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 will 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 the united states of america. the bias is for it. the hard thing is to take and do the best right thing. and my colleagues, 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 administration, 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 be sure and continue to pay for it because i want my unemployment insurance, i need my unemployment, 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 partisan issue. 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 have 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 debate 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. you can demean us, you can say we'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. you know, when we left here for one break, we had agreed with senator reid and senator levin about extending unemployment insurance and we were told by the speaker 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 unemployed 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 from the federal government. america, tell me what part of this you don't agree with. the fact is we're 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 federal 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 spend 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 video 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. we won'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 have 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 incentivize our young people to go into math, engineering, science and technology. $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 which have 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, all 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't about 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 body 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. what 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's future depends 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 easy choice 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 will 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 people 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 our comfort zone to solve the real problems of america. and so, therefore, we'll use all sorts of tactics to detphreubgt 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 other 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. that'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 4,000 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 are because 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 determines 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 believe him. i did the math. if you take and spend $1 a second -- and so that means you spend $60 a 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 way we stop -- the way we start getting 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 pay and 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 examples 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 senator from oklahoma say that we're being partisan makes no sense at all. i sang the praises of my republican 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 who 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 emergency? 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 it was an emergency. and because 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 will -- by the way, that 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 for extending 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 balanced the federal budget, when bill clinton was president, when we created surpluses as far as the eye could see, the debt 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 cares 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 everything you do, except emergencies. that's what we should be doing, because to do it otherwise really is counterproductive. 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 into the 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 information back. days go by when i hardly 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 the gas 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 are 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 help those 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 list of supporters for the small business bill, it includes the chamber of commerce, the regional chambers of commerce, and businesses and 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. but they 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 ta

administration mighto become as well-kno opposition to this amendment

good morning. the committee will come to order. today's hearing is on insuring juice for victims of the gulf coast oidisaster. and we're very pleased to have with us ken feinberg, who is no

stranger to the hill or to the government. we're very delighted that he has eagerly agreed to join us today in this discussion in terms of some of the many challenges that are before us. the british petroleum claims process has been plagued by problems up till now, mostly concerning the inadequate compensation and the lack of the remedies being brought forth in a timely fashion. there are trouing issues about the details of the escrow

account and the independent claims facility. british petroleum has repeatedly stated their promise to pay all legitimate claims. and to ignore statutory caps of $75 million, which this committee has already taken steps to remove. the process has not only been not transparent but it does not seem to be fair or accessible or fast. for example, british petroleum was slow to accommodatehe large pulation of

vietnamese-american fishermen in the gulf coast states who have lost their livelihood because of the spill. in addition, they face language barriers as the forms were posted only in english and translators were scarce. minority gulf coast workers have been -- they've testified before this committee have been virtually ignore d in the proces of making them whole, and so attorney ken feinberg with his long and distinguished record in government and in the private sector has been mutually agreed by the parties to help

adjudicate this process. we welcome you. we're glad that you're here and i would like now to yield to the distinguished ranking member of this committee, mr. smi of texas for his opening comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, americans have watched helplessly as more than 100 million gallons of oil spewed into the gulf of mexico over 90 protract days. a sizable portion of that black pollution will make its way onto the beaches and into the atlantic ocean. why did it take so long to stanch the open wound and why didn they show more initiative and become engaged early on? it has created an environmental

and economic disaster that paralyzed local economies throughout the gulf coast region. the human environmental and economic cost of this spill will continue to increase until the cleanup is complete. bp and the other responsible parties must pay all costs associated with the spill. they must be held fully accountable for this catastrophe and for the 11 lives tragically lost in the explosion on the deepwater horizon. the creation of the independent gulf coast claims facility and the apintment of mr. feinberg to administer that facility are important steps towards ensuring that the victims of this tragedy are compensated for their losses. hopefully with mr. feinberg's leadership those affected can get their claims paid without having to resort to litigation. as we learned with the "exxon valdez" spill lawsuits involving oil spills take years to reach final resolution and awards to victims are significantly reduced by attorneys' fees.

also steps must be taken to prevent waste, fraud and abuse from seeping into the claims process. payment of fraudulent claims will not only destroy the credibility of the program lew also will take money away from legitimate claims. i mentioned here the steps the claims facility plans to take to prevent fraud. i would also like to know what can be done to maximize compensation to the victims rather than to the attorneys they may hire. for the 91 fund, attorneys stepped up to offer their services pro bono. and mr. feinberg, i hope there will be an effective pro bono program for this claims process, as well. however, i am concerned that the relief and compensation provided by the claims facility may be offset by the economic cost of the administration's moratorium on offshore drilling. according to experts such as louisiana state university economist joseph mason the economic impact could be much bigger than that of the oil spill itself for the moatorium.

the engy industry contributes $65 billion to louisiana's $210 billion economy compared to about 10 billion from fishing and tourism. dr. mason projects a x-month moratorium will trigger a loss of thousands of jobs, $500 million in wages and over $2 billion in economic activity in the gulf region alone. these numbers will be significantlhigher if the moratorium becomes a permanent ban. the moratorium has already caused oil drillers t cancel contracts and move their rigs overseas taking american jobs with them. while we need to ensure drilling safety, the moratorium appears to be another example of obama administration policy costing american jobs rather than creating them. from cap and trade to the costly stimulus bill to the health care law that imposes higher taxes to this drilling moratorium, the obama administration continues to push policies that harm

american workers and the economy. mr. feinberg, i've mentioned a couple of questions in my opening statement, i look forward to hearing your answers to those questions and thank you for being here. mr. chairman, yield back. >> thank you very much. i turn now to jerry nadler, chairman of the constitution committee of new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the leak resulting from the disaster on the deepwater horizon created the most massive environmental disaster in our nation's history killing wildlife, destroying critical wet life and fisheries and wreaking havoc. 11 peopled died and the cost of human health will probably not be known for years. the response to the spill including toxic dispersants and secrecy by bp may have compounded the damage of the spill itself. on may 27th the judiciary committee held a hearing on the legal liability issues surrounding the gulf coast oil disaster. at that hearing the committee

received testimony from victims, from the responsible companies and from experts abo the outdated and unfair maritime liability regime that i denying justice to the victims of this disaster. after the hearing, the distinguished chairman of the full committee and i introduced hr-5503, the spill act, to fix those laws so that the victims can beairly compensated. the committee favorably reported the bill on june 23rd and passed the house on july 1st by a voice vote. i hope it will soon become law so bp and the other corporations responsible for the deepwater horizon explosion and resulting oil spill will be held accountable under the law for all of the harm their reckless behavior caused. today, however, we turn our attention to ensuring justice for those trying to navigate the clai process set up by bp. the bp claims process so far has been plagued by problems and many of those who have been harmed have not received adequate compensation in a timely fashion. given the many problems that the

bp claims process, it was very encouraging to hear on june 16th that the administration and bp had agreed today. bp has promised the new dependent claims facility will be, quote, fairer, faster and more transparent than paying them to businesses and individuals. mr. feinberg has been the administrator of the claims fund and for the 9/11 fund. thanks to his work many of my constituents were able to avail themselves of a fair process. he is an excellent choice. the administration announced they will establish a $20 billion escrow account funded over a ur-year period of $5 billion a year. they also announced bp will contribute $100 -- $100 -- $100 million to a foundation to

support unemployed oil rig workers. while these announcements sound promising there remain troubling issues about the details of the he cot account, the claims facility and claims process. despite the fact it's been over a month since the announcement of the he so account, we have yet to see either the agreement setting up the escrow account or final protocols used to process claims. among the concerns i have that i hope will be addressed at today's hearing are to what extent will the escrow fund be bankruptcy remote and what arantee can we have that the fund pledge will also be protected from becoming a part of a bankruptcy estate should bp seek bkruptcy protection? second, will the gulf coast claims facility recognize claims relating to use of dispersants not of the original oil? third, given that the long-term effect of the oil spill and use of dispersants could be at least a 10 or 20-year event what provisions will be made for claimants who may seek compensation for economic loss but whose medical conditions

resulting from exposure may not become manifest for 5 or 10 or 20 years? will claimants have to waive these in order to get initial damages for economic damages? will injuries caused by dispersants be covered by the compensation fund? will the gulf coast claims facility be willing to re-open resolve claims in the revent for example nonpecuniary damages under the spill act become available for the victims of the explosion and their families? as we pass the three-month mark since the dsz began the continuing effortso stop the leak and clean the spill are paramount but as damage to natural resource, local economies and daily lives continues to grow, we must be sure that the victims of this disaster can be made whole. as mr. feinberg certainly knows, perhaps better than anyone else, the full impact of a catastrophe of this magnitude may not become evident for years and likely the cases will have to be revisited at some point in the future. i do not want to see the taxpayers on the hook for this

damage and i do not want to see people with serious but not yet evident injuries have their rights and legitimate claims nullified in the future. how will this process account for late claims so the injured will not be left high and dry or have to resort to the federal government to pay costs that rightly should be paid by bp? i am especially concerned because the information we received from bp and quite frankly from some of the federal and state agencies charged with protecting the environment and public health has not flowed as freely as the oil has flowed from this rupture. we now know that some of the information such as the reported safety of the dispersant being used was false. it is deja vu all over again. a decade ago or less epa administrator christine todd witmanalsely assured that the air near ground zero was safe. we are still payin the price for that deception. some people are paying with their lives. i hope today's hearing will guide the creation of an independent fair and trarns parent victim compensation program. i look forward to hearing from our witness todaas he helps us understand these important issues.

i thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> thank you, sir. i now turn to a senior member of the committee and the former chair of the agriculture committee bob goodlatte of virginia. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. mrinberg, we welcome you. you come with a track record and a reputation for addressing difficult issues like this and we know this is going to be a significant challenge for you. i share the concerns raised by my colleagues. i'm very interested in making sure justice is done expeditiously. i am also concerned as the ranking member is that it be donefficiently and that it be done in a way that we don't feel that ople are defrauding this process because while we hope that a private entity, british petroleum will be able to carry

all of this burden, it's still nonetheless important that we do it in a fair and efficient manner and i also want to make sure that british petroleum is held fully accountable and you're going to be in a key position to make sure that anybody who has a valid claim against them does receive the compensation that they deserve anthat hopefully the american taxpayers won't be liable for any of this cost. so i look very much forward to your testimony and you telling us how you envision this will work. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. bill delahunt, a former state prosecutor, and member of the foreign affairs committee and a distinguished member of this committee is recognized now. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. first let me congratulate the president for such an

outstanding appointment and welcome mr. feinberg. not only has he a spectacular record in terms of addressing issues such as this, but he also comes from a community that i once represented. that's the city of brockton in massachusetts, and for those of you that are unaware, brockton is the city of champions. brockton was the home of the rock. that's rocky marciano, undefeated heavyweight champion of the world, and then, of course, there was marvelous marvin hagler, an now we have another champion in ken

feinberg, whose success is extraordina extraordinary. it's a great commuty. as i said, this is an outstanding appointment. the president should be congratulated. he has a litany of accomplishments in addressing issues ranging from 9/11 compensation to overseeing executive compensation pursuant to the top legislation, and i'm confident that given his leadership and his talent that e concerns that have been expressed by members of the panel will be addressed by this young man from that hard scrabble community in massachusetts, the city of brockton. and with that, i yield back. >> i thank you.

mr. coble is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. delahunt, i am advanced in age far enough tt i remember the heavyweight champion from masshusetts. mr. feinberg, good to have you with us. mrfeberg, you know bp's oil spill has affected all aspects of the gulf economy and this morning i was contacted by my colleague mr. spencer bachus, ranking member of the services committee and concerned about an issuyou may want to address in your comment but according to him will the oil reach the beaches in alabama, it resulted inost sales for many realtors in alabama. and he asked me if i would ask you what the status of these alabama real estate claims are and for those in greatest financial need regarding emergency payments that may be forthcoming. he furthermore indicated there there may be a hold on the real estate claims resulting from the spill and if so, what will the

decision involved in implementing that hold and when do you anticipate that those claims will be paid if you could address that in your statement? i thank you for being here with us and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i thank you on that and recognize mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, mr. feinberg, for being with us again. you've stepped up to the plate again. we appreciate your hard work. i just had a couple of questions that i'd hope you address and that is whether you think you have enough money to respond to the claims and whether you have enough staff to respond in a timely fashion. and, second, as the gentleman from north carolina mentioned, part of the damage done by the oil spill is the general collapse in the economy. he mentioned real estate but you've also got other department stores, tourism and everything elseere people are losing money as a result, not a direct result but an indict result of

the spill and, third, how do you deal with people who as we say worked off the books and may not have the appropriate records? they're suffering significant losses and how do you deal with that? with that, mr. chairman, i thank mr. feinberg for being with us again and yield back. >> i thank you and our final opening statement i gather is mr. cohen. >> tha you, mr. chair. i'm still trying to figure out marvelous marvin. i always thought it was hagler and i think it was but delahunt doesn't know much about sports among other things. it's good to have you in this position. it gives i think the entire american public confidence it'll be done in an appropriate manner. you've got a very difficult job, and i don't know the parameters in which you're operating but the damages go to several different levels, and how do you determine, you know, the effect on a restaurant in some city or

a restaurant worker or tourist businesses and just -- wod like to hear how you'll determine that and how far you think you can go. i presume and i think that your responsibilities is only to individuals or businesses filing claims, not to state governments, because state governments obviously suffered greatly for loss of revenues and if that's at a within your pursue, as well. i don't know how $20 billion as large a sum it is couldover the entire damages caused by bp. i'd recommend that we put them into receivership to make sure their assets were sufficient to cover all the damages and i'd like your thoughts from this perspective if you can make such whether $20 billion while it's commendable and the president did a good job getting that commitment, if that's going to be aquate to compensate all the different losses? i mean, there's somewhat remote and you have to cut them off somewhere but there are losses that go a long way and all

through the gulf, so i thank you for being here and being the third great champion that mr. della hunt recognizes and it's nice to know that you've got mvelous marvin's hairstyle as i get closer to it as i get older and hopefully rocky's endurance to take a punch. thank you. >> thank you and i was incorrect. i now recognize mr. rooney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd just like to remind mr. delahunt that "sports illustra illustrated" named the city of pittsburgh the city of champions. i don't know if "sports illustrated" ever did that for anywhere in massachusetts. >> we'll have that conversation later, mr. rooney. >> okay, okay. mr. chairman, and to our guest speaker, i just want to -- as mr. coble sort of alluded to and i apologize for having my opening statement being in the broad sense of a question but just generally speaking i too am

interested in the state of florida and how it pertains to the realtors, specifically with how you subjectively or objectively look at claimants with regard to loss and, you knowthis idea of what is a loss, whether it's one block or how many blocks from the beach and from the spill and if you look at it in the context of specifically with the state of florida, the real estate industry, whether it be reynolds or sales or resales is a huge part of our economy obviously and just to sort of -- if possible give some focus to how realtors will be ashlg to assess what they can look forward to expecting from this claims process, so with that, i yield back and thank you very much. >> i thank you. i'm now pleased to introduce the

witness for today's hearing. kenneth feinberg islaims administrator for the gulf coast claims facility. he's the managing partner of feinberg, rosen llp where he served as one of the nation's leading experts in mediation and alternative dispute resolution. previously mr. feinberg was appointed by secretary of the treasu to serve as a special master for t.a.r.p. executive compensation for 2009 to 2010. mr. feinberg seems to get appointed to one thankless job after another. he was responsible for reviewing annual compension packages for senior corporate companies that received the most assistance. rlier he was appointed to serve as a special master of the federal september 11th victim compensation fund of 2001 and responsible for the design, implementation and administration of the claims process for the hokey spirit memorial fund following the tragic shootings at virginia tech university. he's worked on alternative programs for insurance claims

arising out of hurricane katrina and other hurricanes in the gulf region. mr. feinberg received his ba cum laude from the university of massachusetts in 1967 and his jd from new york university school of law in 1970. without objection your written statement will be placed int the record and we ask you limit your oral remarks to more or less five minutes. we have a lighting system that starts at four minutes. mr. feinberg, we're glad to have you here and please proceed to your testimony. >> thank you very much, congressman nadler. i appreciate the opportunity to testify once again before this committee as expected. th opening statement questions that have been raised are what i expected in appearing before this committee over and over again over the years, and i'll try and address briefly in summary fashion what i'm doing

and answers to some of these questions and then whatever the committee's pleasure. i will respond. i am in charge of independent gulf coast claims facility. under the arrangement entered into between the administration and bp, i am designing and administering an independent facility. imbeholden to neither the administration nor bp. i'm really beholden to the people who live in the gulf and who are in desperate straits and seek financial sinassistance fr this facility. the facility will be up and running next month in august. it will transition from bp. i give bp some credit. they paid out already over $200 million in claims. we can do better, the facility, quicker, more efficiently, but unlike 9/11 or some of these other tragedies, there is an

infrastructure in place which i will modify. i am accompanied by the people helping me modify this, camille biros, jackie zinns, amy weiss, all from my staff who are working with me in transitioning from bp to this new 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, again, we can do it better, but there is an infrastructure in place to help deal with this issue this tragedy. now, i drafted and circulated a draft protocol, merely a draft and received comments from state

attorney generals, from the department of justice, from interested individuals. i received especially some very, very valuable input from the staff of this committee, and over the last week, i have been reviewing and evaluating the very comments raised by some meers which were sent to me by staff in reviewing the draft protocol that i circulated. i'll have a new draft in the next few days, which i will, again, send to the staff of this committee and urge input from this committee as we move forward. the questions posed by the committee members today track in some degree the very questions, not surprising, posed by the staff in my ongoing communications with staff of this committee. no staff of any committee in the congress has been more active in

advising me than the house judiciary committee staff and i'm very grateful to perry and the other members of the staff in that regard. finally, in summary fashion a response to the questions posed by the committee members, yes, the process has to be much quicker. we will accelerate it. it must be more transparent. the data that has been provided to date to the members of this committee is inadequate, does not provide sufficient sushine on how e bp has been processing claims. we will do a much better job. i agree with the chairman, i guarantee this committee, we will have at every location in the gulf interpreters, translators in vietnamese, cambodian, whatever is necessary to make sure that eligible

claimants understand their rights and their obligations if they decide voluntarily to file with the protocol. we will, congressmen, 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 7,300 applications. 35 were fraudulent. that's how careful we were in processing claims. the department of justice criminal fraud division is working with us in this gulf coast claims facility to minimize the likelood of fraud. we will have internally the facility a fraud consultant, a fraud audit, a fraud 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 an unparalleled pro bono pgram of attorneys in 9/11. i am now working with the aba, with the american association of trial lawyers with the attorneys general, attorney general of florida, attorney general mccollum has been particularly interested in this pro bono program. we will, i sure this committee, have a pro bono program up and running to help any claimant who believes that the claimant needs an attorney. that's up to the claimant. we'll be able to help process claims without an attorney, but if they want an attorney or an accountant or a relative, anybody they want to help them access this program, we will

help them and rk with them. if they want a private attorney, that is up to them. my calculations and the awards that are rendered will be for economic loss or for physical injury or loss of national resources. therwill be no additional amount for attorneys. that's between the claimant and the attorney. that will not be part of my calculation. i assure this committee. on the moratorium, i have no jurisdiction over the moratorium. bp set aside $100 million to deal just with rig worker lost employment arising out of the administration's moratorium. that 100 million, which is in addition to the 20 billion, is not on my watch. bp and the administration will decide where that 100 million

should be custody what the custody of -- where the custody should be held and right now at least i have no jurisdiction over the processing of rig woer claims arising out of the moratorium. nor as a member raised earlier do i have any jurisdiction yet over any government claims against bp. federal, state, local government claims, lost taxes, lost real estate, sales taxes, cleanup costs, other extended costs brought by local government, state federal government, not part of my jurisdiction by agreement between the administration and bp at least r the present, i am dealing only with individual and private business claims. no government. that may change, but right now that's the limit of my

jurisdiction. the escrow account raised by as i expected some members, i urge you to read the submitted written statement of tom milch, who represents bp, where he -- he details in some degree, summary degree the stus of the escrow account. i am not responsible for that escrow account. i am not administering that escrow account. i am drawing out of the escrow account to pay claims. i think the details of the escrow account as one member pointed out, there's not much detail available yetn the terms and conditions of that escrow account. where it will be deposited, how it will be guaranteed, who will administer the escrow account? i've got enough problems. that is not on my watch, and i

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 a comfort level that is protected, that it is safe and secure. somebody raised the possibility of bankruptcy or receivership. i think it would be a monumental tragedy if bp was forced into bankruptcy as a result of this spill. it would help nobody. it would not help claimants. it would not help the payment of legitimate claims. it would delay verything. 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 claims promptly, safely 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 latent claims, he knows i think better than anybody the problem of latent physical injury claims. he's addressing it now in the 9/11 fund eight years later. i do believe that the final protocolhat i will administer will cover physical injury clai claims. fortunately so far thank goodness there are a modest number of physical injury claims but nothing like what we confronted in 9/, but t very definition of a latent claim means we may not know for awhile

but dispersants, this is a pnt raised by raised by the judiciary committee staff, yes, i do believe that the final protocol, unlike the current draft, will include physical injuries caused by the cleanup, not caused 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 on the likelihood of latent claims. as with the 9/11 fund, my current thinking is is that ultimately, although physical injuries can be paid immiately as emergency payments without any type of release whatsoever, the question posed by chairman nadla is a tough one. if two or three years from now there an opportunity to settle once and for all a physical injury claim for

respiratory injury, right now my current thinking is that we should get the best advice possible and require that claimant to voluntarily decide, as the 9/11 fund, whether to take a lump-sum settlement in full satisfaction of present and potential future illness, injury, or give that claimant an opportunity for physical injury return to the fund later on, seeking additional money if the latent claim deteriorates. i'm inclined not to do that. there are strong reasons not to do it in terms of finality, but i must say chairman nadla has raised a very important public policy question about physical injuries and latent claims which we'll have to address.

now as to therealtors. we've got to do something about the realtors. the realtors and the real estate brokers are a major political force in louisiana, alabama, mississippi, and florida. i'm hearing from them constantly i'm not sure whether or not legally they have a valid claim. under my facility or, frankly, under existing law. my facility is purely voluntary. the realtors have every right, if they so desire, not to opt into the facility and litigate. i'm not sure they can win this they litigate in terms of their perceived injury. maybe, maybe not. but i do think, congressman cohen and others, the more i visit the gulf and listen to real estate owners, renters, home owners, brokers, the more i become convinced that if i

really am going to do justice here, we've got to do something. we've got to do something. and i'll have a better handle on this in the next week, i think. but i am very cognizant of the concerns expressed by realtors and real estate brokers about the injuries they're suffering as a result of lost contracts, lost commissions, inability to sell a home, inability to rent. i'm working forhe people in the gulf. i'm not workingfor the administration of bp. and those realtors and brokers make a credible argument that something ought to be done to help them, and i'm aware of that. is $20 billion enough? we'll see. i hope so. it certainly is helpful that the oil has stopped so we can get a better handle on the pervasiveness of the spill so we

can start to sort of corral the likely number of claims. and i'm hoping that $20 billion will be enough. fortunately, as you know, if $20 billion proves insufficient efficient, bp has agreed weather the administration, to step up and way any additional valid financial obligations thatt may have. and that's a very, very important point to make. we have thestaff. miss byros is here. she's in charge of the infrastructure, setting up the staff. bp has 1,500 people working in the gulf right now on claims. we will supplement, we will reorganize, we will restructure as necessary. i assurehis committee 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 in the gulf that work, as chairman scott noted, or chairman nadla, i forget, off the books. how are we going toeal with all cash lost wages, for example? this is tough. i've told everybody in the gulf, you know, a cash business, there's nothing illegal about cas cash. ened i've suggested, you have to corroborate, you have torove your loss. i can't just take your word for it. so how are we going to demonstrate, corroborate, prove loss cash emergency payments? well, i said, well, show me your tax return. well, some of the people in the gulf say they lost their tax return. okay. what about a profit-and-loss statement? what about a document? what about a letter from your ship captain vouching for the

payments? i will bends over backwards to prove and help anybody who claims lost wages or lost business in an all-cash business. i've got to work out some criteria. they must receive a 1099 from the facility. i can't violate the federal law. how we'll work with that i am very cognizant of that problem. finally, i'm very cognizant of the problem raised by various mbers about what constitutes an eligible claim. it's easy if you are a beach-front restaurant, there's oil on the beach and you can't -- you've lost business. it's easy if you're a fisherman and you can't fish. there's oil there. you can't harvest shrimp. you can't harvest oysters. those cases are easy cases.

it's the tough case. i own a motel 20 miles from the beach. am i eligible? i've lost 30% of my guests because of the spill. i don't use the beach. i don't fish. but my tourism is down. is that an eligible claim? i sell t-shirts on the beach. that's my job. i sell t-shirts to tourists. the beach is fine. the swimming's great. nobody's coming to the beach. i can't sell t-shirts. mr. feinberg, i live in knoxville, tennessee, and i make the t-shirts that he sells to tourists on the beach. i mean, at some point you have to decide. it's a judgment call. this side of the line, eligible.

this side of the line, ineligible. it's not rocket science. at some point i must say, well, if you're on this side of the line, you're eligible because if you brought a lawsuit in alabama or louisiana or virginia or florida, you'd win. well, i don't want you to have to litigate for five years. come on in, and we'll set it will case and we'll pay you. on this side of the line, if you litigate, even under the federal law, which is more lenient than state law, i don't think you're going to win. i think you're on a fool's mission if you litigate. but i want to do something. various members talk about justice and the right thing to do. how iraw that line between a valid claim, a maybe valid

claim, an invalid claim, i mean, i'm open to suggestions. at some point this draft protocol will become a final protocol, and i'm going to have to make some tough decisions. it goes with the territory. m prepared to do it. the basis point for me to make that determination is not just the starting point. if i wasn't around and there was no facility and people litigated causation, how far down the chain would it 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'm grappling with right now. so there's my extended opening statement. i tried to answer as many of the questions as i cou. and now i am available for further questions. mr. chairman. >> thank you, sir.

i now recognize myself for the first round of questioning. and you've addressed many of the questions i was going to ask you. you haven't answered them, but you've listed them. so i want to go into a little greater depth. obviously where you draw the line on -- the first question is causation. where you draw the line reminds me of my first week of tort class and so forth. i'm sure the lawyers here will remember that. but this is a very serious question, obviously, and obviously to some extent it's going to be an arbitrary line, you can't avoid that. but, for example, i hope you're not going to do what bp did initially and -- obviously you're not, i assume -- and say that people only within a block of the beach can be damaged, which is absurd. but, for example, a small business in waveland, mississippi, steve's burlap

sacks, has been devastated because so many oyster mesnemen e out of work and not buying sacks to transport the oysters. would the owner qualify under the causation standard? what's your thinking about how far to draw the line? >> first of all, in mississippi, that claimant who makes burlap bags would be well advised to rely on the federal oil pollution control act and not tort one in mississippi. i think the federal pollution control act would extend liability under federal law, proximate causation, as you well know, well beyond the law of mississippi. that's point number one. whether or not i would recognize burlap bag manufacturer in waveland, mississippi, based on your hypothetical, where those burlap bag manufacturer is dependent on fishing or shrimping in the gulf, yes. now, whether that burlap bag

manufacturer should get 100% of his loss or 80% of his loss or 30% of his loss, i want to sort of look at that, figure out what would the law likely be under the federal law, would it extend to him, is he a direct victim of the spill or an indict victim, and come up with some way under ur hypothetical to compensate him. >> let me ask you this. you raise an intriguing question just now. let's assume you decide he was a direct victim that, in fact, all the oystermen who are not gathering the oysters, the fact shows his burlap bag, they're no longer buying his burlap bags, and he's victimized and the causation is fairly direct. why would you question whether he should get a recovery of 100% of the damage or 50% or -- >> if his causation is direct, as you put it, he should get 100%.

he may be in an industry totally dependent on fishing in the gulf. 100%. if he comes to me and says, you know, i do some work in the gulf on fishing and -- >> you have to determine what percentage. >> and some burlap -- then it's a different question. >> okay. let me go on to the question of latent industries. now, the big problem that you have, obviously, is someone comes to you and says my beach was damaged, my beach front house was damaged, "x" dollars, and i lost my job. i got it back but it's been six months so six months of lt wages, and i want recovery. and you figure it out, grant him recove recovery. five years later, he comes down with a disease that is directly related -- let's assume the facts are clear -- directly related to his having inhaled -- oh and he worked somewhat on the

cleanup and he inhaled whatever he inhaled and a few years later he comes down with a disease directly related to that. is he going to be foreclosed at that point for sicknesses which cannot possibly be diagnosed or known initially but we know are going to -- we know from experience some number of people have going to come down with this later -- is he going to be foreclosed from seeking recovery from that if p he already got a recovery from the obvious immediate injury such as property inury, his broken arm, hiss lost wages? and if so, why? >> right now, he would be. in other words, right now i would say -- it's a tough call. you've given me a hypothetical which i haven't thought of. i was thinking you were getting ready for a hypothetical where somebody knows they're sick at the time but may get sicker. we get to that one, yes. but what you're saying is somebody settles under the fund

and receives a check for their damage to their property arising out of oil on the beach. >> and lost wages and whatever else. >> whatever. >> yeah. >> but right now,s a condition of taking that check, that individual would release the facility. he would release bp for any and all future injuries. >> well, let me suggest that that ione point, as you finalize the protocol, that should be reconsidered because we have no idea how prevalent or common this is going to be. this may be rare, god willing, here. in 9/11, it wasn't rare. here it may be much less. but certainly we know from experience that there are going to be people who have no symptom or passing symptoms, they didn't feel well, the went to the doctor, gave him pepto-bismol, he was okay, but a few year later they're going to come down

with something which is going to be directly traceable. we know a certain number of people are going to get that. we don't know how many. there is no way that that person can anticipate it now. i cannot think of a reason in equity why, in ordero get the obvious -- the recovery that he needs to get on with his life or her life right away because of lost wages, monetary -- whatever, why they should have to sign away things that may become for some people extraordinarily not just dangerous but difficult and even life-threatening and very expensive. there ought to be some -- it seems to me there ought to be some provision so that if a sickness that can be traced -- i mean the evidence is another question, obviously, but assuming the evidence is there -- that can be traced back becomes evident later. that can be looked at then. >> now, you pose a tough hypothetical. the other hypothetical you posited in your opening comment

s is a tough one but not as tough. if somebody comes to the facility now with a respiratory injury, i'm 20% disabled, and i offer a total relief so that if you become 60% disabled you can't come back to the facility, now that poses a difficult equitable argument on both sides, not just one side, because i've found in the 9/11 -- >> yeah. but let me just say on that one, with proper guidance, the victim and the deciders can have some idea of what the likelihood is of a 20% disability becoming a 60% disability. when off latent claim no one has any idea is going to occur, you know statistically, say, 15% of the people will come down with it but you don't know who.

>> you anticipated my answer. that's exactly the difference. the first type -- i understand the equities there. >> and let me make it even worse. let's assume that joe blow presents himself and has some sort of respiratory disease and whatever settlement is -- plus whatever imade. five years later he comes down with blood cancer, having nothing to do wi his respiratory disease, but that blood cancer is traszable back to this. >> that's nowhere near as difficult for me as your first hypothetical involving business damage with no symptoms at all. that last hypothetical, blood cancer or whatever, is a medical issue that at least his physical health has at least been flagged by the respiratory injury. your first hypo is a horror because there i'm settling an economic claim and getting a release from the facility and

later on i get a physical injury. that's the toughest of all. that's the toughest of all. >> well, my time is expired, so i'll just leave you with my wanting to allow some leeway for these kinds of claims to be considered later as they arise. i thank you. and i recognize the distinguished gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. feinberg, weome. i very much appreciate your exposition on how you're tackling this. this is quite different. this is maybe the mother of all claim funds compared to your earlier ones because the universes so much greater. in fact, it' really unknown. with 9/11, you had a limited universe weather the hokie spirit fund, which, by the way, i represent virginia joining virginia tech, and we very much appreciated the work you did there to help the victims of that tragedy. and again with the t.a.r.p.

compensation issues, limited number of people you have to deal with. here bp already has in excess of 100,000 claims, and that may just be the beginning. given that it will -- and that generates a lot of questions, but let me just start with one. given that it will take a large number of claims evaluators to evaluate all these claims, what will be done to ensure there's consistency in the evaluation and payment of claims so the guy in one village says, well, my compensation for my fishing loss is nothing compared to what they did in the adjoining state where you got a whole bunch more money than i di >> miss byros is the pexpert in dealing with that question for the last month. the fact is we are setting up, not going to, we are currently setting up a centralized system that will have local claims evaluators submitti their claims to a cenalized system.

we are going to go down there in the next weeks, train our local people in each of 35 offices. congressman, you are on to something here. nothing will undercut th credibility of the system, and inconsistent determinations, my neighbor got a claim valid, i didn't, he got "x" thousand, i didn't. we've got to make sure, and we are confident of ths, that throughout the gulf we'll have local people trained to apply the same standards of eligibility and calculation, standardized methodologies. if you're a shrimper or oyster harvester or whatever. so that nobody will say there was bias or inconsistency or fraud,our other concern. we will address those problems. >> for the 9/11 fund, you were able to prevent fraud, but that fund was less susceptible to fraud than this claims fund

because the affected population was narrow and easier to determine. what steps are you going to take to prevent fraudulent claims from being paid while at the same time quickly and fully compensating the legitimate claimants? >> two steps. summary. one, thank goodness for the department of justice career people in the criminal fraud division. we're talking with them. we're coordinating with them as to how to highlight fraud. 1-800-whistleblower numbers if somebody suspects somebody of fraud. the department has invited the facility to send any suspicious claim immediately to the department f review. so we'll have some very effective deterrents from the criminal division, the real experts, downtown on fraud. we will also internally have a fraud audit. we will have -- we will reta fraud experts to check the

claims as they come in, verify them, make sure there aren't duplicate addresses, duplicate names, false information, the same description that we see time after tim which will immediaty trigger segregating that claim. we will do what is necessary to make sure that this committee doesn't become a critic of the facility in terms of fraud. >> with regard to your role, you mentioned that bp already has a lot of claims, i don't know if they're adjusters, but they're receiving claims. are you going to fulfill the role of claims adjuster, or will you be a mediator? will bp in any instance make any payments or refer them all to you? >> bp in another few weeks is out of the claims business in terms of private individual and business claims. >> got yo >> it's all getting transition to me. >> and one more question. "the wall street journal" has reported that ny affected

businesses are concerned that it will be difficult if not impossible to forecast long-term recovery for some of the aquatic life that they are pendent upon -- crab, shrimp, and fish population what aurances can you give fishermen that you'll be able to properly estimate what these damages are going to be as part of this claims process? >> i have two, i think, definitive answers to those businesses. one, we have done our best to estimate, before we make the offer, a long-term damage that you will suffer. we've done our best. wee 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, don't accept it.

it is a purely voluntary program. we've done our best to exercise sound judgment as to what your ultimate loss will be. if you think we are correct, you are under no obligation whatsoever to accept that check. go about your business. you can go litige, do whatever else you want. but i suspect that that business, if i've done my job right, congressman, will agree that it is a generous check that accurately affects the likely long-term damage and then some, and here is the check and i'm hoping you'll take that check. that's the challenge. one of the challenges. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. feinberg. i want to start by saying how glad i am that you are willing to take this assignment and how grateful i am to the president

for asking you to do this. it's a tough job, but we know from your work in new york that you're up to tough jobs. as you know, you know, 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. and so thank you for your service to our country and also for being here today. i want to just touch on two quick things. i know other members have questions. but if -- i want to make sure i'm understanding the framewor here correctly. and i think i am. this fund you're administering really is the alternative to tort litigation. it's not a contract claim, really. it's tort litigation. that's correct? >> that's correct. ? and so really, when people come in, it's a way to avoid complex tort litigation for damages through -- in this way. >> exactly.

>> and that's helpful, and i think if people know that who have been damaged, that will help them understand what's claimable and what isn't claimable. i want to go to a second issue and just go back to 35 years ago. the united states withdrew from vietnam, and after that, about a million refugees left the country of vietnam. i'm lucky that a substantial number of those refees came and settled in san jose, california. as a matter of fact, i think the largest vietnamese american population in the country is in san jose. d was pleased to talk to a group of vietnamese american lawyers recently, and they heightened their ccern about what is happening to fishermen

in the gulf who are vietnamese americans. it's interesting how developments occurred. the vietnamese american population in my district is so successful. you know, i was talking recently to the school district. there's no esl for vietnamese students because everybody speaks english. but i think there's slightly different development patterns the gulf because the refugees who came to the gulf are fishermen. they didn't become lawyers for the most part. they're fishermen. and manyf them don't speak english well. what the lawyers have told me is that some of these fishermen, hardworking, simple people, have been already taken advantage of by lawyers who 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 and volunteer their services to the fishermen, but there was suspicion. so i'm looking to you.

what efforts can we make in the vietnamese language for these refugee fishermen, first, to let them know about their claims but, also, if possible, to undo some of the damage that's already been done to tmwy people who have taken advantage of their limited english skills and extorted money from them and hurt them further after this disaster? >> congresswoman, you are highlighting something we're well aware of. we are in the process as we speak of making sure that we have vietnamese and cambodian and other ness translators. i've been going down to the gulf coast and holding meetings. we've already made sure that we have interpreters and that we are meeting privately with vietnamese organizations. some have come to see me already at your urging. and i am confident, as with the

9/11 fund, that we will make su that language barriers, cultural barriers, you know, uncertainty, we will make sure that access to this facility is guaranteed through multilingual interpreters, language -- we will help needed claimants fill out the forms. we are fully aware of what you're highlighting. and no one's going to be misled or fail to file because they don't understand their rights under the program or what the benefits are. i assure you of that. >> well, that is good nudeews, indeed, and i thank you for that. and let me just say that the vietnamese-american bar association in california has already volunteered. they've sent people out there. if they can help in any way, i know that they would like to. >> i would love to hear from

them at your urging. i will meet with them. we can get on a conference call. we've aready heard from various other vietnamese organizations who have offered their help pro bono, and i would welcome that opportunity. >> thank you very much, and thank you for your efforts. >> thank you. i now recognize the -- mr. coburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. feinberg, good to have you with us. sir, you touched on, this but i want to revisit it. while many have been devastated by this crisis, and it is, indeed, a crisis, and are relying upon federal benefits, do you foresee the claims process reimbursing the federal government for these said benefits? >> if i undetand the question, i supse the fedel government will have a claim just like a state government may have a claim for benefits that it's paid to -- >> yeah.

>> that's a government claim. and it's not on my watch, but i think the federal government, state governments, local governments laugh claim against bp. >> mr. feinberg,ou're in the process of formating a final protocol has to how this is going to be done. will the administration and/or bp have to sign off or will that be your sole decision? >> my total decision. >> that's what i figured. i think that's probably good. there's much to be said for independence in a situation like this. >> thank you. >> mr. feinberg, would you agree with a claimant on his or her claim that he or she accepts the check, i assume at that point a release is effected and that would bar that recipient from subsequent activity? >> to answers. first, under the protocol, very, very generous. we will pay an eligible claimant up to six months emergency

payment -- wage loss, business loss -- without any release. up to six months. a lump-sum payment up to six months. you don't give up any right you may have. >> after that, we will offer, if the person's eligible and can prove their claim, a lump-sum payment for any additional present or future injury. in return, yes, we want a release that will prevent that claimant, in return for receiving this lump-sum check, litigating later against bp. >> and during the formulation of this protocol, mr. feinberg, any idea when that will be finalized? >> yes. e am confident that the protocol will be finalized in august. we're nearing the end of july. >> i believe you said that earlier. >> yes. in august. and we will be up and running in august. so the transition frombp based

on a final protocol, which this committee staff has been very helpful with, will be finalized up and running during next month. >> thank you, mr. feinberg. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. thank you. let me just follow up on what you just said to mr. cobul with one question. in the 9/11 situation, you offered -- not litigants -- claimants the option of structured settlements instead of lump-sum checks to avoid very high taxes. are you going to do the same thing here? >> i haven't thought about it. why not? i suppose. i haven'treally -- once again you're raising an issue, chairman, as you usually do -- i haven't thought of all these questions but that's a very good one. >> if someone gets a large lump-sum check for five years of lost earnings, the tax consequence isimmense. >> it was amazing in 9/11 how few people took advantage of that offer.

amazing. >> but some people should be able to. >> i 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 clai 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, e there pmes elsewhere.

ings could take years to -- is that a new aim? 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 -- wh 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 rrent injury and come back later, when the future is more known,r 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 $30,0 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 univsity of mississippi, i think that it's going to be three years. and it's up to you, but here's a check for $3000. 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 o knows for sure. but i'm trng to help claimants, and helping claimants doesn't always mean come back later. >> and i appreciate what you're trying to do and how difcult 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 facili. 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 w 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 theiregal experti expertise, and you do all the work and they get 50% of e action. that's an editorial comnt. 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 compensatingomeone 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 he with fishmen 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 involv in anyf 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 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 regnize 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 repre 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 ry, 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 ver been sufficiently defined. will you ensure that the requirements are clear so that all members of the communityre 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 hotle and they get a claim number before visiting the claims ffice, 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 absolute 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 beollow-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 procs is much more efficient and accelerataccelerated. >> now, you know, there are localeaders that are very much in touch with the community and know about these cultural sensitivities.

i'm wondering if you can have an adviser coittee of those local leaders, the trusted leaders. already you havesaid 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. >>hank you. >> thegentlelady'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 nd, 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 id no lawyers are needed to file a claim.

no one need share one penny of eir loss with an outside lawyer or an outside preparation person. is that correc >> that's correct. ? and you sa that you will anticipate hiring attorneys and i assume some other clerical people to assist people in preparing their claims. >> correct. >>hat 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 wre 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 nosympathy for bp. if you're -- if your $20 billion can compente everybody, that's great, if they need to give

more, that'sreat. 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 primity 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 la 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 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 commtee 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 thatou 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 resu of questions that you posed, we set up this very succsful 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 ttawyers 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 attorneysaiting to assist. their assistance, i would ink, 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 uer state law or other. >> you're absolutelyright 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

o see the great come back. last year is not a fair comparison. >> as with the 9/11 fund. give us two or three years to look at. frankly, when you mentioned this was going to be a great year, show me.

i mean i can't ckann't calculat compensation on the basis of specation, but if you have a rental that now was terminated as a valid contract as a result of the spill, i didn't even node to look at the past years. as long as it is not speculative. as long as there is a 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