me to a vote. this is an important area and we need to move into the 21st century. why in the world are we rated solo 93rd in the world in the royalty payments coming from the gulf? and did you tef eastify earliert you had written bp for royalty payments of $5 billion, is that what you said? >> no, there was an underpayment by bp with respect to on-shore activities in the best. the royalty program now in effect -- >> how much was their under payment? >> your time has expired. >> can he answer that question? >> as i recall, it has been several weeks ago, for that particular issue it was about $5 million. >> thank you. >> mr. salazar i announced that

you had to leave at noon and i will abide by that and not even ask my own question. i know that you understand as a former member of congress when bells ring, i speak for the chairman when i thank you both for very important testimony here today. the hearing is in recess until after the vote. >> thank you.

you can see continuing coverage of the oil spill cleanup on the c-span networks. tonight, a kentucky senate candidate forum with republican rand paul and democratic attorney general jack conaway.

the candidates discuss agriculture and other national issues including health care, immigration, and the economy. we'll also have comments from both candidates who met with reporters following the forum. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> a rally was held wednesday in louisiana to protest the federal moratorium on drilling. in this portion, you will hear from the wife of an offshore oil worker, a form president of shell oil, a petroleum consultants, and the c.e.o. of the louisiana restaurant association. this is about 50 minutes.

in three years we were able to turn our financial situation around. i got a job working for the local paper and we set about making a new beginning. we worked really hard and we saved. recently we were able to again buy a home for our family. my husband is an offshore oil worker. he works hard for us. and by the calluses of his hands -- [applause] by the calluses of his hands and by the sweat of his brow, he keeps this nation moving from doast coast. [applause] every 14 days we kiss him

good-bye well understanding they may not come back to us. that is a decision that he made for our family and for our people. just as the firefighters, the policemen and the soldiers make a decision to protect and serve, so does my husband. [cheers and applause] my husband is a hero. three days after we signed closing papers on our new house, the moratorium hit. my husband was again without viable work. and since we had spent er ounce of our savings for our new home we met with the devastating reality that, once again, we were back to square one. my husband went immediately to work in his company shop making $10 an hour with mandatory no overtime. and now that little job i took to save for our house is all that stands between us and losing our new home. i put a claim in to bp.

that was almost eight weeks ago and i left no less than ten messages. and i was finally given a list of things to provide them and wait for the adjuster to call. no one has called me. i need a letter from my husband's employer saying my t government has ended our income and left our family to ruin. the lawyers are not sure if it would be good for the company to write such a letter. so we have to wait. for how long? i don't know. recently, i had the opportunity to go to the louisiana press association. i didn't have to go but i wanted to go to see for myself what the circumstances were on our coastline, and i did see. i saw a pairish president who was screaming for help for his people. for our people. i saw exhausted louisiana wild life and fishery workers torn up over the grief of the loss

of an entire eco system. i saw our governor bobby jindle worn out from a never ending mount of federal and bp related incompetence. and yet, he still took the time -- [cheers and applause] he still took the time to hold my hand and to talk to me. together, we shared grief for my family and for our coastline. i looked straight into the ice of the state symbol, the brown kellcan and other wile life who are lost and dripping with the blood of our mother earth. but the most startling thing i saw that day is not what i saw, it's what i heard. nothing. in a boat, in a marsh that should have been crawling with life i heard nothing. no birds, no insects, nothing. the earth is dead there. the plant life soaking in crude is dead or dying. upon returning i couldn't get the images out of my head of what i witnessed. the voices of fifth generation

fishermen who, the six dsth generation uncertain. the collective sound of a culture and a people crying out for assistance while fingers are pointed and hearings are held? [cheers and applause] to what lasting effect the oil spill will have on our people and environment, that remains to be seen, but i say let that effect be the story of not only survival but of overcoming. just as the acadian story has always read. there are other things i saw that day, things that made me swell with pride. those who keep working without respirators without the equipment they need, without hope for a paycheck in the near future. true stories of the warriors of this nation, the fishermen, the crabbers, the offshore oil worker. those who carry the torch of

the day in their back pocket. [cheers and applause] those who in the words of bobby jindle will not wait to save our coast. they will not wait to save their families. they will not wait to offer their hands to the service of our people. let us send the alarms to every corner of the state and nation. we will not go softly. we will come forth by the thousands. and we will reclaim all that we have lost. we will not let our wild life be destroyed. we will not let our livelihoods be lost. we will not let our people and any form be alone. [cheers and applause] i challenge you all on this day to stand, find your cause, find your courage, find your sers,

find your god, and be an authors of aid and faith. because in this world, we must all be warriors. [cheers and applause] god bless us. god bless the state of louisiana. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. you know, when i visit across the nation with folks and they ask me, am i heart broken? my response is, every

louisianaen, look at the bp oil spill, and it makes us sad. but the moratorium makes us mad. let me hear you if you're mad. our next speaker before his retirement for shell oil company in 2008, he founded citizens for affordable energy, a public policy education firm that promoments sound u.s. energy solutions for the nation. this speaker just doesn't talk the talk, he walks the walk. perhaps the biggest corporate sponsor of save the foundation, please welcome a great friend of louisiana mr. john hautsdz myselfer. [cheers and applause]

>> mr. president, i listened to you, i believed your message, i worked for you, i voted for you, i didn't expect -- boos. ] i didn't expect i didn't expect the boot of your secretary on my neck and the industry that i love when i did that. [cheers and applause] and even more, mr. president, i did not expect your boot on the neck of louisianaance. you are making the mistake of the seven predecessors that you have followed, mr. president.

you are doing exactly what they did which is leading this country toward an energy abyss. you are turning energy into politics. [cheers and applause] we cannot have a nation, we cannot have the world's largest economy and turn energy into simpleday today flare of the day politics, mr. president. cause chaws [cheers and applause] >> i sat through six congressional hearings in my tenure as shell president. i have the tongue lashings still on my back because your senators, your congressmen put them there asking why oil prices, why gasoline prices

were so high in 2006 and 2007 and 2008. and i told you then, when you were a senator and i told your colleagues then if you don't allow the american industry and the workers of the oil and gas industry to drill, you will have high gas prices. [cheers and applause] but you are not listening. you are stopping the drilling that's taking place today. that drilling will ultimately save this country hundreds of billions of dollars of otherwise buying foreign oil. that drilling will put tens of billions of dollars of royalties, hundreds of billions of dollars of hard-earned tax money into the american economy. but you don't want it.

it's time for common sense. it is time for common sense to make gulf sense. and common sense means we produce our own energy in this country. we don't buy other people's energy. [cheers and applause] 9.2 million people go to work in the oil and gas industry. everybody should know that. don't lay off the 50,000 people that are working on those rigs to support those rigs and to build the equipment for those rigs. it's time to change the game. it's time to bring common sense to the american discussion on our energy future. we have three enemies that are

attacking us as we sit here. the first enemy is misinformation that you are perpetrating. the second enemy is disinformation which your colleagues are perpetrating. and the third enemy is lack of information which you are not sharing. [cheers and applause] as dan said earlier, 10,000 gallons a second. 10,000 gallons a second. the east coast anti-drillers and the west coast anti-drillers apparently mean more to you than the gulf coast drillers. [cheers and applause] and it's costing us all our dignity in addition to our pay

checks. here's what's wrong. what's wrong is that the partisanship that is taking place inside the beltway today is paralyzing this country from making any decisions in the interest of the people. the part of paralysis of the right wing or the partisan paralysis of the left wing are hurting the americans, all of whom live in the middle between this left and right winged government. [cheers and applause] but it's worse. and, mr. president, you are part of this problem. you made promises you're not delivering. here's the problem. the problem is in your own executive branch which i've dealt with for years and years, why do you have 13 executive branch agencies to mismanage the energy of this nation?

[cheers and applause] we know from katrina, we know from rita, we know from all of the disasters that we have suffered across the gulf coast, these 13 agencies cannot work together. they do not work together. they will not work together. and we suffer the consequences. [cheers and applause] but it's worse than that. can we please have an answer? can the american people please have an answer? why do we have to have 26 congressional committees and subcommittees governing our energy? why 26? why not one or two? why 26? they are mismanaging it also. [cheers and applause]

we have a situation, ladies and gentlemen, as sure as we are sitting here. our united states government is dysfunctional, it's broken, and it is unfixable in its current form. [cheers and applause] i started citizens for affordable energy for a very simple reason. citizens for affordable energy nationwide, grass roots, everyday people, the simple reason is, ladies and gentlemen, i've given up on the federal government fixing itself. [cheers and applause] we've been promised energy

independence by eight presidents. we've been promised energy ind ents by 18 congresses. they have not delivered. we are more dependent today, especially with this moratorium, than we ever were in our history. so now is the time. and we have if ability to do this. and you know where i'm going. you know where we're all going. we're going to take our country back, ladies and gentlemen. [cheers and applause] tl citizens of this country are taking our country back. [cheers and applause]

the moratorium is a needle in our eye. we don't need a needle in our eye. we need jobs, we need paychecks, and we need energy. we do not need politicians playing politics with the energy and the jobs that makes this nation what it is. what we need are citizens who will tell the government who works for who. [cheers and applause] we are thousands strong today in laugh yeth louisiana. we are hundreds of thousands and millions and tens of millions of people strong when we tell the truth to our elected officials in november. we want to take our country back. [cheers and applause]

we have more energy in this gulf of mexico, we have more energy in this united states of america than this nation will ever need. let us produce it. [cheers and applause] and the jobs and the lifestyles and the net income of all the companies, we will pay down the deficit that you have created. because energy is at the base. energy is at the heart of our nation's economy. it is not only the gasoline in our tanks, it is not only the diesel in our trucks. it is also the clothes we wear, the homes we live in, the toys we play with, the electronics that we use. mr. president, don't forget, energy and oil and chemicals touches everything in our

lives. let us produce it, please. [cheers and applause] but if you persist, if you continue to play politics with people's lives in louisiana, there will be a consequence. and that consequence will show up, and it's called pain at the pump. and in 2012, mr. president, when the gasoline price is $5 a gallon, your administration and all of your dreams are toast. [cheers and applause]

please listen. please listen and learn from the people of your country. the citizens of the united states of america can have, should have, must have affordable energy to keep this nation strong. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. [cheers and applause] >> thanks, john. and thanks for the thousands of jobs you have helped create in our state and our region, and your time at shell oil company. our next speaker, mr. cj mcdonald grew up in our oil fields. he is a regular guy that has continued in that tradition. he has not only held many positions in the industry, he

has helped develop equipment and trained countless workers who are still in the oil field today. let's hear it for a guy who does it every day mr. crfplt j mcdonald. [applause] >> i would like to first offer prayers of consoleances to the members of the families, the deepwater horizon. many of us make it out of situations like that. it's not a good one. i would like to thank everybody for the cause today. during the first meeting we had, mr. don brigs asked us all in the room that were present can we really do this? could we pack this dome? could we gather this many people to get our message out to the nation? and could we get every american to realize that this moratorium

does affect us all, every one of us. it was said that if we did do this, there would need to be a lasting commitment. we would not start down this road and not do it whole heartedly. looking around, it seems like we've done that. we've filled this place up. [cheers and applause] you all filled it up. everybody supported us. we realize the whole hearts and minds that this moratorium could destroy our way of life, our futures. today's rally is a direct message to the president, to the rest of the nation that we are too important to ignore. we matter. we have our work cut out for us. it will not end when we all leave here today. we must continue to spread this message that this moratorium must be lifted to protect all that is precious to us.

we have all been complacent by electing people to positions and allowing them to make decisions that affect our everyday lives and the futures of our children. i've been blessed with 27 years in the oil field. the industry has been very good to me. my family, i have family in the seafood industry. this has been a good industry which carried many of us around the world. we've sacrificed much of our family life to support our families, our states, and our nation. we've gone without seeing our families for long stretches at a time. mising our children's first steps, missing their first words, their birthdays. we don't complain because we built an industry that brought technology and wealth to our region, to our nation, and to many other nations around the world. we had the satisfaction of knowing that good of our industry has brought to lives

of millions of people. however, all this good has changed, brought about in one decision made by someone who knows nothing about how we make our living. [cheers and applause] many of our freedoms have already been chisled at little by little. and this decision here has carved a much larger piece of our freedom than many realize. we are not blind to what brought us here today. we as an industry take responsibility for our actions. we hold ourselves caubtable when mistakes are made. we are witnessing how one company's bad decision affected an entire ecological system, the gulf coast states, and the nation. mistakes were made, procedures may not have been followed, but none of us in this entire industry would intentionally risk injuring or killing any of our coworkers. [cheers and applause]

we operate daily in a safe environment that we create. we have proper procedures to follow and we do it. we watch out for our brothers working next to us. every day, each guarding the other as a team on every rig in the gulf and in our land. [applause] the few people that choose to take short cuts and not follow proper procedures are a minority in our industry. we make every effort ourselves to we'd these people and behavior out. after all, i enjoy living. we all do. we look after each other. [applause] we as americans have to make a stand, make it very clear to washington and all of our elected officials that they work for us. [cheers and applause]

we pay for, we vote them into positions to handle our affairs, we have to be diligent in going to the voting machine and we'ding out those that are there for personal gain at the expense of our live hihoods and our way of life. [applause] washington and everyone concerned needs to hear and realize, hear the message from the gulf states and all of us here in the cagen dome. the moratorium impacts every aspect in every industry. one of our world's best ways of life is at risk. it is time that we are heard. no one person or organization should ever have the power to diminish the freedoms that we enjoy that so many have fought and died for. [cheers and applause] we are a safe industry.

we are not perfect. but we are important because we touch every other industry in the world and every household in america throughout the world. we, the people, want this ban lifted. we want our jobs back, we want our freedoms restored. we want to hand down our way of life, a good and honorable life, to our children. we realize that we have a huge charter going forward. we have to be diligent of bringing up a new generation of oil field workers that bring us to the forefront of a greener planet. we must become less dependent on the rest of the world for our energy, going back to being self--made americans. [cheers and applause] this moratorium must be lifted now. [speaking french] thank you.

[cheers and applause] >> thanks for those great words. our next speaker knows a thing or two about our great louisiana seafood brand. understand that we are getting ready to hear from a speaker who makes a living promoting louisiana seafood and he is here at a oil and gas rally to lift the moratorium. that tells you that this is a unique slice of america where we can have it all, where we can fish and hunt and at the same time define america's energy. there is no doubt about it. this next speaker has the responsibility of leading the safe effort to promote seafood and make sure that every restaurant in the world knows that if it comes from louisiana, you can bet it's the best. please welcome the executive director of the louisiana seafood promotion and marketing board, and producer of the great american seafood cookoff that airs on the food network.

mr. you'll smith. [applause] whose ma ma knows how to cook louisiana seafood in this room? all right, folks. be candid, the rally for economic survival should not be held right here in new orleans, louisiana, should it? it could be held in detroit, it could be held in fresno, it could be held in carson city, nevada. see, the unemployment rate in those areas are over 12%, and here we've been historically below 4% or 5%. the president is piling one crisis on top of the other and going to kill us. it's absolutely going to kill us. so i want to ask you all a couple questions. i've been listening to the other speakers speak, and it's got me thinking.

so i want you all to simply answer yes or no. and i want you all to say it loud so the people in d.c. hear us. are you with me? are you but w me? does the president sincerely care about our oil communities? does the president sincerely care about our fishing communities? does he care about the people of louisiana, mississippi, alabama, florida, or texas? does he understand the profound impact he is going to have on this country, the economy of this country? you see, folks, we are facing two challenges, the louisiana seafood industry is facing two challenges. one -- and they both come from the federal level. let me talk about the safety of seafood for a second.

everybody knows they opened up the recreation yeal areas last week, which is great news. every agency that we work with. noaa, they count. e.p.a., wild live and fisheries, department health, all those agencies have given us a clean bill of health and we're waiting on f.d.a. f.d.a. is simply holding us up by protocols. if they let us get back to work, we could get back to work, our fishing communities could be back at 86% of our shorelines but we're not there. some of our seafood distributors and processors are coming this week and are going to have a hard time getting product because of the f.d.a. sitting on their hands. and of course the other challenge is why we're sitting here today. and i'll be very candid. when i learned about the moratorium, like probably everybody else in this room you probably said, is that for real? really? and now i start thinking about

it from a fisheries perspective. because, you see, our fishing communities, and what the president doesn't understand and a lot of people actually from other parts of the country have a hard time relating to it because they're far away from us. but our fishing communities and our seafood communities co-exist. everybody understands that. cj was just talking about his family in the sea business. it's our cousins, aunts, aunchingles, the other side of the business and vice versa. some people like cj have family members that do bodes. they may be fishing part time, they may be on the oil rig part time. and i'm going to give you an example of a friend of ours named ac cooper down in venice, louisiana. ac's a generational shrimper. his father is a shrimper and he hasn't been able to go out like so many people know people who go out shrimper.

and his wife is malla and they have a restaurant down in louisiana. if anybody who has been in venice yourks know that is an oil city as well. their business is going to suffer. these two businesses are like this. again, we're tied together. there is that story to be told thousands upon thousands of times. the ripple effect we're going to feel first in our own state, our own fishermen who have been knocked down to their knees, and now the president and his administration are putting a boot on their neck and it's going to kill us. i've got a homework assignment for you all. you've got a blackberry with you, an pen and paper, take this website address down. louisiana sea food news.com.

louisiana sea food news.com. one thing we do in louisiana, we come together as a community. louisiana seafood board, our job is to make sure the markets are available for our fishermen to bring their product to market around the country. following katrina our chefs -- we've got the best in the world. louisiana, we've got the best product in the world to work with in louisiana. but we come together, we come together as a community and we come together in spirit and we fight to survive. what i need your help with is that website i just mentioned to you all, we hired a former cbs news correspondent and he has a team of reporters on the ground writing stories about real people in louisiana, real people in louisiana both in every industry that it is going to affect because including the oil industry, the layers go on and on as you know.

so you all could do me a favor and our fishing communities a favor and your communities a favor. get on that website and send it to everybody you know. 20,000 people could affect 40,000, 8,000, and on and on. the reach will be tremendous. now, i'm going to close with a quote from the president. everybody's been following the unemployment issue. and this is what the president said on monday. you all ready for this? it's time to stop holding workers laid off in this recession hostage to washington politics. hold on. it's time to do what's right not for the next election but for the middle class. folks, scott mentioned some of our relatives and cousins, all

these families, all your oyster families. folks, we are the people of louisiana. it's the spirit of louisiana. the president needs to let us go back to work. the president meeds to let us be americans. the president needs to let us be americans and do our job and let us do our job now. thank you all. >> thank you so much. and we're going to continue to remind the country that we can do two things at one time in louisiana. we can fish and we can drill. absolutely. i want to acknowledge and thank the members of the louisiana legislature that are here with us today. hold your applause. they have been great supporters of this industry. we have representative nancy

land rue, page cortezz. fred mills, troy abare, mike mish aud, representative sime moan, gordon doug and nick. please join with me and thanking them for being a part of today. we're getting very close to the ebbed. our next speaker understands very well how the moratorium is impacting one of our proudest parts, one of the proudest parts of our louisiana economy, our restaurant business. he has dedicated his life to making the louisiana restaurant experience among the best in the world. please help me welcome the president and c.e.o. of the louisiana restaurant association, mr. jim function. >> hello acadiana. how are you doing?

i have had the pleasure for the last 29 years and six months and a few days to represent the best restaurants in the world. and a great many of them are located right here in acadiana. you know, we all talk about restaurants. we all talk about eating in restaurants. and we talk around here about, well, who has the best oyster po boy? what was the size of them oysters? was they salty? you know, that's what we take as our heritage. it's something that we're really proud of is our seafood, way of life, and restaurants. restaurants are a big business in this state and particularly in this area. in the five congressional districts, in the southern part of the state, there are over 105,000 people that are employed directly for restaurants. so if this moratorium comes to

pass, if we don't stop it, it's going to have a detrimental impact on your favorite restaurant. and talk about favorite restaurants, i just want to try something real quick. everybody on this side of the room, just this side, if i ask you to stand up and say -- holer your favorite restaurant's name on three. will you do it? ok. stand up. and even -- there are a lot of restaurants that closed today just to come to this event. so even if you're here from that restaurant, go ahead and brag on your restaurant. here we go. you all people be thinking about your favorite restaurants. one, two, three. boy, you think they don't have some minds made up over there. ok. let's try the middle section. stand up.

think about your favorite restaurant and on three. ready? one, two, three. wow. ok. i don't know if this side can be as loud as this side and that side or not. you can? ok. be thinking real hard your favorite restaurant. all right. on three. stand up. here you go. you all can do it. on three. one, two, three. wow. that's great. you know, hearing the gentleman a few minutes ago talk about burnt toast, maybe we could get our restaurants to have a burnt toast day in honor of that guy in the white house.

you know, we're really concerned about this and the restaurant industry is doing everything we can to support our oil industry and we will continue to do so. i would just like to close with one question or two questions. if anybody in the room is for the moratorium, stand up and say yes. on three. one, two, three. ok. all opposed to the moratorium. stand up and say no so loud they can hear it in the white house. stand up. one, two, three. go. thank you.

>> our final speaker, i want to thank jim for being here and showing the nation as we speak to the nation today and let us not forget we are speaking to the nation today that we had folks from the seafood industry and the restaurant indsfri who want to help us. our final speaker began his career in the oil and gas industry some 45 years ago and is currently serving as the president of the louisiana oil and gas association spending every day striving to make louisiana a state where the oil and gas industry was willing to spend its money, and we can enjoy the fruits of its hard work at the same time making sure we do it in harmony with the environment. please put your hands together for one of the organizers of this event, the president of the louisiana oil and gas association, mr. don brigs.

>> well, i'm pinch hitting. they wrote me a little speech. and i'm not going to use it. i always speak from my heart so that's what i'm going to do with you right now. you know, i was reminded of a quote from andrew jackson. he said, where one man has courage, he makes a majority. well, in here today we've had 12,000 people with courage. [cheers and applause] today we have right now over 3,000 people watching this on the internet through our website. and millions watching it on television. you know, when we sit back and look what's happening to us, you know, when we think about

our courage, we remember the mid 80s in this state in our community in the south, and we knew the courage that it took for you will all to stand up, pull our boots back on because we lost literally thousands and thousands of jobs throughout our country and throughout our state. today, if you think about all the people in this room, in the next few weeks, in the next month, in this stadium, will represent the easy the number of jobs that we will have lost at least 10,000 to 12,000 people here in the next few months. you know, it's a shame to say that it's politically safer to drilling in ang goala, mr. president, than it is in our own gulf of mexico. it is hard to believe that prior to this moratorium that 85% of our natural resources in

the united states were off limits for drilling. today, darn near 99.9% of everything is off limits in the united states to drill. it's hard to believe. so all i can say is this. we're going to fight and we're going to make it a good fight. and we care, we lo our country, we love our state, and we love the industry and our community that we're in. and mr. obama, lift that moratorium. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> before i close, i also want to recognize from the state legislature, state represent tives. please join me in thanking them for being here as well. in addition from our statewide

officials you heard earlier, we have u.s. senator david vitter with us. thank you, senator, for being here, as well as an attorney general who won't stop fighting for the people of louisiana, a great guy, attorney general buddy caldwell and the secretary of state jay caldwell, thank you for being here with us today. today we've heard from our governor, our governmental leaders and others, business people, restaurant people, energy oil people, all individuals whose livelihood depends on this industry. and they depend on all of us here to send a message loud and clear that we're louisiana and this 18th state of the union will not back down. we will work together, we do know how to persevere, we will find solutions, and, yes, we

will get back to work. our governor has made it clire that we don't want a handout. our governor hazy made it clear we want to go to work. so now that you've attended the rally, you've made your voice heard, you've been part of this historic event here in louisiana. what is the next step? if you haven't joined the team and signed the petition to president obama in the united states and the united states department of interior urging them to drop this moratorium and let us get back to fw business, it's time for you to get on board with the people from across the country who have already joined the effort in our support to return the gulf coast back to work. visit www.gest.l.a..gov. to become a member and your name to the petition. you also through that site can write a letter to president

obama and to interior secretary ken salazar reminding him that louisiana's gulf coast does play a major role in the energy independence and security of our nation. most importantly, you must take the energy and enthusiasm of today's rally and continue to push forward, continue to work together, continue to persevere, and continue to make your voice heard. the great coach vince lom barredi once said that individual commitment to a group effort is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, and a civilization work. this is your opportunity to make an individual commitment to a massive group effort to save our industry, to save our economy, our way of life, and to get the folks of coastal louisiana back to work. as we leave today, let us always remember those who perished in the deepwater horizon rig on april 20.

always remember to keep their families in your thoughts and prayers. i believe we live in a country, as i said earlier, where we can do two things at one time. but it takes hard work. [speaking french] it's time to roll up our sleeves and let's go to work. mr. president, we need you to work as hard on this job as you did trying to get this job. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> we have a special web page with all our coverage about the gulf of mexico oil spill. we've also set up a twitter section for your comments. you'll find it all at c-span.org/oil spill. and you can see continuing

coverage of the oil spill cleanup on the c-span networks. >> tonight, a kentucky senate candidate forum with rand paul and jack conaway. the candidates discuss agriculture and other national issues including health care, immigration, and the economy. we'll also have comments from both candidates who met with reporters following the forum. that's tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. this weekend, former "new york times" public editor clark hoyt on the changing world of the newspaper industry. >> i worry about some of the standards and maintaining journalistic integrity as we move from one media world to another. >> sunday night on c-span's q and a. >> on wednesday, kenneth

feinberg told the house judiciary committee that he works neither for the obama administration nor for bp. but for the people of the gulf coast. in his first appearance on capitol hill in his current capacity as the administrator of the $20 billion bp gulf oil spill compensation fund. he told members that the fund would be ready to start processing claims by august. this is just over two and a half hours. good morning. the committee will come to order. today's hearing is on insuring justice for victims of the gulf coast oil disaster. 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 troubling 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 accommodate the large population 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. smith 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 protracted 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't they show more initiative and become engaged early on? it has created an environmental and economic disaster 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 appointment 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 9/11 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 moratorium. the energy industry contributes $65 billion to louisiana's $210

billion economy compared to about 10 billion from fishing and tourism. dr. mason projects a six-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 significantly higher if the moratorium becomes a permanent ban. the moratorium has already caused oil drillers to 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 about the outdated and unfair maritime

liability regime that is 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 be fairly 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 claims 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 independent 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 four-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 guarantee can we have that the fund pledge will also be protected from becoming a part of a bankruptcy estate should bp seek bankruptcy 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 efforts to 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 witman falsely assured that the air near ground zero was safe. we are still paying 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 today as 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. mr. feinberg, 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 done efficiently and that it be done in a way that we don't feel that people 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 and that 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, and now we have another champion in ken feinberg, whose success is

extraordina extraordinary. it's a great community. 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 the 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 that i remember the heavyweight champion from massachusetts. mr. feinberg, good to have you with us. mr. feinberg, 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 issue you may want to address in your comment but according to him will the oil reach the beaches in alabama, it resulted in lost 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 elsewhere people are losing money as a result, not a direct result but an indirect 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. >> thank 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 -- would

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 all within your pursue, as well. i don't know how $20 billion as large a sum it is could cover 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 adequate 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 marvelous 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 know, this 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 is claims 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 treasury 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 compensation packages for senior corporate companies that received the most assistance. earlier 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 into 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. the 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 an 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 members 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 surprisingly, 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 sunshine on how the 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 likelihood 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 program 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 assure 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 work 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. there will 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 worker 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 for 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 status 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 yet on 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 everything. it would put a sizable work force out of work in that region already suffering from unemployment, so just an editorial comment by me, i will do what i can to make sure that that escrow account pays 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 protocol that 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 9/11, but the very definition of a latent claim means we may not know for awhile but dispersants, this is a point 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 immediately 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 is 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 the realtors. 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 for the people in the gulf. i'm not working for 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 that it may have. and that's a very, very important point to make. we have the staff. 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 assure this 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 to deal 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 to prove 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 members 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 i draw 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. i'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 could. 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 are 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 indirect victim, and come up with some way under your 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 lost 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 injury, 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, as 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 is one 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, they went to the doctor, gave him pepto-bismol, he was okay, but a few years 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 order to 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 is made. five years later he comes down with blood cancer, having nothing to do with 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, welcome. 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 universe is so much greater. in fact, it's 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 did? >> 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 submitting their claims to a centralized 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 the 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 this, 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, your 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 for 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 retain 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 time, which will immediately 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 you. >> it's all getting transition to me. >> and one more question. "the wall street journal" has reported that many 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 dependent upon -- crab, shrimp, and fish populations. what assurances 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. we've 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 incorrect, you are under no obligation whatsoever to accept that check. go about your business. you can go litigate, 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 framework 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 refugees 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. and was pleased to talk to a group of vietnamese american lawyers recently, and they heightened their concern 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 in 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 many of 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 themwy 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 sure 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 already 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 understand the question, i suppose the federal 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, you're in the process of formulating 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 from bp 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't really -- 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 is immense. >> 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 claim stop and another start? if this is conceivably a 20-year event, a person who has ocean property, we're discussing now and scientists are disputing, are there plumes elsewhere. things could take years to -- is that a new claim? are we now going to create a

whole new series of court cases in which people decide, well, that -- you signed a waiver for getting wiped out the first month. when did that the first month end and when did that damage get cleaned up? what if 16 years from now, you know, they've lost what they had just because this goes on longer? we've already seen so many unintended circumstances. we didn't know that they'd happen. how do you take that into consideration and give finality? th >> that's a question. i make the following point first. if i've done my job right, i will be able -- the facility will be able to predict with some degree of certainty the long-term impact of the spill so that when a -- when compensation is tendered, it will have some basis in fact as to the likely

long-term impact. secondly, it is important, i think, to point out that finality is often important not only for the facility in bp but for the claimant. i've learned over the years that if you say to a claimant, mr. or ms. claimant, off choice -- you can take money now for your current injury and come back later, when the future is more known, or we can agree that the future damage is likely to be this and here is a much larger check. your call. very, very often the claimant wants the larger check. in other words, mr. feinberg,

you're telling me based on mr. quigley's valid question i have a choice. i can either take a check now for $1,000 or based on your sound judgment, take a check for $30,000. but i can't come back later. mr. feinberg, i'll take that $30,000 check. i think that you've explained to me what you think is the likely outcome. i want finality, and i want the larger check. i think it's important. i do not assume that finality only benefits bp. i'm trying to help claimants who are trying to plan their future. and when you say to a claimant, well, you know, you can come back in three years from now and, depending on how it works and the oil samples and the water samples, you may get more, or based on my judgment talking

to people at lsu or the university of alabama or the university of mississippi, i think that it's going to be three years. and it's up to you, but here's a check for $30,000. in my judgment, trying to help individual claimants more likely than not they'll see the wisdom of taking the $30,000 as long as it's grounded in some degree of certainty. no one knows for sure. but i'm trying to help claimants, and helping claimants doesn't always mean come back later. >> and i appreciate what you're trying to do and how difficult it is. and i wish you the best for all involved. if it's ever tested, the ability to do this, this is the one. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman and recognize the gentleman from california. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you for being here, mr. feinberg. i've been very impressed with the answers so far, very

thorough and comprehensive. i've even been able to understand some of them. so in any event, just a couple quick things. clearly your job is to ensure that people that have been harmed have every opportunity to be made -- dealt with fairly and made whole. in that process, is there any type of a safeguard that would ensure that the -- through the claims facility that payments made to claimants would not be reduced significantly as a result of attorney fees? is there any kind of a cap, or is that -- is there any -- so they have kind of a free reign? >> this facility is not going -- as we did in 9/11, this facility is not going to get into this

issue of attorneys' fees. whatever the claimants' relationship to his or her attorney is a private, contractual relationship, which is frankly not a priority for this facility. now, i have said, congressman, over and over again, i do not believe it necessary for a claimant to this facility to even have an attorney. i can work with these claimants, as we did in 9/11, a, and, b, i am fully confident we will set up a pro bono program where claimants can come to the facility and we will offer them a free attorney. >> pardon me. that being the case, mr. feinberg, i think it's reasonable to assume that many of these folks went out and retained an attorney that for class action or whatever very early on before they knew of

mr. feinberg, and now they're in a contract. you know, i have my own opinions about this, but i think it's nothing short of criminal that somebody that is really harmed ends up with 40% or 50% of what he is harmed for and someone that comes in with their legal experti expertise, and you do all the work and they get 50% of the action. that's an editorial comment. now, mr. nadler, i just came in as he was asking a question. i don't want to ask it again. but was there any clarification as to the settlement amount? for instance, if the settlement is for the purpose of compensating someone for loss of income, is that subject to federal income tax? >> i'm sure it is. i'm not an income tax lawyer, but if it's compensated -- >> not your deal but -- >> if you're compensated for lost income by substitutes a check from the facility, i'm

confident it is subject to income tax. >> the other last question i have, mr. chairman, and this may not really be something that you can answer directly, but i was involved years ago in the "exxon valdez" incident up in alaska. so i saw first hand many of the same issues that we're dealing here with fishermen and with the issues that have impacted their livelihood up there. one of the things we found up there is many of the fishermen got jobs working in the cleanup process. we're seeing that happen, of course, in the gulf, which is, i guess, a good thing. have you been involved in any of the process whereby folks have been compensated in the way of working in the cleanup, and has there been any comparison with

what their income is as it related to fishing? and does that have an effect on the claim? >> it certainly has an effect on the claim. right now under the protocol, if somebody was earning $5,000 a month as a fisherman and now can't fish but bp has put them to work on a vessel of opportunity to help clean up the oil at $8,000 a month, then there's a $2,000 difference in what they were earning before as to what they're earning now, i would deduct that $3,000 from the $5,000 and give them a check for $2,000. so i'm not involved in the vessel for opportunity program or any effort by bp to hire these folks that are out of work, but i do say in the protocol that that separate wage that they're earning would be collaterally offset from my award. >> in other words, there would be an offset -- >> yes. >> -- for real damage.

>> real damage. >> you're really focusing on what real damage is with a percentage factor in there for whatever is an incentive to settle. >> exactly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. now recognize the gentlelady from california, miss chu. >> thank you, mr. chair. i wanted to give you some feedback with regard to the vietnamese fishermen in the gulf coast. i have been in touch with them, and they have some specific feedback with regard to how the process is going so far. first of all, i mean, as you know, they represent a very significant part of the shrimping community, the vietnamese fishermen are about one-third of the shrimping community in the gulf coast. but they've raised very, very significant concerns. first of all, in terms of the interpreter selection, it needs great improvement. at one of the initial trainings

held by bp, they spent trainers who spoke communist diction to refugees who live in the gulf so, there are cultural subtle subtleties that really have to be paid attention to. not every interpreter is competent, necessarily, or is sensitive to the particular population that is there in the gulf coast. and, for instance, an interpreter would need to be very specific about the language needed, particular vocabulary words pertaining to maritime claims and legal issues. so my first question would have to do with how you are selecting the interpreters. the second piece of feedback that i've gotten has been about the supporting documents that are required to submit a claim. many of the fishermen have stated that they were denied claims or turned away because of the requirement for supporting documents has never been sufficiently defined.

will you ensure that the requirements are clear so that all members of the community are able to access the claims process? and more importantly, could you ensure that sample documents are given to provide -- provide individuals with the clarity about what is needed to complete the paperwork? and then thirdly, many of them have complained about the complicated process for filing claims involving a hotline and they get a claim number before visiting the claims office, but even though they've followed these initial steps, they've never received any follow-up. and how could you ensure that they are able to get that kind of follow-up? >> three questions. >> mm-hmm. >> first, we're relying on the public interest, the vietnamese organizations to assist us. we've met with a couple of them already in terms of providing us the best interpreters locally in

the gulf that will guarantee qualification and making sure that they are qualified to act on behalf of the claimant. so we're working with those organizations. if there's an organization we should be talking with that you're aware of, congresswoman, by all means let me know. secondly, the documentation issue, we will provide sample documentation. it's important that the claimant document the claim. but i don't care. i've told claimants in the gulf, if you don't have one type of document, give us another document, especially for the emergency payments where people are desperate to receive this compensati compensation. if you don't have any official documentation, give me a written letter from your ship captain or your priest or your mayor so that we can at least get you seize emergency payments. and finally, in terms of

1-800-numbers and more efficiency and less delay, as i said in my opening statement, that is absolutely essential. we're working on that now. i am confident that next month, when we're up and running, we will have an accelerated program. >> but will there be follow-up for these folks? that's what they're asking about. >> absolutely. i assure you, congresswoman, we will be processing emergency payments within 24 hours. we will be cutting checks within two days thereafter. we will make sure that the process is much more efficient and accelerataccelerated. >> now, you know, there are local leaders that are very much in touch with the community and know about these cultural sensitivities. i'm wondering if you can have an adviser committee of those local leaders, the trusted leaders. already you have said that

people are skeptical, angry, dispirited, worried, and that it's going to be your job to sell this program. and so i'm wondering if you can have a group that can continuously give you this sort of feedback on an ongoing basis. >> we do. i agree 100% with you that this program can only be effective and successful by relying on local people. this can't be done from washington. i'm spending a great deal of time in the gulf. and relying on credible people, officials, neighbors, people that are trusted is the only surefire way to get people to access this facility and take advantage of it. i can't help people if they don't sign up. and i think the only way to get people signed up who are inherently suspicious and skeptical is by relying on local leaders, yes. >> thank you. >> the gentlelady's time has

expired. i now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. iszen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. feinberg, it's good to see you as always. you know, when we have go-to people that can be well regarded by the press, well regarded by both sides of the aisle and then go to a very difficult area with the reputation for fairness, honesty, integrity, and competence, those aren't available in all the people we send, but that last one is seldom that has such a history as you have of competence. you've done a good job of laying out, as you did in your opening statement, a lot of the parameters. let me just go through a couple that i'm particularly interested in. one, i'm going to ask you a question not in the form of a question. you said no lawyers are needed to file a claim. no one need share one penny of their loss with an outside

lawyer or an outside preparation person. is that correct? >> that's correct. ? and you said that you will anticipate hiring attorneys and i assume some other clerical people to assist people in preparing their claims. >> correct. >> that is great news. and i hope that that will be well covered from today. i have a couple of questions that are sort of down in the weeds a little bit. but there are a large amount of people who have lost their income because of the oil drilling ban. you're not compensating people who were laid off because the president had an ash tear moratorium on drilling. >> not on my watch. >> but if those people, those tens of billions of dollars of income, those people who work offshore for very high wages and then come ashore and eat in restaurants and, you know, stay in hotels or rent apartments and so on, if they're laid off and

they head out of the area, isn't there a ripple effect where you will be compensating people for loss and you really -- all you know is that hotel on the beach or that restaurant on the beach had its income lost and you really won't know how much of it is from the loss of fishing versus the loss of oil drilling? >> well, that's a tough evidentiary question. i mean, you're right. i'm compensating for damage arising out of the spill, not the moratorium. how you define that, when you get the documents that said this is what i made last year, this is what i'm making this year, that's a tough question. >> you know, i have absolutely no sympathy for bp. if you're -- if your $20 billion can compensate everybody, that's great, if they need to give more, that's great. but i do have that great question of aren't we in a predicament of which we're tying your hands because the facts

you're presented are an effect, but there are multiple effects there including the scare tactics where in many cases people can come down but are scared away? all of that is going to end up being directly in the proximity of the shoreline part of the loss. >> congressman, as usual, i mean, you're raising issues here that are very, very challenging. the loss of -- the loss of income of the motel due to bad tourist press that the oil -- the oil and the beaches happen to be perfect, there's no oil on the beach, how we are going to address some of these issues, evidentiary in deciding eligibility and amount, formidable. formidable. >> now, i have one question i don't believe was asked earlier. you have the direct effect on the individuals, but we have the communities. when you make somebody whole

that had a direct loss, the community hopefully, if it's salary related, they're going to get some of that revenue. but certainly these communities have losses both because oil is not being drilled and because of the loss of fishing and so on. how do you view your role relative to the various parishes and so on? i mean, these are the people we talked to who aren't even being allowed to protect their shoreline and then on top of that, they're saying where do i make up for the lost revenue. >> i have no jurisdiction at the current time over any governmental unit that files a claim for lost revenue, lost taxes, add valorem, real estate taxes are down, sales taxes are off. right now, this draft protocol and the new protocol that i'm working on that i'll share with this committee completely exempts from my jurisdiction any governmental claim against bp. >> let me ask you a follow-up

question because time is short, because you are still many the process of negotiating. and perhaps it will take additional funds. but these communities in many cases are providing services similar to the ones that you said you're providing. they're providing counseling. they're providing, if you will, legal advice and so on. can you or will you consider trying to get authority to provide some funds so that you may contract these various parishes and related areas to perform some of these services or to compensate them if they're performing services that benefit you? >> i will certainly pass on that constructive idea. again, it's not part of my job. i just want to say one other thing about the lawyers, congressmen. you'll recall in 9/11 as a direct result, direct result of questions that you posed, we set up this very successful pro bono lawyers' program. and as i said earlier, building on what we did with your help in

9/11 pro bono, i hope you can have a similar pro bono program here, and i plan to do so. >> lack forward to seeing that. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i thank the gentleman. i now recognize the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning, mr. feinberg. i have a few questions for you, mr. feinberg, about how some of these claims are calculated and the role that lawyers play. i know, as you've just explained, on the one hand, no one should need a lawyer, on the other there will be this battery of pro bono attorneys waiting to assist. their assistance, i would think, would be whether pro bono or otherwise, would be beyond this facility, give than state law provides other rights without the oil pollution act. there's more that will come into play. correct? >> i completely agree with you. i want to emphasize i'm a

lawyer. and the legal community stepped up in the 9/11 fund, it would never have been as successful as it was without the help of pro bono and paid legal counsel. and i in no way want to say anything other than the legal community has a very, very valuable role to play here, and i hope it will step up once again. >> and so i just wanted to clear the -- set the record straight here that, in fact, this facility that you're administering doesn't represent the sum total of every potential claim that might be filed under state law or other. >> you're absolutely right in that regard. >> okay. thank you. i wanted to ask, then, about the way that the damages will be calculated. we've heard, and i know you mentioned earlier that you've heard, as well, from realtors and you're trying to figure out how to address the issues that

realtors have, and i hear from real estate professionals who

>> as i have been told repeatedly, this was the year when there were to be seen a great comeback. >> as with the 9/11 fund, if less here is an aberration, give us two years or three years to look at pre-build. frankly, when you mention this was going to be a break, show me. i cannot operate on the basis of speculation, but if you have a contract to show that you had a rental that was terminated as a

valid contract as a result of this bill i do not need necessarily to look at the past years. as long as it is not speculative, as long as there is some basis to calculate damage, i am more than willing to compensate. >> speak to your jurisdiction specifically as a representative of south florida. if oil winds up in the loop current and 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 crimes as well? >> i have jurisdiction over those claims. understand and make sure your constituents understand it is not necessary under this protocol for oil to show up. what is necessary is that the

national -- as natural resources are hurt, you cannot fish, tourism is hurt. i tried to spell out in even the draft protocol, but your staff of this committee has reminded me on more than one occasion. there does not have to be actual physical destruction if you have lost profits or you have lost income or what have you. i will take a look at those claims. >> thank you. very quickly, can you confirm that the 90 day period for considering interim payments has not commenced? >> that is correct. >> thank you very much. i now recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, madam chairman. i appreciate very much for your taking on. as a district judge, i was asked to take over the worst oil crime

in texas history. it had been going on for 11 years with over 100 lawyers. anyway, i took that long. so i have great sick the for what you are doing. but i have some questions. i am a little money on the process. part of that much in this is something i carry with me. i was wondering. do you know how you were chosen out of all the people in the united states to do this job, besides being crazy enough to take it on? >> i was chosen by the administration and bp by agreement. you will have to ask representatives of both as to why they are relying on me to act in this independent capacity. i suspect much of it has to do, as others have pointed out, with some of my prior work. >> but you do not know who selected you?

who called you? the president? >> no. i have never talked to the president about this. on the bp side i had two meetings with bp officials in houston. they asked me to come down and meet and talk about my experience and how i might go about doing this. on my administration's side, the contract person has been the associate attorney general. he is the one i have been dealing with. i think i had one conversation with someone at the white house. >> today, you were not subpoenaed. you can voluntarily, correct? >> i always come when the chairman invites me. [laughter] >> you said before in some other venues -- it seems clear you're really not accountable to anyone -- british petroleum, the

administration. is there anyone who you do account to? >> i really -- i think i am accountable to the people in the gulf that i am trying to help. >> what do they do if they disagree with what your decision is? >> i think they would voice their objection to the members of this committee. >> who could fire you? >> i guess i can be fired by bp or the administration. they can decide that my services are no longer needed. i suppose they could agree conceptually. >> generally use say you are accountable to the people in the gulf, but normally accountability carries with you the possibility that those to whom you are accountable can do something if they disagree with you. >> i suppose it would complain to our committee and we would put pressure on bp and the administration. somebody in that do well or fire

you. >> i think that is right. they would agree my services are no longer needed. but with the folks in the golf, if they do not like to decision -- did i understand there is an appellate review? >> not only is there a review by a panel that has yet to be selected -- >> who will select the panel? >> the panel will be selected -- names will be submitted to me. right now, i select the panel. >> i would love to, as a judge and eight court of appeals justice choose those that were going to review me. >> let me say something about this. if the claimants have lost confidence in what i am doing, there is no requirement that they sign up. there is no greater check on my ability to serve the people in the gulf than if people have lost confidence in me and voluntarily do not apply.

there is no requirement that they apply. if they are not apply to get the compensation? >> you would fire yourself? >> if i have nothing to do because the people are not confident in me, no one will have to fire me. i will resign. >> you have obviously a very able staff. are they working pro bono? who decides their salary? >> bp is paying the entire cost of this facility. who else? >> you decided on what their salaries would be? >> i submitted proposed salaries, or i will submit proposed salaries to bp. bp has already paid about 1500 people in the gulf. we will decide who should be continued and who should not. the issue of who is paying for the cost of this facility -- is obvious to me that the responsible party has to be bp. you cannot ask clements to pay

any cannot ask the government to pay. >> can i disagree with the seller you set? >> yes. >> you mentioned that jurisdiction. who set your jurisdiction? >> the jurisdiction has been established by the government and bp. >> the government being us? >> the administration and pp together conceptually chose me -- the administration and bp together shows me, and described it my jurisdiction orally. >> mr. feinberg, thank you for joining us and for taking on this responsibility. it is good to have someone of your capability and dedication on the task. i want to follow up on some of

the questions my colleagues asked. i apologize if you have to repeat some things you said earlier. i am interested at the outset in when people submit a claim to you. is there ever a case where they have to waive any kind of a court room the? >> yes. people who submit a claim to me seeking emergency payments -- pay the mortgage, put food on the table, i am unemployed because of the spill. people who make such a claim can receive from the facility up to six months of lost wages or lost income without any obligation. they do not sign away any rights they may have to go to court, sue, not sue. it is without obligation. subsequently, if they want to

voluntarily request a lump sum of final payment on any additional present or future damage, we will calculate that damage. will offer the clement paycheck for $600,000 or whatever it might be. only if the claimant decides it is in her or his interest to take that check will they have to sign a release. >> that release would basically waived any kind of crime in the future against the peak? even if there was an unanticipated economic cost, they would waive that? >> they would waive that. is it presumed the six month emergency assistance, should they litigate later, would be deducted from the imam bp would owe them? >> yes. if the litigated later and if

they won and if there was a damage caused, bp would be able to say, "you had damages of expo we paid you x." >> when you're trying to determine an eligible klan, do you use the same things the court would apply? >> that is the starting point. the more i listen to the house judiciary committee staff and others, the starting point is probably, for most of these claims involving business loss or weight loss, not state law, but the federal pollution control act, which is more liberal. then what i would have to do is exercise my discretion, my judgment, in trying to decide whether a claim that might not even be eligible for

compensation in court should nevertheless be paid as part of this facility. >> does bp have to give you the ok to do that? >> uno. >> subject to a $20 billion limit, they have given you the description, even if it be goes beyond what they were obligated under law? >> that is correct. it is not limited to $20 billion. bp has made it clear that if $20 billion -- hopefully it is enough, but if it is not there will honor supplementary obligations. >> i assume they will keep an eye on the degree to which you find clam's eligible to determine how much above $20 billion they're willing to go? >> of course. >> i think the ultimate cost of this is going to be on the capacity of any company, no matter how wealthy, to pay full cost.

at some point, will the government claims for reimbursement be in competition with declines of private parties? if there is a finite amount of resources that bp has, how will that get adjudicated? who will be the debtor that gets the priority, or the creditor? >> in one sense, there already is competition. under this $20 billion and has been set aside, that is used not only for the private claims i am administering but for the government claims as well. so the $20 billion is not targeted just for claims that i am processing. the $20 billion also includes cleanup cost, tax revenue loss, or what have you. bp has stated publicly and privately to the administration if $20 billion is not enough to cover all of this the will --

they promised to supplement the $20 billion with additional money. >> you are not adjudicating the government claims. >> that is right. >> the submit this to bp and they are paid out of the $20 billion. >> correct. >> that means there is some urgency, apart from the emergency funding people are submitting claims for right now. people need to fill some urgency if they feel the bp resources will not ultimately hold out. if they want to seek a lump-sum payment now, rather than wait from litigation from a bp that may not be able to pay claims, there is some race for compensation. >> you could characterize it that way. i think there is an urgency to seek a lump sum apart from competition. they just need the funds. that ought to get the funds for their own well-being. i am not particularly concerned, although you raised a valid argument.

i am not concerned there has to be a race for funds because the money may dry up. i have no indication of that from bp or the evan lustration that that is likely. i am concerned that people cannot delay because they need the money. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> i am trying to put this in perspective and i appreciate your enthusiasm on this. that is great. i represent southeast texas, a district the borders louisiana. because of the gulf stream, we do not get the oil spill. however, the people in my district work in louisiana. there are two concerns. one is direct injury by not being able to fish. the second problem is the moratorium. i know you are not directly involved in that period has bp

put money into a fund to pay for losses based upon the moratorium? >> yes. >> who is administrating that fund? >> i do not think they have chosen and administrator for that yet. my understanding on the moratorium is as follows. it is not on my watch. $100 million has been set aside and related to the $20 billion for a moratorium on the rig worker claims only -- not businesses associated with the moratorium, but rig workers. that will be administered separately by some charity or nonprofit foundation in the gulf. i do not think they have selected anybody yet. >> hopefully not fema. >> i do not know. >> as for texas residents in the gulf who adjoining louisiana fish and shrimp and harvest

oysters, they are directly impacted. they should be filing a claim. there is no geographic limitation as to who can file a claim. i have talked to the attorney- general of texas about what is going on around galveston. it may be that it hurts texas residents in your district. they should file a claim. >> company claims letters do you have from texas? >> the piece set up 36 different claim centers around the gulf. we will continue those crimes centers. >> how many are in texas? >> the do not think there are any yet in texas. the attorney general has suggested we may need one in galveston. we may do that. i think right now there are only 70 claims, i think, from the galveston area. if needed, we will set up a facility there. >> another question regarding the same issue. i am a former judge.

i see a conflict in losses based upon the actual damages of the oil spill and the moratorium kind of meddling together with the claimants. are you going to make a decision that this is a claim based on the moratorium, so that goes somewhere else? this percentage is based on the actual oil spill and we will compensate bat? >> the direct claims are not a problem. as i understand it, the moratorium claims are only for a moratorium impacted rig workers. nothing to do with the spill directly. those eligibility determinations will be relatively straightforward and will be made by somebody else. the question posed earlier which is problematic is if somebody files a claim for lost revenue.

they have a motel on the beach. i am down 30%. some of that is attributable to the moratorium. it would be tough, evidentiary wise, for me to distinguish. i am not sure i will be able to. that will be problematic issue. >> regarding the statute of limitations, do you have a statute of limitations you're looking at on when the accident occurred to win eventually all clemens will be paid through your agency? >> my understanding is with current protocol i have urged a three year statute of limitations. in other words, the facility, once up and running, would be administered for three years, after which it would terminate. plans would have to be brought within that three-year period.

>> the gentleman yield back. the gentle lady from california is recognized. >> i want to express my appreciation for your being here today in answering our questions. i am going to follow. i want to start by asking you some process questions, if that is ok. who is helping you to develop the process under which claims are going to be guided? >> did i develop -- >> who is helping you establish the process under which claims will be processed? >> i am relying on, first and foremost, the deputy press worked with me on all of these other claims -- 9/11 and virginia tech and agent orange. she has been with me as a permanent employee.

then we are relying on outside consultants in virginia. we are relying on people in the gulf, a company from louisiana which has already processed over $200 million of claims. most of the help i will be relying on will be local help. you cannot do this from washington. somebody else mentioned this. you need trusted people from the community. we will be using those fenders. >> in any part of that process, are there bp employees that are assisting in the claims process? >> there will not be in a few more weeks. there may be one or two consultants. right now, everybody is working for bp. in a few more weeks, when the facility replaces bp, we will be totally independent without bp employees, other than maybe a

few in transition as consultants. >> at that point, would you be relying on any of the guidelines of bp previously established? >> no. we will look at those guidelines, decide whether we independently verify and ratify them, but will have our own system, our own criteria, our own procedures. >> you established bp is paying the salaries of staff will be assisting you. >> bp will be ongoing. >> when it opens, bp will be paying the salaries as well? >> yes. who else? bp better be paying the salaries of everybody associated with this. when you try to think of who else might pay, it is a pretty short list. >> i am in agreement with you. my question is will the salaries that are being paid for the staff that are going to be assisting in claims processing -- will those salaries -- will

that payment come from the gulf compensation fund itself? or that fund is simply for the claimants? >> everybody associated with the facility that is not a bp employees -- all of our claims processors -- all of that infrastructure payment will come out of the $20 billion. it will be paid by the $20 billion, which is indirectly bp also. i am pretty confident that the entire infrastructure, the entire salary of everybody associated with this facility will be more than covered by the interest on the $20 billion. >> that was what i was getting at is who bears the ultimate cost of those salaries. i believe you said -- it might be your written testimony -- there will be three judge panel to hear appeals of awards. is that correct?

>> that is right. it does not have to beat -- it will be a three member panel. i am not sure they have to be x- judges. there will be three claims appeal neutrals. >> so clemens will have an opportunity if they are denied claims to appeal if they do not agree with that decision to the three member panel. will clemens also have the opportunity to appeal awards they think are not fully compensating them? >> yes. >> those will be heard by this panel. how long will clements have to decide to appeal either their denials or the compensations? >> i do not recall. i think 10 days. i do not want to delay excessively getting money into the hands of claimants that are unhappy with their awards. >> i understand that. my concern is that i feel that it is likely that many of those

comments -- those claimants may be representing themselves, because it is set up in a way to keep you from litigation and attorneys. i think the time frame, although you do not want to delay too long -- you do not want it to be too brief for somebody to take advantage of the appeals process. >> i agree with that. let me also say this. i must say that if you want one obvious example of my failure in this process it is if people are appealing what i thought was sound judgment. if people start appealing to this three member panel, that is a significant bit of evidence that i am not satisfying clements. and i will deal appeals, if they are necessary, as a sign of failure. that is why i am hoping the number of appeals are pretty

small. >> another question i have about the appeals process is a will bp have the opportunity to appeal a claim? >> the current protocol states that bp can request the right to appeal, but only i can grant or certify that right to appeal, which will not easily be permitted. >> i appreciate the clarification. last question that i have for you is on the issue of undocumented workers who may have legitimate claims. i know the 9/11 victims compensation fund did allow undocumented workers, regardless of their current immigration status, to make claims. what is your opinion regarding potential claims of folks in this scenario? >> i must say i will do whatever the law requires.

in an 9/11, the administration -- the bush administration -- went to the department of immigration and received a ruling from the department that permitted undocumented workers to be eligible, their families to receive full compensation just as if there were citizens of the united states. i have to follow the law. i have to follow tax laws. i have to follow immigration laws. if this committee or whoever wants to include in compensation under this program undocumented workers, and we can get a ruling from immigration that it is lawful, appropriate, and the right thing to do, i will do whatever is agreed upon. i want to follow the law and i want to do what ever is permitted to maximize compensation.

>> thank you for your answer. i yield back. >> i think the gentle lady. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for being with us again. you indicated something about your staff. do you have any idea at the number of lawyers you are going to be hiring, and paralegals and other staff persons? >> no. i do not think this is a job that will require a great many lawyers on my staff. some. i am a lawyer. this is a job that will require expertise in claims processing, in claims evaluation, in evaluating the legitimacy and proof of claims. i do not think this is a big project for lawyers, myself. >> do you have an idea about the number of staff people?

>> we are trying to develop that now. bp has hired 1600 people that are currently employed throughout the gulf, local people primarily, who have been evaluating and processing claims so they are paid out -- over $200 million in emergency payments. we will hire additional people as needed. we will reduce the size of the overhead as needed. we will know more about that. i will be glad to notify your office within the next 30 days. >> language is a challenge. will you be hiring people with we have reached out to the vietnam organizational community, cambodian community.

we will hire as many experts as needed to make sure any language or cultural barriers -- we have to overcome them because we have to get these people to file. >> you mentioned you will not have many lawyers but indicated in previous answers that you are working with trial lawyers and others to get volunteer lawyers. is it your understanding that many of these will be eligible for legal services, corporation, legal aid services? >> yes. we are looking for any and all local or national organizations to help us with a pro bono legal assistance for claimants. >> the claims for it -- well claims for injuries include pain and suffering? -- will claims for injuries include pain and suffering or just medical expenses? >> i knew you would hit me with a good question. under the 9/11 fund as you

recall, pain and suffering associated with the physical injury was included. and i have to think about that. if you are going to be consistent with the 9/11 fund, it should be. >> you probably have some things that are probably more intense than this situation -- in 9/11, you had psychological situations where the request for mental health services had gone up significantly in the gulf. would that be invincible injury? >> i doubt it. significant significantly. >> i doubt it. if you start we've dealt with this with 9? 11. if you start compensating purely mental anguish without anxiety and stress, we will be getting miggions millions of people wa

television. you have to draw the line somewhere. i think it unlikely that we would compensate mental alleged damage without a significant physical injury as well. >> will you be doing clean up expenses? >> no, not on my watch. >> business losses? >> yes. and you mentioned in a previous answer people work iing off the books how indirect general business losses would be xensible. the economy has tanked so everybody is losing. >> we've got to draw that line. what is eligible and not eligible? direct cause easy, fishermen, shrimpers oil on the beach. we are not going to pay a restaurant in richmond that says its business is down because it can't get gulf shrimp. even in virginia when wouldn't

allow that. so we are going to have to draw the line somewhere. >> what about a department store in new orleans that has a significant decrease in sales because nobody is working? >> the question there is, should we say to that department store in new orleans, your business is down in part because of the spill, people tourists aren't coming and baying. maybe one answer to that is you are eligible, but whereever you prove as your loss we'll give you 20 or 40%. we've got to come up with a c creative way. to decide what mighting eligible but a partial payment. any ideas you have, i welcome your thoughts. >> i think your selection was as a result of the fact that you

had been in unchartered waters. how timely should people expect their compensation to get paid? >> that is key. i think that once they are deems eligible, they have proven their loss, if it is an emergency payment we should get that payment out in two days. once here is the claim, now i've proven my claim, i need money for my mortgage to put food on the table, i'm out of work, within 48 hours we should get them a check. >> time is expired. let me thank you miss feinberg for the generosity of your time. i think the members that in inquired i may be the only one,

i know that i came in after some of the questions who started with the select committee on homeland security before the committees were designed. and so, was engaged with 9/11 as all members were but in a jurisdictional manner and then as a member of the homeland security committee which i continue today. so i know how we had to craft your position after a lot of frustration and you recall a lot of lawyering, a lot of people without lawyers, a lot of heart ache that still continues and the families that were frustrated and people who were left in a very, very bad economic condition. i remember specifically a series of latch key children that were

at home in apartments in new york that had to be addressed. and were left without a parent or a major guardian and many of these were single parent homes. you have gone through a lot and i am working with a initiative which is the overdue payments to people who in new york and i guess specifically have indicated that they were subsequently were ill and have never been compensated. so if you would indulge me for a moment. and i am from the gulf region and i am concerned that we get this right. and i am somewhat without any diminishes of the hard work that you are doing concerned that we are overwhelmed and all that we are trying to do will in the get

done. the first question with the backdrop of recognizing that there are still some people left behind in new york, and the tru frustration we had with that claims process. what is your view of being able to take up if you will all of the claims that are within your jurisdiction in this region. they seem like claims can pop up over a series of days. because the impact is being generated. we will have the resources to make sure that any claim ant in new orleans or any where else in the gulf who files a claim --

>> that is incorrect. >> what about texans whose product comes from their restaurant and their product comes from that area and they have been shut down? >> there is no barrier to any claim ant to any state applying to the claims facility. >> then, in a meeting that you were captured on television and a fisherman jumped up and indicated the potential of this being a very good year, here is my concern. i've been down to that area and talked to oystermen. i'm concerned about the wall street and i use that term please the business standards placed on an industry that has a different way of doing business. my concern are those little guys

that are going to be disadvantaged. if you are usingle ining the st you are not going to help these little guys. how are you going to be fair to an structure that many americans are unfamiliar with and they don't meet the standard accounting business procedures and they feel that they are being put upon? >> congresswoman, i am determined to do right by those people. and those businesses in the gulf, i will rely on local people who know the culture, know the community, know how people live in that vy sinity. i don't begin to claim here in washington to have give you that information. in terms of it was going to be a

very good year. show me, show me, i will bend over backwards to help these local businesses. i am trying to help them. don't come to me and say trust me it was going to be a great year. at the other end is the person who comes in and says look, i had this contract and this contract and this was going to be a great year. okay look that is the minimal proof that is fine here. so i will work with you, and the people down there, to try and maximize the compensation. >> i'm going to reach out on small businesses whose restaurants were named after louisiana names and placed in texas and my understanding is that they have been treated poorly. if i could, engaging you, how do you prove that you left your product that was sha rifing and

growing on the sea bed on the bottom of the ocean bed, that there is a mountain of oysters, a mountain of shrimp and other fish that you could have caught, how do you prove that other than to say that you are an expert or that you do some deh deep sea diving? the oysters have been soiled if you will and are thot edible, that, that would have been a good year, i work hard and know that i would have gotten 90% of those. how do you do that? >> i will give you a couple of ways to do it. one, show me before the spill for the last katrina year, show me three years, show me how successful you were in the past in harvesting those oysters. two, if you can't do that, show me how you bring in evidence from your colleagues, from your

other captains from her people in that community that will vouch for your optimism in terms of going forward. i'm trying to help. >> so, capture it again. show you what? >> either show a contract what in the past what you did. that now you can't do. claims facility, $500,000 three years ago, $600,000 two able to

use that kind of material to predict and provide for them. >> that is one way. >> another way, i just started this company, i don't have past records, but i'm bringing in captain jones and captain smith and captain brown and they will all vouch for the spill, this is what i would have done. give me an argument that will allow me to pay the claim. >> let me ask this, bp's obligati obligations are these claims binding on bp and could bp

appeal every facility. no, under my current protocol, there can only been an appeal by bp if i certify it. if i agree that it is an important enough issue otherwise bp has no right to appeal a bp claim joo claim. thank you. >> gentlelady from california is recognized. >> thank you. i am pleased i was able to get here even though a bit late, i wanted to certainly meet mr. feinberg and tell him it gives me a level of comfort that you are now in a position to have -- construct the claims process.

i appreciate the work that you did, and i'm looking forward to your creating the kind of protocols tho will get us into a claim system that is fair and will compensate those who have been harmed in the right way. i have a few questions i would like to ask you. some of these questions may be premature. the first thing i would like to ask is about the $20 billion. that was negotiated by the administration and i'm wondering if this includes a cap on li liebility that somehow those persons that are getting compensated out of this $20 billion, if they accept a settleme settlement they cannot sue correct?

>> that is correct. if they can accept the lump sum payment that i offer them. however, any clamt who is eligible and can prove the claim will receive up to six months emergency payment without any obligation of any type to release or promise not to sue. so it is only if a claim ant comes to me and says voluntarily, i've got my six months payment and thank you but i want to now a lump sum payment for the remaining present and future damage. only if they like that amount do they wave their right to sue bp. >> was there a cap on liability in the 9/11 claims process? >> no, nor is there a cap in this process. >> but, if you accept it, and

you discovered that there was a lingering health problem, do you have the ability to sue? >> no. >> in the 9/11 fund, which i administered, if you settled with the 9/11 fund with full disclosure that it was a waiver of any future claim, you had to wave that claim. and if you didn't want to, don't come into the fund. >> you could too? >> you can sue as an individual. >> if you didn't want to take the payment. >> that is right. >> same as this. >> okay very good. >> now, i am focused on new orleans because they had a home program that was a mess. i'm a little bit upset that there was money left over that

we eventually reclaimed and there are people who are left who still did not get the right amount of money and they still do not have those homes. i want to see this process work better than new orleans. >> i have gotten to know, the black oyster fishermen for example, with a wonderful man who knows the history four generations of fishermen down there in the area. and when they first went into the process, prior to the administration getting involved and agreeing on this $20 billion amount, the initial attempt to

get them to wave rights if they accepted a small amount was to serve it. and i socidid not want that to the kind of thinking that would lead us into this. you got a handle on that. >> what i'm worried about is this, we have -- we're going to have fishermen without receipts. without irs filings, you'll have some who are not that lit rakin structured business people that you could say, i want your receipts in order to prove that you are eligible for this claim. what alternatives do you have to help these people get to compensation without all of that

documentation? what can you substitute for the kind of documentation that i eluded to? >> come in and have your ship chap ta captain tell me what he paid you. i need some prove, i don't need extensive business records. you have to demonstrate that you have a valid claim. but i will bend over backwards to try and find. >> will you define this in your protocols how you have alternative system of proof verification whatever, whatever, whatever. you will spell that out? >> absolutely. okay that is very good. >> do i not need irs returns and extensive business documentation, i do not need it. >> all right.

well, i thought i heard something but i didn't. let me ask you this, unanimous consent for one minute. thank you. i'm learning a lot about the oyster beds. i haven't had a chance to talk about it so that he can explain it to me about the oyster beds. i was reading last night that the oysters will dying because the fresh water is killing them. i couldn't determine whether or not the beds are natural or designed they belong to one entity or belong to everybody. have you gotten into that yet? >> no. okay. you have anticipated as you y usually do another issue or question i haven't thought of and i will look into it. >> that is real important. it seems to me, if everybody has

access to certain oyster beds, you have to figure out what they've got coming to them. having said all of that, will you pript a pamphlet or brochure that people can at least use to say, this is how the process works? >> we'll have all of that. we'll have it at 35 claims offices online, difference languages. we'll help you fill out the form. we'll do all of that. >> there are a number of organizations that are trying to help people down there. but they survive on donations. have you gotten advocacy money in this $20 billion that you can help pay some of these not so big organizations as helping them? >> we will look into that. i must say most of those

organizations have not asked for it. they are glad to help regardless of funding from the $20 billion but i will look into that. >> they come and say we've been doing this work and we can't get any money from it. thank you so much for being here today. >> thank you very much. mr. feinberg let me just wrap up with a few rapid fire questions. does that mean and you wiare willing to say that the fibb fishermen who were involved with the bp claims process, are you saying to them now, one of the issues is outreach. for them to get this information they may be vessels of opportunity and be doing some work but not getting all that they need. are you saying to them now they can reach out and you will take

what they have been given an reassess it if it is a new start? >> yes. >> thank you. pending legislation, as you know, you are working with our committee staff, might impact what bp's liebility would be. my question is if for example laws were passed that suggested that damages became available would your rules of protocol change to assess those damages particularly mental health and others that are drastically needed? >> yes. >> in the amount of staffing that i think my colleague in inquired of. you said you were using familiar faces but also looking in the region. do you know how many you might be working with in your operation? >> no, not yet. i will know in a few more weeks. >> you indicated would you get

it to a committee member of myself? >> yes, if you ckacan vouch for individuals in the region who would be awonderful addition to what i'm doing by all means i welcome those names. >> the economy is such that we hate to take vadvantage of disaster and devastation. but one of the things i want to emphasize are small businesses and as it related to visuals that you have a range of diversity. is that something that you will be looking at in terms of employees and vendors? >> yes, and the protocol itself will so tate. >> i think i raised the question of non physical health claims, so because what you are saying is until you have that protocol that the law is passed. you will be able to reassess

what their status is. the final point that i would like to raise is what i raised at the beginning. the aftermath, the individuals who in 9/11 say they have been made sick or something happened to them pursuant to this disaster. what kind of range do we have with that potential and do you believe that this fund is going to run out and just as some instructive direct to many of us, after seeing these two disasters but you also handled virginia tech, i think you said that. wouldn't it be effective to have at least a core structure that could be activated quickly using your protocol not precluding it, but having something so we

didn't have what we have with bp, they tried but there were many complaints? >> it is an interesting idea. you will recall after 9/11, there was legislation considered that would put in place a tr trigger in the event that there was another unanticipated disaster. that went through the house and died in the senate judiciary committee. something like that anticipating the next time might be worthy. i will work with you if you would like. >> i would like to do so. >> the question of illnesses and the aftermath and bp running out of money if you could comment on that. >> i doubt very much that bp is going to run out of money. bp has made it clear that it will honor any and all obligations even above the $20

billion and i think it would be a disaster if bp was unable to shoulder its obligations here and keep people working in the gulf. in terms of the aftermath, one of the goals i've got over the next three years is to try and review the nature of the claim population and get a handle on how broad that will be. >> you have been very kind, i think we respect the structure that the administration has worked out. we respect that there are hard working people at the company, those workers who are doing their work every day. but some people fear that they will run out of money and they look to the past record. i think it will be important for your constant reaffirmation as you go through this process that

your doors are open. that you are working and if you just got the word august 10th or accept 1st, that you should hear that mr. feingerg's door is open and i would argue that you do a massive outreach. people live in owl corners and sometimes the are focused on getting bread on the table. and i think it is amazing. hurricane katrina there are people still trying to organize a complaint maybe in the 9/11 you have some aftermath. i want to make sure that is not going to happen. let me thank the witness. without objection members will have five days to submit any additional questions for you which we will forward and ask that you answer as proemt you n behalf of the members for your

agreement to work with a number of us, we'll reach out to you on legislative fixes and reviews. finally the record will remain open for five legislative days for the submission of any additional materials. the hearing is now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> now the latest on the economic stimulus. of the $787 funding signed into law more than one year ago, more

than half of the total has been committed to states by the federal government to spend on stimulus projects. that is up $14 billion from last week carried ove. go to c-span.org/stimulus for news conferences and congressional debates on the stimulus, as well as links to government and groups tracking is spending. -- its spending. tonight, a kentucky senate candidate for with republican rand paul and jack conway. the candidates discuss agriculture, health care, immigration, and the economy. we will have comments from candidates who met with reporters following the forum, tonight it 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on the book tv,

on sunday, books on fdr, his policy and legacy. then the author of the best- selling books "infidel," and her new book on the coming to united states and the life she left behind. for the complete schedule, go to booktv.org. >> now, house majority leader steny for all lines the democrats' legislative agenda heading into the november elections and talks about initiatives are targeting u.s. manufacturing sectors and contrasts democratic and republican economic policies dating back to the great depression. the center for american progress action fund hosts this 50 minute event. >> thank you very much. i am always pleased to be here at the center and particularly pleased to be here facilitated

by the action fund. thank you very much. please tell john podesta that i thank him for his leadership on this effort. i had the opportunity to see -- and before we came in. i am pleased to be with martin frost, a former member of congress, did an extraordinary job in the congress of the united states, and not only represented our country well but represented texas a very well. thank you for being here. its share ofas faced trying times, times when not just our economy but our nation it seems to decline, but each time with ingenuity, hard work, and are distinctly american optimism, we have built our way out and we have emerged stronger. no one doubts this is one of

those testing times. the question that will be in front of us in this fall's vote is not where we are, it is where we go from here. it is a choice between two dramatically different directions, and our decision comes down to three questions -- how far we have,, what remains to be done, and which party will keep moving us forward? as we coem?stohow far me? america is facing the worst economic crisis in a generation and losing almost 800,000 jobs per month, banks are afraid to lend, businesses are forced into layoffs, and innovative start-ups can not start up, foreclosures are devastating neighborhoods, a massive deficit

left behind by president bush makes responding to the crisis even more difficult. a new president and a democratic congress are struggling for solutions, but negotiations break down, congress remains paralyzed, and in the end, we do nothing. the economy will likely have continued to shrink instead of growing for three straight quarters. retirement savings would have remained devastated, and the global recession would have become catastrophic. it was of that bleak picture that led former reagan economic adviser martin feldstein to endorse a substantial deficit spending to pump life into the economy, saying, "i don't think we have a choice." i know thinking about how much

worse off we could have been, it is not worth much comfort to anyone still struggling to find work, but any honest look at our economy has to see me -- has to start with an honest conversation about the disaster we had to this point averted, as a result of the actions we have taken. a year and a half ago, economists were talking in all seriousness about the risks of the second great depression. instead, we have stabilized the financial system, injected demand into the economy, and created jobs. in fact, almost as many jobs in the first six months of this year as a george bush created in the eight years of his presidency net. the private sector has added jobs for six straight months. by comparison, it took more than two years after the end of the

last recession for our economy to return to six consecutive months of job growth in the private sector. that progress started with bilateral investments, not just in our immediate recovery but in the foundations of prosperity for years to come. we are rebuilding roads, railways, bridges -- that is our economy's back bone. we are using bonds to help local governments invest in infrastructure projects and they need most and we are investing in our children's future. we have kept teachers in the classroom and have helped more americans reached their goal of a college education. we are helping doctors and hospitals computerized medical records so patients can be treated even more effectively. we funded clean energy technology that will help us save energy and become less dependent on foreign oil. technology, like a smart grid, that will respond to changing

energy needs in real time, just as the internet was created in america with the support of the federal government, today, in partnership with the private sector, we are laying the ground work for technology that will shape our economy for years to come. for 98% of americans, taxes are now a lower than they were in any single year under president bush. despite republican efforts to demonize those policies, they cannot refuse the nonpartisan analysis that shows they have been responsible for as many as 3 million jobs. they cannot ignore those investment benefits in their own communities, not when the house minority whip himself has posted featuring affairs, irfairs, employees that have benefited from federal funds, a policy he voted against. in fact, wall all house

republicans voted against these investments, more than half the republicans in congress have taken credit for them in their districts. president obama has signed into law the higher act, which cuts employers' taxes for every unemployed worker hired back. the treasury department has reported that between february and may, the act gave small businesses $8.50 billion in tax cuts for millions of new workers. democrats have also passed legislation helping to support $28 billion in new lending for small businesses. we hope to do another $30 million which wit-- $30 bill in which would leverage into $300 billion. we protected americans from abuse of credit card lending practices, made the biggest investment in it student loans

without affecting the deficit. a harvard study found that health reform will create up to 4 million jobs. over the next decade because it makes coverage more affordable for businesses and the self- employed while putting an american companies on a more even playing field with their foreign competitors. it will free the next generation of american bond and doors to innovate and make business decisions -- american entrepreneurs and to innovate. the president has signed important legislation to put the referee's back on the field and told wall street accountable . wall street reform will create an important consumer financial protection bureau and make sure that borrowers and lenders live up to the standards of responsibility and honesty.

it ends tarp and ensures that the cost of any future financial crisis will be borne by the financial industry, keeping taxpayers off the hook for future bailouts, which by the way, were requested by president bush, secretary paulson, and ben bernanke. wall street reform removed an important source of economic uncertainty, helping to free up $1.80 trillion in cash sitting on the sidelines in corporate america as we speak. that is private sector cash poised to be redeployed into job-creating investments. kind of investments that led to the chip and tech boom in the 1990's. the more we strengthen our financial system, the more we rebuild the confidence to encourage investment in america, and the more our financial system gets back towards its core purpose, helping allocate capital to families investing in their futures and on to the nor, all s

have a common thread. after a lost decade, middle- class americans now have a congress and administration at that is helping it make up lost ground in building for future prosperity. all of that worked has helped move our economy back towards strength, though for far too ma ny, that is still not the reality. with millions still a lot of work, no one claims we have reached success, and therefore, neither the congress nor the administration can rest. the second question becomes -- what remains to be done? democrats are fighting for middle class. republicans as much as they want to use the economy as a political weapon are looking to go back to the very same policies that cost many of the

problems at the middle class confronts today. in fact, the chairman of the republican congressional campaign committee, whose job it is to recruit members to come to congress to make policy, said, " we need to go back to the exact same agenda," meaning the bush agenda of the 2000's, which left us in the deepest economic recession we have seen in 3/4 of the century. by almost all indications, it was an agenda that failed. that is the agenda to which the chairman of the campaign committee says the republicans want to return. democrats, on the other hand, are putting forward new ideas to drive our recovery, particularly when it comes to our vital manufacturing sector. that is why house democrats are

launching the make it in america agenda. this is a strategy to boost american manufacturing. for generations, americans have looked to our manufacturing sector as a source of economic vitality, a source of good- paying jobs, and a source of pride. america has always been proud to be a country that makes things. some worry that those are a thing of the past, but democrats do not believe that, and we are committed to regaining america's manufacturing edge. the make it an american agenda will include bills to encourage investment in industry, improve manufacturing infrastructure and innovation, strengthen the american workforce, and create a level playing field for american manufacturers that compete worldwide in this flat world of which tom friedman spoke. can make it in america agenda has been made up of a range of

skills that will come to the floor in the coming weeks, including u.s. manufacturing investment act, which passed the house on wednesday which makes it easier for american companies to get the materials they need to manufacture goods here. another act that passed the house this week that forms partnerships between businesses, unions, and educators to train workers for some of the most needed 21st century jobs. the national manufacturing strategy act, which will direct the president to develop a manufacturing strategy for the nation every four years. end the trade deficit now act, which will lead to policies that will reduce the trade deficit. and the clean energy, technology manufacturing, and export assistance act which will ensure that clean energy technology firms have the information and assistance they need to compete at home and abroad.

the ways and means committee will also be holding hearings next month, actually in september, on the issue of china's currency policy, legislation introduced by tim the orion. these bills are just a start. -- legislation introduced by tim ryan. this is an agenda for the long term. many house democrats are coming forward with ideas that can contribute to a manufacturing revival. we welcome ideas from our republican colleagues and from the american public, particular the manufacturing sector itself. all these efforts will bolster president obama's plan to support 2 million more jobs by doubling u.s. exports in five years. a plan that is already showing success with exports up significantly over last year. and they will build on the

impact we have already had since the beginning of this year -- are private sector has actually created 136,000 new manufacturing jobs. i hope the republicans, as i said, will join us in working towards strengthening, expanding, and growing our manufacturing sector. i am glad that many of them supported the mfg. act in the house. there seemed to be some reluctance, but ultimately, they reconsidered and turned to yes. i am glad we are seeing some bipartisanship in this "may kick in america," agenda. republicans and eight month pattern of standing with unity against every measure to create jobs for working americans. a wide range of jobs-creating ideas are waiting to be enacted, but they continue to face

partisan obstruction, even though many of these ideas have won the strong bipartisan support in the past. for instance, we would help business and bring to market new technologies to increase productivity. we would further invest in science, technology, engineering, and math education. we would encourage investment by letting businesses deduct startup expenses and exempting small business capital gains from taxation. we would establish a new fund without increasing the deficit, to help community banks lend to small businesses because 45% of small businesses seeking loans were turned down last year. we would extend as well the r&d credit. we would also and tax breaks -- end tax breaks that would encourage corporations to outsource jobs overseas. republicans are fighting to keep that loophole opened. democrats want to keep our jobs

here in america. republican obstruction has extended to unemployment insurance as is so well known by the american public. there are still five applicants for each new job opening, unemployment insurance is one of the most effective ways of stimulating demand, because it is quickly spent because it is essentially needed. moody's economy.com found it produces $1.63 economic stimulus for everyone dollars we spend. republicans claim we cannot afford it $34 billion for the unemployed, but then in the same breath, they demand $676 billion in debt finance tax cuts for the most privileged. i am pleased that president obama was able to sign the unemployment bill that we passed yesterday. that money will be coming into the economy, but from a moral

standpoint, it will provide sustenance for families in deep distress still in this economy. now, take this msnbc analysis on "meet the press" just last weekend. "both sessions and john cornyn were unable or unwilling to discuss what republicans would specifically do on the deficit. when david gregory demanded specifics of painful choices, republicans were willing to make none. sessions did not offer a single one." that is the same thinking that condoned it record foreign borrowing and did severe harm to our long-term prosperity. democrats understand that short- term deficits have been necessary for our recovery, and in my view, continued to be necessary if we are going to

bring this economy back. we will never, as i said in a speech a few weeks ago, solve the deficit problem if we do not solve building and growing the economy challenges. for the same reason the house will extend middle-class tax cuts for the next year. we expect the senate to act first, as speaker nancy pelosi said yesterday. all the job creation measures i discussed along with middle class tax cuts represent a small fraction of our real, long-term deficit problem. we do have hard choices, hard choices to make about our fiscal future and i have spoken about them of few weeks ago in detail. but in making those choices, we have to steer between two grave mistakes. one would be following republicans who want to use our structural deficit as an excuse to put brakes on recovery. while millions are still unemployed.

that would put even more americans out of work and actually increase deficits we are trying to reduce. another mistake would be putting ourselves even deeper into debt by making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. republicans seem to be able to hold both of these positions at the same time. a combination of reckless borrowing and middle-class neglect that characterized the previous administration. that brings us to the last question we pulled our country off the edge of disaster. we know what needs to be done for the americans still struggling, and finally, the question becomes -- which party can you trust to do that? we know what republican economic philosophy looks like in practice. cut taxes for the wealthiest, got regulations that guard against everything from wall street access to oil companies negligence, and we know the record those policies generate. when republicans had unchecked

-- just a few short years ago. they drove our economy into the ditch, the deepest ditch we have been in in three-four of a century. it created a decade of stagnant incomes, and during the eight years of the bush administration, the worst job record since current hoover. a stark contrast with the cling administration decorated 21 million private-sector jobs in 96 months -- a stark contrast with the clinton administration that created 21 million private- sector jobs in 96 months. over eight years of president bush, our economy added just 1 million private-sector jobs. it was president bush who ran a $2.10 trillion deficit and wiped out the biggest surpluses in american history.

a national debt of $5 trillion at that turned into a national debt of $10 trillion. that record is not an aberration, however. decade after decade, democrats have performed better on the economy than republicans. some may be surprised to hear that. market analyst steady administrations from john kennedy to george bush been found -- studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that jobs grew more slowly for each republican than for any democrat. a princeton political scientist growth andhe eco administrations from harry truman to george w. bush and he found "when a republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than

those at the bottom. by contrast, democratic presidents and generate higher income gains for all income groups." in 2008, "the new york times" asked this question -- i think it is a compelling comparison --"imagine that starting in 1929, you had to invest exclusively under a democratic or republican administrations. how would you have fared?" you make your choice in your head right now. you are not surprised at the conclusion. under republican and ministrations, your $10,000 invested exclusively in republican administrations, if you include the hoover administration, would have netted you $11,733. but that's probably not fair.

so let's take out the hoover administration, which was arguably the worst. let's take this out in all fairness. if we are charitable and take that out, then you're $10,000 investment exclusively during the course of republican administrations over the last 70 years would have resulted in 51,$51,211. i do not know how good you think that is of a return over 70 years. under democratic administrations, if you took that same $10,000 and invested exclusively under democratic administrations, that $10,000 00, 671.w be worth $3 600% more than if you had exclusively had that money grow under republican

administrations. so when we talk about republican economic failure and we are not talking about a passing trend. notwithstanding the fact that i can point out to you that during the course of the clinton administration the dow jones 226% and the nasdaq grew by almost %300. those same statistics are all negative during the bush administration. from decade to decade, democratic policies have supported innovation, the interests of working people, and a better standard of living for all americans. republican policies have objectively favored the privileges and left working americans behind. we might be able to write off their record if republicans gave any indication that they have reconsidered the policies that created it. but, again, as they put it themselves, "we need to go back to the exact same agenda."

i do not think americans have that in mind in 2006, 2008, and i do not think they have that in mind in 2010. when you remember that republican behavior over the past month, going back to the agenda makes perfect sense. apologizing to bp when democrats held accountable for its disaster in the gulf of mexico. working with bankers and lobbyists to portray wall street reform as a bailout, putting taxpayers ahead of the unemployed -- i am proud to put our middle-class record against there's any day, but our work is not done. we have stood up to wall street, brought access to affordable health care to all americans, reinstated fiscal discipline,

and gone to bat for job creation again and again over the last 18 months. democrats can tell working americans with confidence and with pride we have stood for your interests and we have met crisis with the optimism that defines our country. it can make a great nation even greater. so often our biggest leaps have come out of the darkest moments. as president obama said, in the midst of civil war we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another, and a twilight struggle for freedom lead to highways, americans on the moon, and an explosion of technology that shapes the world to this day. today, if we choose shared growth and our common interest

over the special interest this too can be one of those remarkable moments in which we build our way out. we will make it in america up once again. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. i am going to start with just one question and then i am going to open it up for the audience. i will ask if i can see hands just from members of the media. please identify the organization you are with. before we do that, we had one question about the tax cuts issue. i see this is really emerging to the forefront. help me understand the argument of those who would say that we should be at this point renewing the upper class tax

cuts. contrast that -- i think people are fuzzy. what is it your party is arguing for on the tax cut, in contrast with what republicans are saying? >> in 2001 and 2003 the republicans put in place a policy which cut taxes but reinstated those taxes next year so they would all go up. we have indicated that we believe that at this point in time, with the recession, that we ought to have no increase in taxes on middle-income working americans. clearly, at a time of recession we want to make sure that working people have the ability to support themselves and their families. we are going to complete or continue the tax cuts for middle income americans. how do we define middle income americans? those who are making 200,000 or

less individually or $250,000 or less as a couple. with respect to the tax cuts for the wealthiest in america, we have a severe deficit problem. those who are doing well will not have their lives adversely affected by continuing to contribute at a rate that provides for the bringdown of our deficit and continues to invest in the growth of our country. that is just a policy we are going to be pursuing. think you for that overwhelming applause. [laughter] in middle-class taxpayer is in the back of the room. >> please identify yourself. >> i am with reuters. following up on that, you said the house will renew the middle- class tax cuts for one year. can you talk about the significance of one year? >> i do not think i said one year. i think there has been some

discussion about that. that has not been decided. did i say in my speech? >> you said it for the next year. >> certainly for the next year, but not necessarily just for one year. that is in discussion. the speaker indicated, and i think as a result of our discussion with the senate, we will probably move first on the issue and then will see what the senate does in terms of time friend on the middle income tax cut. we want to make it very clear that the working americans will not receive a tax increase. >> you have not made a decision on how long? >> that is still in discussion. >> on the timing when you will take this up, do you think it will be before or after the election? >> we expect the senate to act first. we are waiting to see when they act. as you know, in the senate we have one week left before they go to break. we will see what they will do so we can determine when we get

back what product we have from them. >> media with the red strap? thank you. >> i just wanted to follow up on the manufacturing issues you were talking about. if you think the house is poised to act on a number of bills that you and in the marriage -- that you enumerated but there is not action in the senate, can you help us understand this? how would you defend against the accusation? >> you mean that across the board nothing gets done in the senate? >> on taxes in particular, how do you explain to someone this is not just election politics and these bills have no chance of becoming law? >> as i said, it is not election politics. we believe that first of all we have entrusted a great deal of money in building our economy. we think we have had progress

on doing that. i make the distinction between progress and success. success will be when we have 8 million jobs for those 8 million people who lost their jobs in the previous administration. 3.8 million lost their jobs in the last year of the bush administration. i want to contrast that with the 1.9 million new jobs were created in the last job of the clinton administration. we are making progress, but we have not yet had success. this is a long-term agenda for bringing back manufacturing. nobody is going to turn a light switch on and all of a sudden have that happen, but we need to adopt policies and a strategy. the bill i mentioned to you which says the administration needs to come up with manufacturing policy on a quadrennial basis to renew our focus on making it in america, which has two meanings. first of all, manufacturing is making goods in america. people can make it in america.

they can have good jobs, good benefits, and a good future for themselves and for their children. this is not a question of what the senate can pass in the weeks remaining of this congress. it is establishing the principle that we intend to pursue both now and in the next congress as a major focus of making sure that america grows its economy and creates jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector, which has provided such a good paying civil jobs over the past. there is no reason why american workers cannot compete with workers anywhere in the world if they have a level playing field. >> one more media question, please. >> congressman hoyer, from "china trade extra" -- you have

anticipated my question. >> you sent a signal. >> the china currency bill, the murphy bill, is going to have a hearing. is there any doubt in your mind that this legislation fully fits within this initiative and should get treated in the fall? >> there is going to be a hearing. clearly, as i said, we need a level playing field. we are prepared to compete with anybody in the world, but we cannot compete when the rules are skewed against us. that is what the hearing will address. i am sure secretary geithner and the administration will be looking at this as well. we frankly think there are a number of areas in which china is not playing by the rules and that our competitors do not have a stable playing field there. i.t. is another area.

proprietary information is another. i think we are going to be looking at in number of areas. not just at china, although china is the focus of the bryan bill itself, but at other of our trading partners as well. >> general aids, come back up to the front. please identify yourself. >> julie harrison. i am from embedded technology, pennsylvania. is this election politics? it is not. last july, i ran into you on the hill and talked to you about making it in america, which is something you were talking about. you sent me to your chief of staff and the work with us. i am a pennsylvania company which makes technology, so i know that making it in america was something that has been on the agenda. you said get somebody in the senate. we did, senator byrd.

as part of the making america agenda, it is important to have our technology and our circuits made here. it started with defense. are you going to include adding defense in to that measure in order to protect more jobs? >> clearly, a number of the pieces of legislation deals specifically with defense acquisitions. obviously, we passed acquisition reform, as you know, through the house and senate. so the answer to that question is yes. congressman frost? >> here comes a tough question. >> martin frost, a longtime admirer of stanley where s -- of seteny hoyer. [laughter]

probably the most cynical thing the republicans did on tax cuts was how they handle the estate tax. over a period of years, they increase the exemption so it would help small family-owned businesses and family farms so there would not have to be sold. then the had the estate tax totally disappear this year so that when a billionaire like george steinbrenner dies his family does not have to pay any estate tax. next year, they would revert back to a very low exemption which would not be helpful to family farmers and to small business people. congress has not been able to deal with this issue. do you think there is any realistic expectation that congress can deal with this issue this year, particularly because if congress does not act the exemption will go back to a very low level which will not be helpful to a lot of family owned businesses? >> congressman, as you know, i believe we absolutely should act

and must act. and i think we will act. the house acted, as you know, last year, to continue the 09 rates of 3.5% and 45% rate. that was the responsible thing to do so everybody in america would know, every couple would know they had a $7 million exemption. they would know the rate of 45%. interestingly enough, the fiscally irresponsible ploy affected by republicans to phase out their tax cut in 2010, which puts -- it was a policy to raise everybody pickaxes in 2010 or january 2011, to raise everybody's taxes. that is the effect of the republican policies adopted in 2001 and 2003. there will respond quickly that they had to do that because of

cbo scoring issues. well, that perhaps is correct, but the effect of the policy is still what congressman frost has indicated. on the estate tax specifically, because we failed to act in 2009 and the senate did not take up the house bill, which would have given some certainty to families and to individuals, we are now in a position where that estate tax is at 0. again because of the republican policies that were adopted, it will go back from 3.5000045% in 09 to 1,000,055% rate in 2011. that is unacceptable in my view. -- it will go back from $3.50 million at 45% in 2009 to