that these chemicals cause, but more importantly, how you design them so they're not going to cause problems in the future. so applying the principles of green chemistry to dispersants it's going to be essential. it will be essential in order to do this to have scientists trained in the understanding both the nature of the problem that these chemicals pose. but also, dissolution. i have also said the only reason for people to understand the problem is to empower a solution. what we're hoping to get is a deeper understanding of the concerns we have for dispersants and all chemicals, but this will give us the insights that we need to invest intellectually and with resources to pursue green chemistry so that the next generation of dispersants are more environmentally benign. >> ok. as this tragedy has unfolded,

and you have dealt with it and we are hearing encouraging reports in the news. he might be plugged in to beat on a permanent basis. but we now turn to cleaning up this mess and try to make sure that the people who live in that part of our country and our world help get back to their lives. what surprises you. when you look back, whether some of the surprises you have seen? particularly with the use of dispersants and with respect to the cleanup portion. >> i can certainly start. one of the things that we have done over the years, obviously, is plan and prepare for what we would consider a worst-case scenarios. obviously, with this magnitude in this link the time, it was always possible, but we never figured we would have one for this direction have those

issues. so we were combating a major oil spill every day for as many days as that happened. i think that was the first, you know, surprise. the second case of that obviously was that it was 50 miles offshore. that created some logistical challenges for just the ability to respond in the equipment that went out there. i think that it is the idea of using dispersants as opposed to surface. it is not an unknown idea. some papers talked about it earlier. but really, it was technically challenging and and feasible, but they came up with an innovative approach to do that. it was -- i do not want to say surprise because it could be the wrong word, but it has been a lot of people in the position to make quick decisions. and the addition from

environmental point of view for epa, we had to come up with a monitoring strategy that had never been in place. for years, this mark protocol was used for dispersants. it was to look at how effective the war and the water column. and it was surface-to-surface pushing them down to maybe as much as 30 feet but even more like 10 feet into the water column. here we're doing something 1 mile from the surface. we're doing a toxicity test and dissolved oxygen was tested to show not only efficiency and effectiveness. >> thank you for all your responses. i have only had 13 minutes, and that is not enough. but i will grudgingly yield back my time. >> welcome these two witnesses have been very helpful and very informative. and also, been subjected to long

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [unintelligible] the hearingcome bacto order. i thank the witnesses for being here. our first witness is dr. ronald j. kendall, director of the institute of environmental and human health.

and professor and chairman of the department of the barn and toxicology at texas tech university. if you think it is hd to say toxicology at texas tech, it is not. his research is focused primarily on eco-toxicology, wildlife toxicology, and risk assessment. he is most welcome as a witness here. thank you for your testimony, dr. ronald j. kendall. please proceed. >> those are glad to be here today. i turned my report by an earlier. >> could you upon your microphone? >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here today. we have already heard earlier today of estimates of more than 200 million gallons of crude being released into the gulf of mexico as a result of the deepwater horizon incident. in addition, we have heard an estimated 1.8 million gallons of dispersant used in the gulf, and particularly in the deep water.

this is unprecedented. corexit 9500 has been the predominant disburse unused. but the application of other dispersants may have protected shorelines and parts of the gulf coast ecosystem. there's still an immense area in the gulf that is under stress and potentially impact from the heavy use of these dispersants. in essence, my colleagues and i that have been studying this situation believe that a massive ecotoxicological experiment is underway. we have very little information on the transport and mixture of the dispersant and oriole in the deep ocean. we have very little information on the ecological effects on this particular sock oil and dispersant mixture. given the volume of oil and dispersant released into the gulf, we have a very for understanding of the old met ecosystem effects. when we bring this all together, we have a very challenging situation in dealing with the

massive oil spill. at the same time, did we really understand the environmental toxicology of the use so massively in the deepwater of a substae such as corexit 9500? and i say we did not. as we look at the environmental chemistry of the deep water use of the dispersant/goyal mixtures, crude oil is a mixture of thousands ochemical compounds, including aromatic hydrocarbon and other hyocarbons. we believe, and it appears to be of help with more recent research that the use of dispersants creates the release of theseoxins into the water column, and in fact, the use of corexit 9500 does put more hydrocarbons into the water column, which is essentially what we're seeing. crude oil can have physical toxic and indirect effects. we have seen evidence of oil on birds and other wildlife, and that is terrible.

but in addition, the use of dispersants basically disburses the oil into the water column, and the toxic components of oil are available to expose organisms. these dispersants, as we have heard earlier testimony, are not totally non-toxic. they have toxic qualities. but it is the disperst/oil mixture that we believe could be of the concerning ecological perspective. let's consider some species. we have talked a lot of the area already today. let's consider the gulf of mexico and their many endangered species that live there. kate -- to take one of the most endangered species of sea turtle in the world. many nest on the coast of the state of texas. and the hatchlings are returning to the gulf. they're only about that long when they returned by the thousands to the gulf. they go to the open gulf and

exist for years, moving in the currents, perhaps allocating with seaweed. they feed opportunistic we. it may take many years before they may return to the state of texas to breed. therefore, if we affect their blue -- food chain or affect those hatchlings, we mayot see this for years to come. and we do know they can be susceptible to oil. take the sperm whale, they are endangered. but the females come to th gulf in the summer. they feed opportunistic we in the deep water, and squid, cealopods. we have no idea what the deepwater injection of dispersants could it release water into the water column and impact such food supplies for endangered species. these are questions that we may not have revealed to us with answers for years to come. the bluefin tuna, perhaps moving

to could threaten status itself. th come to the gulf and release their eggs. the eggs float. the larva feed opportunistic bleak. they co like -- they colocate. we impact the sargassum or the zooplankton, and we can take out portions of age classes of bluefin tuna. again, we may not see this for years to come. again, we are conducting a massivetoxicological experiment, and we need data that can be pure reviewed and brought to the table to make good decisions for the future. i might add that dispersants are tools. but they need to be fully researched, and we need to have the environmental toxicology data on them to truly applied them in the best storage a possible. thank you. >> thank you. that was very helpful. our next witne is dr. david

smith of the graduate school of oceanography from my home state university, rhode island. it is e of the jewels and crowns of our university system. we're delighted that david could be he. welcom dr. smith. >> good morng. i appreciate the opportunity to testify on this very important subject. the unburned a doctorate off asciated with using dispersants are difficult to assess. and their use remains controversial. dispersants' reduce the chance oil will wash ashore and damage coastal habitats by moving the oil from surface into the interior of the ocean. dispersant's did not remove the oil from the ocean, so it is important that we do not adopt an out of sight, out of mind at a two. moving oil below the sea surface present significant challenges on orgisms residing in his habitat. impacts will be less noticeable. but it could be as devastating as oil washing ashore. microorganisms degrade most of

the oil. dispersants' speed up the process. the rate of degradation as a function of many factors including temperature and concentration. in the abundance of micro organisms capable of consuming the oil. our entire knowledge is from your applicaon at this see service. the deepwater horizon presents a much different scenario whe dispersants were introduced at the wellhead approximately 1,500 meters. as we continue to extract oil from the deep ocean, we will face similar scenari in the future. so there's an urgent need to understand the altman's fate before we continue to apply dispersants in this matter. while we have some understanding of how microorganisms' respond, we know nothing about the deep sea. there are far fewer microorganisms in the deep sea compared to the surface. this combined with the lower water temperatures will result in a slower rate of degradation, leading to a more persistent

plume of oil. by keeping the oil away from service, evaporation of the fraction of oil is eliminated and the probability of sediments increased. if the oil is concentrated into the sediments, and lack of oxygen will decrease the degradation rate. leading to longer term contamination of the sea floor. it is difficult to assess changes that occur as a result of the oil and dispersants in the d.c. community given our limited knowledge of the structure. with regards to microorganisms. parking in the d.c. prisons many challenges, but it is essential to attract -- working in the deeps see presents many challenges. in light of our lack of knowledge of the barn. a fax of dispersants in the ocean, initiation of the national research plan for oil spill response is warranted. it should call for and support peer reviewed research on all environmental aspects of oil spill response, including

reversal of oil and the deep sea. we need initiatives. the development of a set of best practices to address the impact of oil and as persons in the ocean to allow for direct comparisons between types of dispersants, types of ils, and habitats. the establishment of a baseline data set on environmental conditions in the water column and oil-producing areas of the ocean. including biologic protection, water current, sediment characterization. the development of long-term ecosystem level studies of the environmental effects of the use of dispersants including field and laboratory scale studies. the engagement of the nation's academic and government research infrastructure to assist in this endeavor, including research vessels, undersea robotics, onboard instruments, vessels of opportunity, experiments, and

commute -- computer modeling. the development of on online, open access database serves as a repository for the scientific community and establishment of a significant outreach effort for stakeholders us at the scientific community. these efforts should result in the ability to better protect environmental consequences of dispersants under dippers scenarios and their use in formulating specific emergency response plans. >> thank you, dr. smith. our next witness is edward b. overton, prof. emerita in with the department of environmental scientists at the louisiana university and has over 34 years studying environmental impacts of oil spills. we're delighted that he is here. >> thank you very much. i am hoping that an

environmental scientist can be on david letterman and do this, so this is an honor for me in quite an unusual experience, i might add. i find myself in an interesting position of agree with almost everything that has been said, both by the senators in opening comments and by my colleagues here so far. the lesson here is an ounce of prevention of an oil spill is worth many pounds of cure. clearly, what we can do to not have a deepwater oil spill is worth an awful lot of attention. having said that, we were not presented with an ounce of prevention. we had to come up with a pound of cure. when you're talking about an oil spill, there are a couple of important facts to understand what happens when this oil injures the environment. first, this was unique because it was a deep waters bill. so oil entering the water, some

of the stayed down in the deep oceans and is still there. it has been disbursed in this moving around by currents. most oceanographers suggest that that oil down in the deep oceans will be degraded, but it will not come up onto the shelf and impact the coastal areas. much of the oil did reachhe service. it came up and was stripped of a lot ofts organic checals as it came to this service. we're seeing evidence of that now. will that enters the environment goes thugh a series of weather and processes. you're left with trying to clean up not just goyal but oil in all the weather products. th're difficult decisions to be made because as the oil changes, it changes its toxicity, physical and chemical properties, so you're trying to clean up an elusive target. there 3 tools in the toolbox to get oil off the ocean surface. they are, you can use mechanical

means, skimming, sucking, clean them like that. you can use chemical means and the means it will work were using in this, dispersants. or burning. in a perfect world, i am a big fan of skimming because it allows you to retrieve the hydrocarbon material, and it can be recled. if you can do that, you should. you should always have that as your first preference. if the oil is thick enough to burn, i is big enough to stem and recycled. i think everybody is in favor of recycling. unfortunately, because the oil came to the surface and spread out, we were not left with that option. the options were using chemical dispersants. i will not repeat what has already been said about dispersants. you're clearly, clearly trading off impacts in the deep ocean when it impacts on shore. one. i'm not hurting made is that

dispersant's use should always be used in deep, offshoreater and not near the shoreline. there's just no opportunity for deletion of all these hydrocarbons in that environment. oil should be used offshore. this project could this person, as at the most dispersants, as we're finding out, the oil and dispersants are not any more toxic than the oil itself. the oil is what is causing the oblem. send in deep water. it is causing damage, and we will not know that damage. i totally agree that we need to use is to understand the impact of oil spills and dispersants. we simply cannot put this much oil in a a grand experiment. we needo take the advantage of the research opportunity and the long term researcopportunity to understand the environmental implications, both in the deep ocean and that the service. having said that, use of dispersants, we're not finished

with this event yet. but looking back right now, louisiana, for example, has 7,700 miles of continuant coat -- contiguous coastline. it has wetlands. it could have the food base of the foodhain. this is an incredibly valuable shoreline that must be protected. in the use of offshore dispersants appears to have scared a lot of that. out of those 7,700 miles, something are on the order of 300 miles has been hit and hit hard. we have seen the pictures, but it certainly could have been a lot worse. we're not out of the woods yet, but we do not know how much more damage is out there. we know a few things. one is it that the damage so far isot as bad as it could have been. we certainly need to monitor for the long-term damage. how long willt take species to come back? by the way, during an oil spill, it is an acute even. the damage is done, and it will take a little while to

understand that. a little while means years. we need to spend the money. i have a lot more to say, but my red light is on. thank you for the opportunity. >> tnk you. i look forward to giving you a chance to have more to say during the question and answer time. our final witness is jackie savi, the senior scientist with oceana. she served as direcr executive of the coast alliance before that and work with the environmental working group and is an environmental scientist with the chesapeake bay fodation. we're glad to have her here. >> thank you so much for inviting me today. as you know, oceana is a global conservation organization dedicated to restoring and protecting the oceans. since the deepwater horizon block, our nation has been shaken by an unprecedented oil spill that has caused 11 deaths, but many people out of work, shut down fisheries, and threaten businesses that depend on the ocean.

marine le is affected by this bill includes in danger, threaten, and commercially important species. many questions have arisen including whether not dispersant chemicals shou be deployed. the answer is not an easy one, as you heard. once the oil that's the water, there are no good ways to stop it or to clean it up. there are prosnd cons to this present use, and their uses clearly a lose-lose situation. if we're continually asking the ocean to take one for the team, we should be making sure we do not repeat the same mistakes. since we cannot prevent, contain, or clean up oil spills without major ecogical impacts, we need to stop offshore drilling, promote alternative energy sources, and transition oil and gas workers to clean energy sector. if drilling must continue, there must be effective plans for prevention, response, and cleanup. currently, those do not exist. dispersants' can be effective at dissolving oil and removing it from the surface where it

threatens diving birds, servicing marine mammals, and sea turtles. they prevent some of the oil from reaching land, were it would wash up on beaches and marshes and pose risks to public health. however, they also help to dissolve oil in the water, or fish and marine life are exsed the minister can kill marine life. it can affect production, growth, disease resistance, digestion, and other critical activities. their use also prevents skimming and collection of meaningful amounts of oil. the required lesser of two evils decision is made without the benefit of a crystal ball. the science does not fully address thempact on key species like corals or sensitive live stages are ecosystems. even if we had that information, there's no calculus prepared on the economic benefit to the ecological cost and come out with the right answer. it is a trade-off. the decision to use dispersants may have saved some birds and

marshes while increasing the impact on fish and other marine life. how can we say which is more important? there have been many lose-lose decisions. do we do dispersants? do we burn off the oil? how about flaring off oil and gas with the inherent air pollution? if we have to ask the russians to take one or many for the team, we should respond and take all necessary measures to make sure the situation is not repeated. that means making sure there are no more oil spills were dispersant chemicals are considered the best option. since the drilling has been clearly shown to be unsafe, unpredictable, and damaging, the only way to effectively preve this type of spill and its consequences is to stop offshore drilling. oceana recommends a ban on new offshore drilling. given what we know about the inadequacy and slow response, side effects, and the frequencies, it would be a tragic mistake not to use this portunity to devise a plan to replace our oil demand and stop

drilling offshore. they're clear options that could low us to accelerate our shift to clean energy. we recommend that a blue ribbon of panel of experts be appointed to engage the brightest minds to formulate a plan to fast track that. this should include the bombing of the clean energy manufacturing hopub in the gulf region. finally, while oceana argues that drilling should stop, at the very least, no drilling permits should be approved without plans for spill prevention, response, and cleanup, and t rely on lose- lose decisions and do not make our oceans the biggest lers. they're no six chemicals to respond to spills, so that drilling should not be allowed. -- if there are no said chemicals to respond to spills, drillinghould not be allowed. we do not need to trade the

health of fish for the health of marshes. if we faster to clean energy with a build in energy to replace dirty and danrous jobs with claim jobs, when the powers are debuted -- daily lives and one that stimutes our economy and provides us with exports, countries like germany and china are already making these investments. we can stick with oil and gas and import our energy technologies from them. or we can use this opportunity to change course and become the exporters. we can be the saudi arabia a clean energy technology. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. and thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony. there seems to be considerable agreement in certain areas, including even the same words being used by witnesses. the use of a dispersant being a grand experiment, with mass of the unknowns about its effect

seems to be a common theme for all your testimony and suggests that there is both an need and a significant opportunity here for research. as long as we have done this, we might as well get out there and figure out exactly what the consequences are of it rather than simply let it happen without examining it. let me ask dr. smith and dr. kendall what resources you see for conducting this research -- is bp setting up funds that will support this research? is it being done at the taxpayer expense through epa? is it up to the scientific community to go about its usual business and try to find funding and pursue these questions? what do you see as the funding sources for the research that you recommend? >> senator, i would like to compliment you from earlier this morning when you were exploring

what we do know about the toxicity of these dispersants. i agree with you totally. i washinking earlier, dispersants are- we can be somewhat some to restore an environment and use it in your terminal. because through it a scientific period. rebutct, they have to run b that will cause harm the environment. >> understood that dispersants only had to provide the key data? >> exactly. there is very limited information, to love her we cannot even evaluate the -- very

limited information to the point where we cannot even evaluate the toxic college. we have a laboratory experiment that does not help much with the environmental chemistry. in my opinion, and i support you totally as to your earlier questioning, i think we need to acquire more information and an appropriate regulatory process to find the best dispersants. when we say they are approved, in fact, we have environmental data and toxicology did it to say this is, in fact, true. and we don't have to deal with the situation like this now where we have to backfill with data after we have already used llions of gallons of it in the gulf. >> as far as the funding source, this should be the cost of doing business and extracting oil. i do not think it is a mystery what type of crude oil is being

extracted. i find it curious that we did not have these testsust done recently with this oil with the proof do with the approved list of dispersants. it is essential that the oil from the different areas be tested specifically for their consequences on organisms relevant to the area from which its a being extracted, and the type of oil being extracted, and the proper this person's. looking at this particular they did just released on the 31st, it looks like one other disperse and which much -- was much bett at dispersing the oil if you look at the number of hydrocarbons retained in the water. yet its toxicity was about the same. so, that should have been none before hand. maybe that decision could have been made to have that

particular dispersant on hand. also, the testing has begun in relevant conditions. the l exit in the wellhead is very hot. it is estimated to be about 100 degrees or so, going into cold water. we do not have data on that. epa is asking to minimize the amount of dispersant used, but it is not released did what the goal is. it is the goal to disperse as much oil as possible, or to minimize the ecological efft? getting the right ratio of the particular dispersant with the right type of oil being extracted, i think, is critical. it should be the cost of doing business. >> generally, let me a --

you've heard the testimony this morning in may be familiar with the testing done by the epa, reported recently, the compare the relative toxicity of a different dispersants, and said there were more less on par with each other. in some cases more for one species, less for another, but generally comparable. you all are scientists and have dedicated their lives to this kind of study. how complete and effective is that particular study as a point from which it could draw conclusions about the many different questions tt you have said have been left, or are unanswered at this point. and what else would need to b done to get a more afford to give determination on the questions you believe we need to study? dr. smith first.

>> one of the things that concerns me is that these were short-term tests done, acute toxicity -- cannot concern long- term effects. i'm also concerned -- particularly a focused on applications at death. the organisms used were chosen for a good reason. they are commonly used for this purpe. it allows you to compare different experiments. they have no relevance in the deep sea. the fish use is a small estuary and fish. so, i would not extrapolate very far. >> dr. overton? >> i would agree. when you're doing testing you have to use a standard series of testing. you cannot try one thing, then sl around it to get any comparative data. if you have to choose a species, and it should choose more than

one -- many species, but clearly we did not have deep open, and obably cannot have. it is a real problem. having said that, the componts in this dispersant biodegrade fairly rapidly. that implies the long-term impacts are minimal. compounds that have heavy metals, chloro-carbons that do not degrade to do have long term and has been no petroleum does the great, and fairly rapidly. my problem with all of this toxic testing is that what changes so much through its journey into the mormon. athich poi the you take to look at the testing? most of the time you take the most toxic part of the oil, the early, fresh oil, as opposed to the weathered oil. in se cases were you have the very heavy crude, not in this spoke, but as in the exxon

valdez, the residual component of that oil may have a residual toxicity. it is a complex question, but we have a great opportunity to studyf there will be long-term impacts from this spill. we cannot go into the environment in release large quanties of oil. the mineral management service has generatedoyalty income to the pro-government of billions of dollars. virtually all of it has been spent on not understanding the environment. almost none of the money was looking at a deep ocean environment. the revenue stream is there for the funding. it certainly should be part of the industry's --if you're going to take on the difficult, risky procedure, you ought to know how to respond to it and know what

the impacts are. but the government ought to hav some oversight in taking some of the royalty 20, a significant amount, and understanding from an energy in -- an engineering perspective and ecological perspective of what to do about it. we did not have a good sample from the death. most was taken from plankton. when the samples went down t the death, they got coated with oil. -- when it went down to the depth. it is incredibly complex. all of this should have been developed. about $500 million should have been set aside to understand the long-term in paris, in addition to what noaa's program is. >> that givese the opportunity to make a shameless plug for my national endowment for the oceans legislaon that would

take some of these revenues and set them aside in a process both ographically-based so local conditions could be addressed, and competitive, so that the more significant issues would be reviewed through a competitive grant process. that is bipartisan legislation with senator olympia snowe. i appreciate your thoughts. we are very consistent on that. starting with ms. sabitz, all of you are experienced scientists. you have heard the testimony that the bio-accumulation risk is low from the dispersants, low from oil, and from the dispersant/will combination. is that 31 on the panel is

comfortable with as an assessment next >> yes, senator. first of all, thank you very much for your legislation for the national endowment for the ocean. to get back to your last question quickly, in terms of whether the epa studies are enough to draw conclusions, i certainly agree with the docrs they are not. they are so short term. there is a 48 or 96-hour study. even if all the dpersant goes away and the animal does not die, it does not mean it will survive, grow, flourish, and escape predators. it does not answer the question as to whether the animal would even have hatched in the first place if exposed. it does not address the entire ecosystem question. even a sho-term exposure could still have the feds. your last question concerning bio-a commission -- it is my

understanding that the chemicals are not expected the biodegrade, but i would defer to my esteemed panelists. >> if you want to clarify? >> we know that oil do not bio- the killing of those of the toxic compounds. we have in some systems in our bodies as do animals. i have never heard of a case ere we saw any tissue bio- commission of the stuff of compounds except when the fish was tainted. it's win through oil, had oil on it. that is not from a biological process. having said that, there could be other issues. i wi let ron speak. >> thank you. it is according to what kind of end points you want to look at. many of these in oil are

carcinogens. benzine, for example, and the hydrocarbons -- yes, we do turn them over and an organism can can alsoe hthem, but metabolize them to become a carcinogen. to me that is a consequence of chronic concern, they be not bio-accumulation, but just because we don't have that the commission does not mean we have issues and more chronic sense in addition to the acute sense. >> anything to add, dr. smith? >> i agree. >> a different question -- the national contingency plan prohibits water called sinking agents. it is my understanding that it is the nature of will to float.

-- the nature of oil to foot. the nature of the dispersant rates of up into smaller particles that have less buoyancy, and therefore stay in the water column longer, held down by currents and things like that, but remains inhereny boy. all things equal, would ultimately come to the surface. ast dr. on has testified, there is an elusive quality to the oil as it weathers. does appoint come to where the oil sinks naturally if there is not, or even if there is? is tt process accelerated by the use of dispersants with the conclusion reasonably to be drawn that there will be more sinking of the oil as a result of the use of the dispersants?

in light of the fact that sinking agents are forbidden under the national contingency plan, is that a concern that we should be looking out for? >> every oil spill has sinking issues associating of this is an incredibly light oil. the only time it can really get heavy enough to stay beneatthe ter is in the later stages. when washing up to the shoreline in gets mixed down with the sediment and detritus. i have seen several pictures from under water. i have heard several reports. >> it should not happen in the deep sea. >> i have heard several reports of sunken oil, but we have yet to get a sample. i asked yesterday at a meeting, and the answer was no. i would be very surprised.

remember, not all oil -- oil is grossly different. >> dr. kendall. >> it i really complicated. with the deepwater police you have a very challenged and armor -- dark, cold, less oxygen. less microbial activity. these processes are complicated because we don't have much da. it is much different than a laboratory for acute toxicity test with a shrimp exposure. that is what makes this so challenging, and why it does present itself an opportunity as we think about continued deep water drilling. perhaps we need more information as to the of the ramifications

of release of oil in the water, and how we will manage it. frankly, we know very little about the behavior of oil even dispersed in the deep water. where it goes, and how it travels in occurrence. >> in terms -- i am told there is some sense, perhaps even observation and measurement that we are starting to see some of the oil/dispersant mixture in the water column beginning to settle to the ocean floor. there is some risk contaminating i don't know at that depth how rich the environment is, but is the question of sinking oil, assuming it proves under observation, ofarticular concern we should worry about?

>> at this time i have not seen the evidence that is occring enough to be worried about it, although i have seen evidence that oil exiting the well head and being hit continuously with this person has created as it comes to the surface many different forms of oil. we have seen all the way from mats to mousse-like services, some flooding, some beneath the surface, sheens, tar balls -- many different forms of oil that t back to the dispersant use. it is complex. i do not have any data to support the sinking concept. as we look at this entire scenario, this is uncharted territory. i think we need science now.

>> closing words -- iill let dr overton save what he wishes. but i think the notion that these are uncharted waters, we need to make sure we apply adequate signs tot, and really do not know yet what the long- term effects will be seen to be the things we can all agree with about where we stand now on the disperse and use. >> a glimmer of light in this darkness about >> see oil -- about deep sea -- there is a lot of oil entering the ocean in the last millions of years -- i have heard tales of the two exxon- valdez-sized oils in the deep ocean.

the organisms evolve and live on it. there is so much an unknown that it is mindboggling, but we do know that the gulf is very active and alive with two exxon- sized spill's annually for the last millions of years. that is outside my area of expertise. it is not totally -- i mean, i totally agree -- we need a comprehensive understanding of the full impact. this is a massive, acute and putinput. aeep is a chronic input. clearly, put some of the royalty money back to good use. >> understood. another good, closing word is a phrase that ms. sabitz used -we

are continually asking our oceans to take one for the team the note is getting to the point where as majestic and immense as nectar oceans are, it is becoming time as our species grows in size and our mental effect to start thinking of ourselves as caretakers of our oceans and not just takers fm our oceans -- as majestic and immense as our and oceans are. as you good to the far north and oceans and see ice sheets since time in memorial are retreating, to coast where water temperures are four degrees -- your colleague, dr. smith, talks about the shift. it creates dramatic changes. our fishermen are not getting the same winter flounder

anymore. it is a blow to the fishing economy. in the far seas you see the garbage zones, up to 400 dead zones. and the more persistent and chronic threat of an acidic ocean. the oceans have taken a lot for the team. i appreciate all of your work in bringing science and advocates seek to bear as we approach, if not reach the tipping point where we can no longer simply be takers, but must become caretakers. your testimony has been very helpful, and to workis body. i appreciate that you took the trouble to come here today. the hearing will be kept open for two weeks for my colleagues to

-- without further ado, we will now be adjourned. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [unintelligible] >> we have a special web page with the coverage of the gulf of mexico oil spill. nearly two dozen congressional hearings here on washington. we have all of the briefings, speeches, and links to our web pages. we also have a twitter section for your comment. you will find it all at this

website. on the line, a congressional reporter for political. -- politico. so there are a lot of other issues. the senators that preceded me have raised a lot of those issues, and i commend ms. kagan, too, on her complete congeniality and her complete candor before the committee. but in terms of this senator, in terms of my vote, in terms of my judgment, it is the case and the opinions on theirst amendment in citizens united and the actions contrary to the solomon amendment and military access that to me deliver a temperament that i don't think is appropriate on a justice of the supreme court at this time. mr. president, i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. bennett: mr. president, we

are here to discuss solicitor general elena kagan's qualifications for the supreme court, and we've heard a number of conversations from our colleagues who are themselves lawyers, who have sat in on the judiciary committee and who have gone through the record with great detail. as i have said here before, i am unburdened with a legal education. i have great respect for those who have been taught to think like that and talk like that and who go into that kind of detail, but i view this from a slightly different point of view, and i hope it's a commonsense point of view, and i'd like to share it with my colleagues here this afternoon. i go back not to start with mrs. -- ms. kagan, but to start with an incident that occurred when we were discussing the possibility of john roberts going to the supreme court as the chief justice. in that period of discussion, there was a particular case that was raised in the press where john roberts had issued a

ruling, that according to the newspapers and the reporters was an egregious ruling. here are the facts of the case. there was a young woman riding the metro who ate a french fry. not a lot of french fries. a french fry. and she had the misfortune -- she was 12 years old. she had the misfortune to do that in the presence of one of the security officers of the metro who arrested her for violating the publicly advertised zero tolerance no eating policy on the washington metro -- in a washington metro station. she was not just detained. she was arrested, searched, handcuffed, driven to police headquarters, booked and fingerprinted. three hours later, her mother showed up at the police station and she was released to her

mother, and she sued, alleging that she was treated improperly, that an adult would have only received a citation and that this was a terrible thing that had been done to her. the law says that children who violate this policy have to be retained until their parents can arrive. well, justice roberts -- the case finally came to him on the circuit court -- ruled that the metro people had acted properly, and in an attempt to derail his confirmation to chief justice, there was a dustup in the newspapers and the media, this is a man, we want to put him in as chief justice of the united states, and he will tolerate this kind of treatment of a young woman who does nothing more than eat a single french fry in a metro station? that's the kind of man we want on the court? i remember those kinds

>> in a few moments, a series taking a look at our hair-care law -- health-care law and how it will affect individuals. and later, most of the oil has been cleaned up or dissipated in the gulf oil spill. there will be a briefing on that. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, rich lowry talks about political leadership. we will hear the latest on the gulf oil spill by admiral thad allen. and free will look at medicare recipients with our guest joseph baker. this program is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the senate is expected to

confirm elena kagan to the supreme court. you can watch this live on c- span2. you can also watch it on c- span.org. >> we are not rolling in the options in or out. >> this is the 20th anniversary of the beginning of the first gulf war. look back at the key players and events. online at the c-span video library. every program since 1987. watch what you want when you want. >> more now on how the new health-care law will affect individuals. this is part of our week long "washington journal" series. " continues. host: we have a summer series

looking at defense and the news, starting with health care and the impact and -- as on looking at events in the news, starting with health care and its impact on consumers. we look at how this law changes all the trends and the changes now and i'm -- in th future -- how this law note changes health insurance and the changes now in the future. on friday we will wrap things up with how the health law intact states. we will speak with two state attorneys general who are on both sides of the issue. our guest this morning is michael cannon of the cato institute, health policy director there. let's jump into some of the changes. the health-care law and the individual health savings account in 2011 means you can no longer use an account for over- the-counter medicationsas prescribed by a doctor -- unless

prescribed by a doctor. guest: health savings accounts are a type of insurance product that combines a tax-free held savings account for your out-of- pocket medical expenses with a high deductible health plan but supporters of the plans like them because they give workers contl over a portion of their health-care dollars that usually e employer controls. that goes into your account and you decide when and where to spend it. if you spend on medical items, it is not taxed in or out if you spend on medical items. that gives workers a lot more control over their health care decisions and benefits. what this law does is it makes a couple of changes that specifically affect health savings accounts. one of them is, as you said, if you want to spend money in your account on the medication, right

now you can do that tax-free. under the new law, if you spend it on medication without prescription from a doctor, which sounds a little odd, almost the doctor recommends it -- unless the doctor recommends it, then it is not tax-free, and you have to pay taxes on the money that you use to purchase those medications and a 10% penalty. that is a non-medical withdrawal but there is already a 10% penalty on non-medical withdrawals on held savings accounts. -- health savings accounts. it increases the penalty on a non-medical withdrawals from 10% to 20%. you take it out of your hsa and spend it on other nonmedical items, and that penalty will double. there are a lot of things in the law of that affect all plants -- that will affect all health

plans. health savings accounts are coupled with a high deductible plan. $2,000, $2,000, up $4,000, up $5,000. what the new law does is it requires consumers to purchase coverage for a lot of items that they don't -- they might not already purchased. one is preventive care. let me back up. one of them is a mandate that everyone purchase coverage with on limited lifetime benefits -- unlimited lifetime benefits, so that there can be no limits on the amount of claims that can be filed over a lifetime another is annual benefits -- the plan cannot limit the dollar amount of claims he filed over the course of the year. those two minutes are probabl going to hit people with health

savings accounts plans the hardest. these people or income- constrained, they may have chosen a lifetime or annual limit on claims. the administration has estimated that premiums will go up 7% or more if you change your plan, a switch from one carrier to another, or try to increase your deductible to respond to the higher premiums, you will lose what the administration ca lls the grandfather status. if you lose that, you are subject to a lot more mandates. you ought to purchase of first dollar coverage for preventi care -- you have to purchase first dollar coverage for preventive care. there are private eimates that say it3 percentage points or four percentage points. host: the phone lines we have set up for the rest of the hour

-- if you are insured -- those are the numbers for this segment. our guest is michael cannon of the cato institute. let's get more into details of the individual mandate. this is from healthcare.gov. most of it will still can afford it will be required to obtain basic -- most individuals who can afford it will be required to obtain basic insurance. and what is this exempon? guest: first of all, the mandate works requiring nearly every american to purchase a health plan. the administration says it will be a basic health plan. they will require ople to purchase a lot more coverage than they already have. a lot of people fear that it

will be a very comprehensive and expensive health plan. when massachusetts enacted a similar mandate, that is what happened. if you don't comply with this mandate, you have to pay a penalty. that penalty is going to ramp up to about $700 per person or $350 per an injured child or 2.5% of your household -- three out of dollars per --3 $350 per uninsured child, or 2.5% of your household income, whichever is greater. there are a lot of interestin things that happened with this mandate and the exemptions. for example, if you earned $50,000 a year and the most affordable plan confined is $4,000 a year, that is 8% of

your income. you will be facing the penalty if you do not comply with the mandate. it's the least expensive plan confined is $5,000 -- if the least expensive plan you can find is $5,000, and you are exempt from that penalty. a lot of things push premiums over that threshold. one of them is age, another is where you live, another is smoking status. let's say that you of got -- you have got -- you and your friend live in the same income and have the same zip code, but your friend is 10 years older than you, and the insurance companies cannot charge premiums based on age - if he is 10 years old and new, you have to pay the penalty and your friend does not or if he is the same age as you and he lives in as a code where health insurance is more expensive -- if he lives in a zip code or

health insurance is more expensive, you have to pay the penalty and he does not. or if you are the same age and lived in the same zip code and he smokes and you don't, his premium is going to be $6,000, at much higher than yours, a penalty, whereas the nonsmoker -- and he would not have to pay the penalty, whereas the nonsmoker would have to pay the penalty. these are some of the things that are emerging about this law that were not given a lot of an examination before it was enacted. host: another element is that if employers do not offer insurance, individuals can buy insurance from an exchange. guest: there is, in addition to this individual mandate, a mandate on employers that they have to offer insurance. it works like this -- if they don't offer insurance to their workers, they have to pay of

about $2,000 per worker, about 30 workers. this is only employers with 50 or more workers. some could be paying penalties of tens of thousands of dollars per year. even if the date to offer coverage to the workers, a lot of employers could find themselves subject to penalties and the neighborhood of tens of thousands of dollars per year. if any of their workers are eligible forubsidies in exchanges to meet those criteria, or if the coverage is affordable for the workers, agai if the premiums -- contributions exceed 8% of the income, household income -- there is a precarious situation employers find themselves in. because household income is one of the criteria, the employer will be hit with tens of thousands of dollars in penalties -- employers are not

going to know when it will be hit by these penalties. if you have an employee whose ther-in-law mes in, and there is an additional person in his household, that brings down his house will income as a percentage of the federal poverty level to the point where they would be eligible for subsidies on these exchanges, then that employer is also the subject to the penalties -- is all the sudden subject to penalties because of things they could not predict or control. the exchanges exist for people who, as you mentioned, do not get insurance through their place of employment. these will be set up by states. or if the states are inclined to do so, by the federal government. what will happen now, because we have seen just this week two

very important developments with the individual mandate and the structure of this law -- first, a federal judge has to add the motion to dismiss the constitutional challenge -- a federal judge has denied the motion to dismiss the constitutional challenge to the law in virginia. yesterday, voters in missouri passed a state law that tries to invalidate the individual mandate in their state. a lot of states now, instead of setting up these exchanges, are going to take a step back and say, wait a second, we are not sure that this law is going to be on the books in 2014 when we have to have these exchanges up and running. we will see of this law has been validated by the courts, if it has been overturned or materially altered by cgress. host: in 2014, the penalty will

be $94, 2015, $325, 2016, $695. guest: that is correct. ramps up. as a percentage of income, it also wraps up. -- ramps up. the percentage of income test, it ramps up to 2.5% of income. you pay whatever is higher if you do not have health insurance and you do not qualify for exemptions. the person whose most affordable plan is $4,000, they are not exempt from the penties. if they don't purchase the coverage, they have to pay a penalty of about $1,200. one of the interesting things we found in looking at this law is

that you will notice that $4,000, the amount of the prium, is a lot more than the penalties you have to pay. you would save $2,750 by not purchasing health insurance, and if you crunch the numbers, you find that individuals say up to $3,000 by not purchasing coverage and waiting until they get sick, paying the penalty, and waiting until they are sick to be wide coverage -- to buy coverage. over time, a family of a fort that does this five years in a row without much in -- a family of four let us this five years in a row without much in the way of issues can save a lot. host: michelle is in massachusetts and is uninsured. caller: i came off of carper in

march of this year. of cobra in march of this year. in massachusetts, it is called the bronze, the silver, and the gold. there was the gatekeeper to the choices. it was an hmo. i decided to go directly and purchase a policy, $690. i've been paying it since may 1. i went there to see if i could get some kind of deal with my medication, because as of september 2008, -- 2009 -- i was diagnosed type 2 diabetes. that is an additional $70 a month. i received a letter from them last week -- hang onto your seats, folks -- 7% to 11%

increase. gov. patrick, along with the sete and house, past the increases. the insurance companies -- i will be notified in august -- 7% to 11% increase. i watched c-span devoutly every day. i am on my way to the career center. it is a disgrace what we're paying in massachusetts. i am a single person. my sister and i lived in our parents' home. we own it. because of this, i cannot get deductions or anything, because i am a single person. host: let's get a response from our guest. guest: thank you for sharing your story with us. i think that that caller is one of the victims of not just this massachusetts law, but really of the way that washington has been doing health care policy, health

care reform, for the past 40 or 60 years. in massachusetts, what they said would happen is that if you force people to purchase insurance, which more people in the pool, premiums will come down. exactly the opposite has happened. premiums in massachusetts are rising faster than anywhere else in the nation. they climb much faster than wages. massachusetts has seen additional 6 percentage point increase as a result of this law. it is partially the result of the government requiri people to purchase more coverage. it is partially because i massachusetts, you have people dropng coverage and paying penaies and only purchasing alpa entrance when they get sick, and that increases premiums -- and only purchasing health insurance when they get sick, and that increases premiums for everybody else. this person was supposed to be helped by this law in

massachusetts, the law passed by congress that president obama signed, but will be haunted by that law because it is making health insurance more expensive for her. what we need to do is enact health-care reform is focused on making reform -- making health care more affordable and more efficient. so people who cannot afford health insurance, when we are paying the bills, either through private charity or government, it is easier for taxpayers or philanthropy and the rest of us to purchase that, because the cost is lower. there is nothing in this law that takes the cost of health care at lower. that is what we need to focus on. host: our response on twitter. -- a response on twitter. guest: i have a lot of concerns with the public option. if we allow people to choose

from not just prive health plans,ut a government plastique, consumers will benefit -- but a government plan, consumers will benefit -- the problem with that is that governmentnsurers will enjoy benefits that private insurers will not. host: our guest, michael cannon, is with the cato institute, and was previously a policy analyst under chairman larry craig. insured line, maryland. caller: good morning. how are you all this money? you mentioned the -- how are you all is morning? you mentioned at the hsa. in maryland, and i assume her states, the only criteria is

that everything is priced by average age of the group within e employer's business. we had a 51% increase in the hsas, approved by the maryland state commissioners. we had a 37% increase in the individual coverage for our company. about 30% of the people drop coverage because they cannot afford the difference and what they paid -- the difference in what they paid and what the employer pays. another part of this bill that everody thought was so great is that anybody up to age 27 gets to go back and go on their family or their parents' policy, which is going to be a lot ss expensive for somebody between the ages of 19 and 27 or whatever the college age is. but what that does is take that younger people out of the pool of the average age of groups

for small and medium size businesses, which increases the average age, which doubles the cost of the policies from year to year. guest: to finish the collar's thought, -- the caller's thought, if you have a small firm with older workers and kids at home, their premiums will go down, but if you have ever worked a lot of the kids work, their premiums will go up. this is one of the problemshat comes with these sorts of price controls that this law imposes on health insurance. when you don't allow insurers to priced insurance according to the risk they are assuming, you are ultimately gaming behavior. healthy people will leave the market. if you charge sick people less, and if you tell insurers that you could only charge a $10,000 premium interest will do the best to avoid those patients

because -- insurers will do their best to avoid those patients because they represent a loss forhe insurer. they dump them on to the competitors. host: virginia, welcome. caller: callers tell their personal stories on the line. you talked a lot about numbers and economics and i think that is really important, but there is a component that has to do with people's health and the lives and their families. one of the ottoman a problems with the system is that it is -- one of the fundamental problems with the system is that it is not sure whether it is a capitalist system where there will be a house and have nots -- be haves and have nots,, o whether a health care is our right that everybody has a degree of entitlement to. i find myself uninsured with a

small son after the perfect storm of leaving my job, which seems like a great idea, a purchasend a policy on the individual market, -- purchasing a policy on the individual market, only to find that i was excluded because of pre-existi conditions. no one will sel me a policy. ere is clearly something wrong with the current market. guest: i absolutely agree with the caller. we don't have stable, secure health insurance, that protects us from huge jumps in our premiums when we get sick and have complications, a pregnancy or something like that, that causes insurers some concern. the reason we don't is because the government is so heavily involved in our health care sector, not because we have something like a free market. it was the government that created our employer-based

health insance in the 19's that takes away health insurance when we lose our joboften because we are sick and cannot work anymore that is when we needed the health insurance the most. when you look at the many frustrations pple have with the individual market, and i think somof them are valid, because of the remarkable job innovating and trying to provide protections, considering that the government has taken 90% of the market and put it into the employer-based system, some of those things are things that this caller really needs, like protections from premiu going up because of complications from pregnancy. host: george, insured caller, colorado. caller: good morning. excellent guest this morning. tricare recipient, i have been

up for several years. i receive it as a surviving spouse of a military veteran. it is a free benefit i received -- will not meet the minimum requirements for health care -- will that meet the minimum requirements for health care in this law? guest: there is controversy over that. there is still some concern among enrollees about whether the benefits are going to change in how much. this law will probably change health care for everyone in the country, but i confess i am not an expert on tricare. host: michigan, welcome. caller: i really appreciate your commentary this morning and i appreciate the work that cato is doing. i think that health care

accounts to do much better for bringing down costs. as a student, at the individual mandate is really hard on me. i'm wondering if you could speak to the negative act of the individual mandate specifically on young people and students. guest: to understand the impact of the individual mandate on students, you have to understand why the law includes the individual mandate. it prohibits insurance companies to a large extent from getting premiums that correspond to risk. i competitive marketplace, insurers would -- in a competitive marketplace, insurers board price according to the risk brought to the table. people with a high cost conditions would face higher premiums. what this law does is that for companies, you have to charge eight certain premium regardless

of risk healthiest people would see premiums rise so the premiums for sicker people can fall. that is essentially a tax on the healthiest people in the marketplace, and that will cause many people to not to purchase health insurance. that is where the individual mandate comes up, up from a failing in the present law on pricing health insurance. it would force young people to take a bad deal. there is an estimate that suggest that premiums for a people could go up 17% 30%, -- that premiums for healthy people could go up 17%, 30%, 50%, and this law. i am not sure that the individual mandate is really going to even do what supporters

hope it will do, which as forced younger people to pay higher premiums to subsidize older and sicker people who, as it happens, all the people to a higher income -- older people tend to have higher income than junger people. there is an irony there. host: next caller. caller: first, i want to knowf the guest is insured and how it is working for him. i have been injured by my company for 15 years -- insured by my company for 15 years. we started with unitedhealth, which i thought was the worst insurance in the planet. i had to fight for everything. premiums go up every year.

michael pay goes up every year. -- my copay goes up every year. this is long before obamacare. we have had this problem for a long time. there is nothing that has been done about it. obamacare is not my issue at this point. i have had issues for a long time for health care. i am fighting for everything. thank you guys so much i will listen. guest: i have held savings account through my employer, the cato institute, that covers me, my wife, and my child. i share frustratis with the health care system. when my son was born, the

procedures were so complicated, so many forms. between the insurance company and a hospital, the doctors, anesthesiologist, so forth. i would like to be able to -- what frustrates me the most is that i am not the one making the decision about what kind of health insurance i gety employer makes the dision. the money my employer uses to pay the insurance -- that money came from me, the money that your employer uses to pay for your insurance is part of your earnings. it is because of a tax preference that the government created for employer-sponsored insurance that the employer controls part of your earnings and decisions so that you cannot choose a plan that is simpler and does not involve so much paperwork, or one that allows you records of doctors, because you are subjected to so many gatekeepers -- or one that

allows you a better course of doctors, because you are subjected to so many gatekeepers. the government takes that money from us and control support our employers. host: you work for the cato institute, a conservative think tank -- guest: not conservative, libertarian. big difference. i am not aware of for a competitive market anywhere for health insurance in the world, because governments have become so heavily involved in blocking competition stifling -- in blocking and stifling competition. the market was innovating even under congress' knows, as it was passing this law, with a new product that gives protection i

was discussing earlier. your premiums go up because you have a high cost iness, and there is an insurance product for people who are worried about their premiums going up if they lose their employer-sponsored insurance. if they have a high-cost illness, their premiums are going to be sky-high and they cannot afford insurance. the product would injure them against that risk by saying that if you have a prima -- and now insure -- insure them against that risk by saying that if you have the premium now, it will protect you from it spiking in the future. that is an example of the sort of innovation that the individual market has been doing and could be doing me of it if we were not passing these sorts of price controls. host: bosn, massachusetts, insured caller. good morning.

caller: let's take money out of this situation. all we hear about is money, money, money. let's talk about solving that is real. depending on who you are listening to, we will be adding anywhere from 20 million to 45 million people who are all the sudden -- or all of a sudden going to feel entitled to a visit to the doctor. 30 million more people -- 30,000 doctors that we don't have right now. you talk about the doctor bills you had with your son and a lady about hers. you will not even be able to see a doctor. when all this happens, where are we going to go? every doctor's office is going to look like the registry of motor vehicle office. guest: a lot of them aeady do,

i would argue. it is significant that we've gotten a lot of calls from massachusetts this morning, because massachusetts has already tried this experiment. it has resulted in higher premiums, the opposite of what residents were promised. it has also resulted, as the caller says, in longer waits to see a doctor. the longest wait to see a general practitioner or specialist, and those waits have doubled. they have doubled at a time when waits in the rest of the country or shrinking. -- were shrinking. if you have coverage and you cannot get to the doctor to use the coverage, it does not mean very much. there is concern that that will

happen with the federal health- re law. one of the reasons it ll be harder is that 30 million more people will of health insurance -- will he health insurance and this law and half of them will get it through the medicaid program. enrollees have on our time finding a doctor who take them a have a hard time finding doctor who will takthem to the was a tragic story in maryland a boy who died because the mother could not see the doctor through medicare. it is lives we' talking about. host: uninsured caller from palm beach, florida. caller: that sounds like a juxtaposition, or -- what is the word i'm looking for -- contradiction. who is framing this debate?

assurance says that you are assured care by a compassionate entity, i.e. a physician, who is trying to take care of you. when you get insurance into the ball game, we talk about millions of pencil pushers who say, well, i am an actuary, this person gets it, this person does not, etc. we're left with this mass of -- this miasma people who only see dollar signs to watch the movie "van wilder" about what it means to be a doctor in america, to make money. if not for her policy, i would be in a lot of trouble with the physical and mo -- physical

ailments. guest:nsurance plays an incredibly important role, and i would not agree that by calling -- i would not denigrate that by calling insurance company employees at the butcher's. -- by calling insurance company employees pencil pushers. it is an incredly important and valuable innovation that harnesses our self-interest, because we want our medical bills to be paid, towards a very compassionate and, paying the medical bills of people who do not know and will never meet, and we may speak different languages from them, and if we met them, we may not even like them. this is what insurance guys did people who denigrate them as -- insurance dies.hat people who denigrate them as

pencil pushe -- they play a very important role. we need freedom to choose from a wide variety of plans and make decisions ourselves. host: pennsylvania. hi, steve. caller: this health-care bill is strictly about money. when you look at the percentage of your income if you do not have insurance, it is all money. the two things i worry about is, one -- i want to know if you have seen studies on what they predict the foreclosure rate will go up to. the first caller on this subject was the woman in massachusetts who lives in a home with her sister and they own it clear. you add a mortgage on top of that, what do you predict the

foreclosure rate to be in the next seven years? guest: i really cannot predict what impact this law will have on the foreclosure rate. on the point of money, there is something to that this law is largely about money. it was sold to us on the idea that it would reduce health-care costs. president oba's top actuary, the medicare program, has said that even if it takes effect exactly as intended, it would increase savings by $300 billion over the next 10 years. if, by the way, the cuts in medicare payments to hospitals and medicare advantage and private insurance plans these do not take effect, and a lot of people, i am one of them, are skeptical that they will take efct, we will be spending even more than that. this is pumping even more money

into every -- into a very bloated section of our economy. who benefits from that? the president says he was taking on special interests to get this passed, but the health-care sector was behind this law almost 100% because it pumps more money into that sector rather than demanding more efficiency from the sector. host: uninsured caller in detroit. hi, robert. caller: i am currently unemployed, and thus i do not pay for health insurance. i have no money to do so. i heard a caller speaking previously about health care is our right. it is not right. you do not have the right to anyone's time or labor or anything of that sort. what you have is the right to pursue it. if you do not have the means to pay y that p

>> the series on the new health- care law continues thursday with a look at how it affects medicare part d. our guest is joe baker. on friday, the attorneys general from oregon and colorado. washington journal is live on c- span each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. of special series on health care law is at 9:15 a.m. in a few moments, of a briefing on the administration's response to the gulf oil spill. including a report that up to 75% of the spilled oil has been cleaned up or dissipated. in more than an hour and a half, more on the oil spill with the use of dispersants. after that, president obama

presents citizens medals for exemplary service. and then, the author jason mattera. a couple of a lot of bands to tell you about for tomorrow morning. here on c-span, a senate banking subcommittee looks at manufacturing. witnesses include members of the department of commerce and the federal reserve. on c-span 3 at 11 eastern, it is a treasury department news conference on the latest report from the social security and medicare trustees. witnesses include treasury secretary timothy geithner and labor secretary hilda solis. >> politics, books, history available anytime on c-span radio, in the washington area, a

nationwide on satellite radio, on your iphone and ipad with our c-span radio app. and now listen on your phone with our partnership in the leading company parfum radio. just call the telephone number. it is free but check with your phone provider for any additional charges. c-span radio, even more available on your phone. >> the obama administration said that much of the oil spilled into the gulf of mexico has been cleaned up or has naturally dissipated. this 90-minute white house briefing involves officials involved in the cleanup. >> put t gizmo on. good.

good afternoon. joining us in today's >> good afternoon. joining us in today's briefing to walk through the developments of the last sort of 24 to 48 hours down in the gulf are some familiar faces to you all by now. carol browner, admiral thad allen -- retired admiral thad allen -- as well as noaa administrator dr. jane lubchenco, who will walk us through and update us on where we are in the federal response, walk through an interagency scientific report on where the oil is and the process that it's gone through. i think you all heard the president discuss today that -- and i'll have these guys discuss sort of where we are in the static kill, which is good news, and it is sort of the beginning of the end of the sealing and containment phase of

this operation. i want to be, though, very clear, as the president was, that our commitment to those families, to those communities in and along the gulf coast remains the same as it always has been. we are transitioning and will transition to a greater focus on cleanup and damage assessment. there is still lots of work to do, and this government will be here every step of the way to do that work. that's an important message from the president. it's important that it is heard here, and, as importantly, if not more so, heard in the gulf. so this gives us a chance to look back at what has happened, where we are, as well as to

discuss with you guys where we are heading. and with that, i will turn this over to dr. lubchenco if i can get -- oh, look at that. the gizmo worked. >> thanks, robert. hello, everyone. today, the federal government is releasing a new scientific analysis that addresses the question -- where did the oil go? this analysis uses the recently released calculation of 4.9 million barrels, plus or minus 10 percent, and includes both direct measurements as well as the best estimates where direct measurements were not possible. the report was produced by scientific experts from a number of different agencies, federal agencies, with peer review of the calculations that went into this by both other federal and non-federal scientists. the conclusions -- key conclusions of the report is

that the vast majority of the oil has either evaporated or been burned, skimmed and recovered from the wellhead, or dispersed. and much of the dispersed oil is in the process of relatively rapid degradation. a significant amount of this is a direct result of the very robust federal response efforts. what i'd like to do is just walk you through the pie chart that you see behind us and illustrate what's in each of these different categories. a quarter of the oil, about 1.2 -- >> we can't hear you. >> does somebody want to point while i do this? [laughter] or can i point up here? how can we do this? >> here, i'll be your professional pointer and you can -- >> okay, thank you. >> i'll be vanna white. >> okay, vanna. [laughter] about a quarter of the oil has been evaporated or dissolved. this is about 1.2 million

barrels. that happens naturally. that's a natural process. and much of that happened as the oil was being released day to day. moving around, let's go to the upper right, robert. about 17 percent, or -- i'm sorry, 827,000 barrels were recovered directly from the well site. so we know we've got that number measured directly. an additional 5% was burned. another 3% was skimmed. in addition to that, 8% of the oil that was released has been chemically dispersed both with dispersants at the surface, as well as subsea. and so if you total up those five pie charts -- direct

recovery, burned, skimmed, and chemically dispersed -- that gives you a sense of what the results of the federal effort have been. and it totals about a third of the total amount of oil that has been released. naturally dispersed oil is also -- accounts for 16%. as oil was being released from the wellhead or from the riser pipe, it naturally becomes mixed in turbulent conditions and broken up into small, microscopic droplets that remain -- if they are small enough, they remain below the surface of the water. and so 16% naturally dispersed, 8% chemically dispersed. that oil is in very, very dilute clouds of microscopic droplets beneath the surface. that is in the process of being very rapidly degraded naturally. and so mother nature is

assisting here considerably. so the pieces of the pie chart that we have looked at directly now account for those things that we can measure directly or have very good estimates for. the residual, which is the upper left part of the pie chart, is 26%. and that's a combination of oil that is in light sheen at the surface, or in tar balls, or has been washed ashore. and much of that has been recovered by federal cleanup efforts and state cleanup efforts. about 37,000 tons of material have been removed from the beaches already and we'll continue to do so. so i think the bottom line here is that the -- we can account for all but about 26%. and of that, much of that is being -- in the process of being degraded and cleaned up on

the shore. i think it's important to point out that at least 50% of the oil that was released is now completely gone from the system. and most of the remainder is degrading rapidly or is being removed from the beaches. i want to also point out simply that we continue to have a very aggressive effort to understand more about where the oil was and what its fate has been. a large number of research vessels continue to be active in the gulf, and they're underway to understand the concentrations of subsurface oil and exactly what -- the rate at which it is being biodegraded.

we'll continue to monitor and sample this oil and report new results as they emerge. >> thank you, jane. good afternoon. the last 24 hours have been fairly consequential in the life cycle of this response. i'd like to go over a couple of things that have transpired. after a successful injection test yesterday allowed us to understand the path at which liquids would go down the well, the amount of volume we could put in the well and the pressure readings that we could take at the various places where the gages were placed gave us confidence we could go ahead. and we directed bp to proceed with the static kill. that began yesterday afternoon and went on throughout the evening and into the night and resulted in the well being filled with mud. we now have equalized the pressure -- the hydrostatic pressure of the seawater with the pressure inside the capping stack, and basically have reached a static condition in

the well that allows us to have high confidence that there will be no oil leaking into the environment. and we have significantly improved our chances to finally kill the well with the relief wells when that does occur. the discussions that are going on today between the science team down in houston and the bp engineers are regarding whether or not we should follow up the mud that has been put into the wellbore with actual cement. and the discussion around that revolves around what we think the status of the drill pipe is -- is it still where we thought it was? because where that drill pipe is, is consequential in how you put the cement in and the success of cementing it. those discussions are ongoing. we will not make a decision on that until we've reached a resolution on our best estimate of what the condition of the drill pipe is inside the casing. once the decision has been made on cementing, whether to cement or not, then the next step will be to finish off the relief well. as you know, we are about 100 feet away from where we would intersect the well and about four and a half feet

horizontally away from it. we would proceed forward in anywhere between 10- and 20-foot increments, drilling and then backing out and putting what we call a ranging tool in that will allow us to understand to exact detail through a measurement of the magnetic field of the casing how close we were coming. we will continue to do that. this job will not be complete until we finish the relief well and have pumped the mud in and cemented it from the bottom, or the bottom kill, if you will. so this is a very significant step. it's told us a lot more about the well itself. we will learn more in the discussions today about whether or not we need to move to have cementing as the final portion of the static kill. but the static kill is only the preliminary portion to what ultimately will be the bottom kill. regarding response operations, we continue to aggressively pursue the oil that's onshore and in the marsh areas, some of the more heavily impacted areas around barataria bay to the west of the mississippi river, the chandeleur islands, breton sound, pass a loutre, some areas in the mississippi sound. we are resolute in our commitment to continue that

response and cleanup. our forces are standing by. while we look to have an end to the source of the oil and containment, we are redoubling our efforts to make sure that the oil that's out there is being cleaned up and being disposed of as effectively as possible. we will continue to do that, and we will resolutely hold bp accountable until all the oil is cleaned up and we start moving into the recovery phase and the assessment of damage to the environment. >> as you've heard, it's been an interesting 24 hours, i think making real progress in terms of getting this well finally closed. the fact that we are not going to have any more leaking in the near term is certainly good news for the gulf of mexico and the communities. i think we also have good information now from our scientists in terms of where the oil went, how the oil is behaving. but we want to be very, very clear that this does not mean there isn't more to be done. there remains a lot to be done. while sort of the first phase of closing the well may be coming to an end, there's

another phase, which is the restoration. it's making sure that these communities, the individuals in these communities, are made whole. we are going to continue to ensure that bp is held accountable for the damage that they did, for the economic losses, and ultimately for the natural resource damages and all of the restoration that will take place in the gulf communities and in the gulf at large. >> with that, ms. loven. >> yes, this would be i guess both for carol and for dr. lubchenco. as i understand it, some outside scientists have some concerns about such a sort of neat and tidy conclusion to where the oil has gone. and i'm wondering whether it's -- whether that definitive of a conclusion is really warranted with science, and why you wouldn't release the pages of scientific backup to show how it was arrived at.

>> we believe that these are the best direct measurements or estimates that we have at the moment. we have high degree of confidence in them. if new information comes to light, we will continue to upgrade the estimates, as is always the case in science. the numbers that went into the calculations are posted on the website. anyone can readily see how the budget calculator was -- how the tool was developed, what's in it, what went into each of those different categories, how they are defined, how it was calculated. so we would certainly welcome others using that tool and fact-checking, running the numbers. and i'm pretty sure they'll come up with the same estimates. >> will you seek new estimates

or is this sort of your last attempt to look at where this amount of oil has gone? >> well, some of the numbers are clearly not going to change. the amount of oil that was captured from the wellhead we know. >> right -- >> the amount that has been skimmed and burned is not likely to change. there's just very little oil on the surface now. there's not much oil that is visible other than right along the shore and on some of the beaches. so those numbers are not going to change. the amount that was chemically dispersed is not likely to change. we're not using dispersants anymore. the amount that was naturally dispersed is a result of direct calculations of how much turbulence there was and what we know about how oil behaves at different depths under pressure. the amount that was evaporated or dissolved is i think a pretty good estimate. so the one piece of the pie that is left after you sum all those others is what we're calling the residual, and that's a combination of things that we cannot measure directly or estimate with confidence.

>> just to add to that, i mean, i think, to mention this -- dr. lubchenco just mentioned on the residual -- some of this is oil that, in tar balls, has, as she said earlier, washed up on the beach. it's been removed but isn't measurable because you're removing it -- you may remove this with sand. that's the 37,000 tons. so some of the 26 is immeasurable or unknowable. >> i also want to point out one thing, and that is that there are three categories on your pie chart that have a little asterisk by them -- residual, naturally and chemically dispersed. and it's important to recognize that each of those categories is being -- the oil in those categories is being degraded, naturally degraded. and so some of the residual that might be in marshes, for example, or tar balls is being biodegraded. the oil that is beneath the

surface as a result of dispersion and these microscopic droplets is in the process of rapid degradation. and so what you see on this pie chart, as robert indicated, is a sum total of where the oil went over time. but it doesn't necessarily represent what's there at this moment. >> all right. and just to follow up really quickly, if any of you all could speak to what you think the level of noaa's credibility should be on a conclusion this dramatic -- potentially pivotal, when there were points in the process when noaa was insisting the amount of oil that was leaking or that there wasn't any under the surface that turned out not to be right. >> let me take that question because it would be unfair to say that noaa had come up with one number during this process, or that noaa alone bears responsibility, because i think it's clear that -- look, throughout the process of this response, we have had the benefit of greater insight and greater technology.

so at the beginning of this event, the explosion, the flow rate was measured by taking pictures of what had floated to the surface, okay? i think by all accounts -- that happens in the first couple days. i think by all accounts even we would tell you that's not the best way to measure the flow rate. but that was the best way we had at that point to measure the flow rate. we know that as a result of adding remotely operated vehicles to the site, we had the benefit of somewhat cloudy, two-dimensional video. throughout the process, that video was enhanced and upgraded to the point where we had, as you all remember, we went from the cloudier to the much clearer two-dimensional video. but, again, even the two- dimensional video is hard to estimate because you just simply don't know the depth of that plume. lastly, based on the pressure test that we required bp to

take, we were able to add instrumentation on -- at the point at these caps that allowed us to measure the pressure both inside and directly outside of the caps and the blowout preventer, which gave us, quite frankly, a better scientific measure. i've used this analogy before, but i think i want to take one more time to do this. it is important to understand that this event happened 5,000 feet below the surface at a well that was several miles below that 5,000-foot point. it is measuring -- we were measuring the flow rate basically of an opened coke can 5,000 feet below the ocean using the best available technology that we had at the time without the benefit of knowing how big the coke can was. >> right, but you're now measuring something very complicated again and saying that you have a definitive answer now. >> using -- and i don't think

any of us would sit up here and tell you that we're using the same instrumentation or information that was available to us on day one on day 106 because that simply hasn't been the case with the flow rate, and it hasn't been the case with any of this. i will say this, to build off of the last question that you had, jennifer, noaa will continue to make measurements of the water and monitor what is happening in the gulf, just as the epa will continue to monitor air and water for dispersants and for air quality as it's related to burns. . . testing will continue. our information, our instrumentation has at each step gotten better simply because, when we started this, we did not have a picture of what was going on 5,000 feet below the ocean. we added pictures, enhanced

pictures. we added pressure readings. all that allows you to get a much clearer and much more precise picture of what is going on. >> this is all -- this is subjected to scientific protocol, which means you peer review. you look at the inputs, the models. all of this is made available. this has been a government-wide effort, but it was not just gornment scientists -- we reached out to the academic community. as roberts said, we may get more information about the residuals such that some of that may fit into another part of the pie chart. what we have tried to do from the beginning is and we h -- as we have numbers, make them available. in this instance, there could be some change. the likelihood of large scales changes is a very small because

we have uncertainty in me of the numbers. >> i do not think -- i do not think you can dismiss the role that mother nature has played. you can see the role it has played in this pie chart. we would be talking about a fundamentally different scenario in alaska then we would in the warm waters of the gulf. absolutely. but that has to be taken into account in the natural degradation and evaporation process that is the result of an environment, quite frankly, that is not the same as prince william sound in alaska. yes, ma'am? >> for the oil that has been dissolved or dispersed, i understand it is degraded. howan you beure it is not a threat to wildlife anymore? >> no one is saying that it is not a threat anymore. the oil that has been completely degraded is not, because when it

is by no degraded it ends up being water and carbon that there -- when it is biodegraded, it is not a threat. oil that is in microscopic droplets, that is still the, may be toxic to any of the small creares under the wats that are -- that it encounters. and even in very small droplets, it can be toxic. we do remain concerned and are actively studying the overall impact of the oil at the surface and the sub-surface has had on the entire ecosystem. the oil that is beneath the surface is in the process of rapid degradation. it is disappearing very quickly. it is a very dilute.

as you go further from the wellhead, the small, microscopic droplets of oil are very quickly diluted into parts per million. and farther away from the wellhead, it is even more dilute. but delude and out of sight does not necessarily mean a benign-- dilute and out of sight does not mean a benign. we remain concerned on marshes and wildlife, but also, beneath the surface, and are actively studying that as part of our federal response and in partnership with the academic community that is a very interested in the long-term impact of this. >> again, to mention again, the epa has done two rounds of toxicity tts. they will continue to monitor,

do testing as well know will no. >> robert, backn may tony the gulf ofd, " mexico is a very big ocean. the amount of dispersant is tiny in comparison to the water volume appeare." now mr. hayward appears to be right. does the administration 0 him an apology? >> no. understand that 1/3 of what is capred was based on, directly on a containment strategy that had to be conducted. a containment strategy that we pushed bp forward on. that we. bp to accerate in order to

capture the -- that we pushed bp to accelerate in order to capture the leaking oil. nobody knows tony hayward an apology. bp has obligations as the polluting party in this incidents. ce. the apology that is owed, and the apology that is owed is to the disruption to the lives of families, fishermen, hotel owners, people that grew up in and understand the beauty that is the gulf of mexico. that's the apology. >> how much of this excess you are laying out is it to bua trio d how able to bp an

much to the government? >> if you look at the directives signed by admiral allen, we asked for and demanded that the containment strategy be accelerated. we askedor and demanded that not one relief will be drilled but two to ensure an amount of redundancy in the system that would allow for a mistake or error. i think that the response as it is would have been different had admiral allen and others, the scientific team, secretary chu, to do ushed f bp things more comprehensively and faster. >> the last 24 hours have been

given full. we have not heard how the president was informed. was there a phone call? what was the moment where the president saw that maybe this phase had succeeded and what was his reaction? >> the president is a brief every day and has been from the beginning. most days, i actually meet with him. >> today was the first day he was happy to see her. [applause] >[laughter] >> last night, i suggested to the president it would be important for him to talk to our scientic team in houston. he got on the phone with dr. hunter who walked in through where the static kill was. he has been kept informed and up-to-date at every turn. the call was at 630, 7:00. we released a photo from that. >> we met with him at 10:00 this

morning to give him an update. >> the admiral saw him at about 10:30. >> i am sure he will continue to get updates throughout the day, as admral allen said, as the scientific team continues the meeting, and others down there talking directly with the president. chip? >> that is still a lot of oil. there is a residual -- that is four to five times the amoun that leaked from the exxon valdez. is it still possible that it could get into -- i kno up 37,000 tons -- is still a monumental amount of oil. >> in this is the largest release of oil into water in the united states in the history of our country. >> we have a scenario where it could get into the loop current, goes around florida, or in a hurricane --? >> it was off the coast of

deware and have fled to england by september, if i am not mistake in one scenario. i will leave that to the scientists. >> there is a negligible amount of oil still at the surface. the loop current is currently not in the gulf. it is going -- it comes up between the yucatan peninsula d cuba. it is not in a position to transport any oil, number one. it may connect eventually, but the real point is that there is not oil for it to be picking up. the oil that was at the surface has prettyuch either been naturally degraded or removed. pardon me? sub-surfaceere

currents? >> we do not expect the loop for itsent to become in classic form, going into the gulf, for a number of weeks if not months. the rate at which the oil that is some surface is a being naturally biodegraded -- that is subsurface -- there is virtually no threat to the keys or the east coast. >> is there danger of it being pushed ashore? >> again, because there is so little oil at the surface and the oil benea the surface is so highly diluted, the largest concern from the hurricane would be the hurricane itself, the power of the wind, the power of the storm surge should that

happen. in most hurricanes that have been icoastal waters, there is some leaking of oil as our results of fuel tanks been breached, ship docks being impacted. so the likelihood that a hurricane would be affecting coastal areas with petroleum contamination is part of what fee not and it stas normally have to deal with -- what fema and states normally have to deal with with hurricane response. there is no addional real concern with respect to any of on oi.ep water rise in ohorizion >l. >> what is the difference between naturally disbursed and

chemically dispersed oil? and when can the fishermen get back to work? >> dissolving simply means taking something that is in on more solid form and making its liquid. if you put a teaspoon of sugar into your coffee or tea cup, it dissolves. and that is what happens naturally to some of the oil. it is the dissolved, meaning, it still is hydrocarbon. disbursed means broken up from a large chunks into smaller chunks. so the disbursed oil is a tiny droplets that remain beneath the surface. >> one less threatening than the other? >> they are comparable. >> what does this mean for fishermen? >> asyou know, part of the federal response has been to

make protecting the quality of seafood that gets to american consumers one of the highest priorities. to do that, our first line of defense has and to close several waters to fishing where there has been oil or were we anticipate it might be, as it was being moved by currents and by winds. at one point, about 36% of the gulf, of federal waters, were closed to fishing. last week we announced -- recently, we announced opening of 1/3 of that area. so there is still a sizable area that is closed to fishing in federal waters. to determine whetherreas are safe to re-open, we have a very specific protocol that noaa and

the fda and the gulf states have agreed upon. that involves active leak testing seafood for contaminants -- actively testing seafood for contaminants. only when they pass those tests, cain area b re-opened -- be re-opened. we need to make sure that no contaminated seafood gets into markets, to restaurants, or whatever. the consequent to shrimpers and to fishermen remains to be calculated. there has been very sick to begin destruction -- very significant disruption to their livelihood. our hope is to get them back fishing as soon as possible, but only when it is safe for them to

be doing so and for the seafood they are catching to be edible. >> there is really no reassurance for them in today's targets? >> i think the reassurance is that most of the oil is gone from the surface. so we can proceed with the following the re-opening protocols as rapidly as possible. we will do that carefully, and in partnership with the states. the states regulate what happe with state waters. the federal government is only responsie for federal waters. and the impact to fishermen is quite considerable, and is a serious concern to all of us, and that is part of the federal effort to address and hold bp accountable for the consequence of this to the fishermen.

>> only 8% chemically disbursed. are you goingo revisit the use of chemical dispersants considering that it only accounted for 8%? and the concerns that are out there among health organizations about the effects of dispersants. >> as you know, this is been a topic we discussed extensively over the last couple months. as we got into this bill, we are using pre-existing -- the use of dispersants is not illegal. it became apparent early on that the amount we were using is far more than was anticipated. we started to move into the sub- sea category to control the oil at the source. there was a consultation between myself and the said jackslisa j.

we reduced the dispersant's use 72%. we did not know what they're were have to be exceptions where we had oil that we could not burn or skim. on june 22, i agreed with lisa jackson, we put somebody from epa into the review process. we continue to work this problem. just prior to the capping stack being put on, i convened a conference call to talk about the interplay between it skimming, burning, and the use of tools that are out there. we had never had to use these tools in the magnitude we have employed. an analysis of how they were employed, the effectiveness, will be necessary. we have engaged in that discussion while this bie spill

was going on. any commission work needs to take a look at the relative effectiveness of all those tools and should cut future policy. >> -- chemical dispersants, considering the -- maybe can easily be avoided? >> oral is very toxic. -- oi is very toxic. there are times when you cannot skim or burn, and those are tactical decisio you have to make on scene. >> you spend a lot of time covering not enough skiimersmme. it is almost three times the amount that was chemically disbursed versus skimmed. we have on the order of 700 to 800 skimmers.

a% may not sound like a lot. we are using it at the wellhead a 8% may not soulnd like lot. in terms of toxicity, on monday, the epa put out the second of its toxicity tests on oil disperses. the tests showed that what they found was no more toxic than the oil. so, the notion that you did not have huge amounts of aid washing up at port st. joe. >> but there has been a concern that the dispersant and oil together -- i know it is not government scientists -- concernethat the combination may be more. >> and that concern is why epa tested before, tested and released those results on

monday, that despite the hypothesis that that might increase the toxicity, that was found not to be true. epa will continuto monitor the area as we go forward so we have a better understanding of what is going on. >> that has focused on mixing the oil with dispersants and found out the was greater toxicity. >> the moratorium. considering where we are now, any consideration given to speed up the lifting of the moratorium? >> we talked about this this morning. we should be clear about this. the president -- the president put in place a temporary deep water drilling moratorium. he has said this was not and is not intended to be a permanent ban, but the president has laid out a series of common sense tests that he believes have to be met. what happened? do we have a full understanding

of what, in this well, went wrong? how do we insure understanding that it never happens again? in other words, was this a one- off event? was this a problem with technology that exists on wells throughout the gulf? and thirdly, insuring that companies that are undertaking what we know are risky ventures 5,000 feet below the ocean, making sure they have a containment plan that is commensurate with the type of activity they are undertaking. >> do you plan to speed it up? >> let me finish. once all three of those can be met, the president will lift the moratorium. if those conditions can be met before the end of nember, we would happily do that. we want to and shore from a common-sense standpoint that

those conditions -- we want to ensure from a common-sense standpoint that those tests are to the best of those involved understood and accounted for. i would go back to, all the week's blur together, but the oil companies with a drilling permits in the gulf have discussed and made mention of both a fund and a more comprehensive series of plans to contain the oil. that is a good step in the right direction. remember when we were discussing this at the very beginning, the advent of the moratorium would be that every one of these rigs would go somewhere else. those numbers have not come to fruition. >> i would like to get to how this report will be used for the

legal case against bp. the 827,000 barrels of oil recovered. will be p be fined for that oil? fined forp be that oil? >> we only have one scientist and no lawyers. i wil leave the legal questions up to the department of justice understand that the law provides for an justice will go to the process of adjudicating -- the law calls for a per barrel fine of up to $300 per barrel per day that bp will be liable for. they are getting bills from cause for cleanup activities now. they will get a penalty for the

amount of pollution emitted into the gulf. they will also be on the hook for natural resource damages, as well as the $20 billion that is in the escrow fund to compensate for the economic claims of the damage. >> you cite a variety of scientists who participated in this report. did anyone from the oil industry or bp's own scientists participate? >> and names of those who particated in the record and the calculations that went into it are listed in the record. you can look at them. there were individuals from the oil industry who did some of the peer review, but they were not involved in the original constellations. >> do you have some numbers? >> so, the question was, the

amount that was chemically dispersed, the 8% figure, is a little over 400,000 barrels. and that is about twice the size of the exxon valdez spill, to put that in context. >> and ron allen, are you able to answer the question -- admiral allen, to you yet have an understanding of what happened that caused this and how other drillers can avoid it? >> most of that will be the result of the marine board of investigation being convened in new orleans. that is ongoing and i would refer any questions to that. as we look at controlling the well itself, we will find out where the drill pipe is act and its condition. we do not know exactly where is at. that is some of the discussion

on how the cementing should proceed. we will have to take the blow up prevent her off and take a look at it. by the time we finished the bottom killed, we will know mor. >> do you have an idea? i would not want to speculate. >> early on in the spill, government scientists said the effects would linger for around 10 years. as a result of the evaporation and the collection you have to date, has that assessment changed? >> i think the common view of most of the scientists inside and outside government is that the effects will likely win or for decades. the fact that -- will likely to linger for decades.

the fact that it is being degraded is a vy sick to begin in means it will not beat -- the impact will not be -- is a very significant and it means it will not impact as much as we thought. young juveniles and eggs beneath the surface will have a facts for years and decades to come. the research investigations under way now are designed to get a better handle on exactly what that impact is, but that is not something easy to determine. for example, bluefin tuna who spawn at this time of year have eggs and young juvenile stages that would have been in the water column when the oil was present. if those eggs or larvae were

exposed to oil, they probably would have died or been impacted. and we won't see the full results for a number of years. thiss one of the challenges of getting the impact on the spill iklike this. the impact is likely to continue to be considerable, even though mother nature is helping assist the federal effort, and we are aggressively removing much as possible, and it is degrading rapidly, but the impact of the oil that was released is likely to be considerable occurred >> looking at the residual 26%, can you give us any idea of whether it is -- a small fraction, a

majority, has been scooped up? >> week recovered 37,000 tons of deis -- we recovered 37,000 tons of debris. this is not going to be an exact science and how we try to figure out what the impact of that oil is. we can anecdotally understand, but it wl take us awhile to get ourrms around this occurred . >> so much effort was put into the skimmers and it was 3% of theil. >> there are different types -- skimmers that vacuum, and those k to havthat have oil that stic, it -- will have to look at what

served as the best in the response. >> 3% is almost an exxon valdez. so you can be the judge. >> their residual category is a combination of things that cannot be easily measured or estimated. it is what is left over when you can measure and estimate all those other categories. to make a total of 100%, there is that 2. it should not be interpreted as oil that is out there. some of it may be. some of it has been degrgraded r collected. it is not still out there. >> i know you are not putti out a mission accomplished banner. is it today that marks a change in what this incident is? how difference does today make the entire incident? >> this is the beginningf the

end of a phase. i do not want to get caught up in semantics. it is a consequential day. we reduced the threat of hydrocarbons intthe environment. we took a major step on july 15 with the capping step. this is an insurance measure. i think everybody needs to understand there is a continuum of activities. we want to reassure the people of the nation that this is one phase of what you have to do to respond when u have an oil spill. it is just -- not just the water and source control, it has to do with beach cleanup and long-term environmental control. the nature of the work will change. the type of resources will have to change, too, because we have a different set of activities. >> can they take eouragement from what has happened today? >> given the magnitude of the event, we can have some optimism that we are going to deal with

oil -- it is indeteinate. we did not have a way to abounded. it is bounded now -- we did not have a wauy ty to bound it. it is bounded now. >> there is a lot of work to do. i would go back, not what i said, but directly to what the president said -- the reason why are moving to focusing on a different phase is because we are nearing the completion of the killing of this well, which was our foremost priority since the leak began. but we are not leaving the area, and more importantly, we are not leaving behind any commitment to clean up what has -- the damage that has been done and repair and restore the gulf as an ecosystem of great

importance to that region of the country. >> robert, most of you have said that the 26% is on noble -- un knowable. the estimate of the 4.9 million barrels is also an estimate. couldn't the actual amount of oil that leaked to the coast or is under the surface, could it be considerably more than the 26%? you have been accused o rosy estimates before. >> i will refer you to the lengthy answer i gave about 30 minutes ago. >> the numbers -- we need to reassure. >> is an actual number of bow ouwere the oil is -- about where the oil is.

it is a compendium of where the oil is. i want to be clear. the flow rate -- we have a greater understanding and greater access to information based on directives we have issued, based on instrumentation that is 5,000 feet below the ocean that allow us to measure the flow rate now far better than we did on day one with photographs of overflights. >> maybe i can summarize. sorry. as this incident involved, we came up with greater clarity on flow rate. let me tell you the major component parts -- this is not arbitrary and capricious. there are four pieces to deterring the flow rat first is created by the mass a balanced team. that is trying to understand how much oil we can see and measure on the water. satellite imagery to

sophisticated nasa aircraft that look at the reflectivity of the ocean -- it will give you a thickness estimate. the second is a plume analysis. it moves from two to three dimensional. we have acoustic testing done. we have a reservoir modeli team. that changes the pressure, and we know there was not -- the same amount of flow ever did. it changed anbased on pressure. so we had different ways to look at this and bring it together. we started out, i think it was 12 to 25, and based on better information we went from 25 to 60. we got greater pressure estimates as the capping stack

went on. we are getting better and better at getting the information and puttg that together. >> the flo rate of 4.9 has the plus or minus 10%. that is between 4.4 and 5.4. if we focus on the residual part of the pie chart, the 26% is at the intermediate number. so that is at 4.9 million barrels. if you want to know what percent of the residual was for the full plus or minus 10%, it ranges from 24% to 28%. and the reason for that is that some of the numbers are, in the

pie chart, are direct measurements, such as the oil that was recovered from the wellhead. so that number is an absolute number. it does not change. so when you do the calculations for the percentage, the amount that is residual, we feel quite comfortable saying that it is most likely to around 26%. it might be as low as 24% or as high as 28%. >> what is the certainty that there is not an oil coating on the ocean floor? have had research vessels out on the water, imaging or using remotely operated vehicles or gliders to determine exactly where the oil is sub-surface. where it is.

to the best of our knowledge, there is no oil that is accumulating on the seafloor. we have no evidence there is any oil that is sitting on the bottom or sinking down to the bottom. the oil that did not rise to the surface is the oil that has been disbursed naturally or chemically, and that is in very small, microscopic droplets, and it is primarily between 3340 300 3400 feet is a cloud. and that is the oil that is them in the process of being naturally degraded -- the oil that is in the process of being naturally degraded. that is the oil beneath the surface -- microscopic, the

loop >> whenou gave an example of bluefin tuna, does that mean you'll be -- the federal government will be testing for a decade the seafood out of the gulf? >> thank you for giving an opportunity to clarify that. fish metabolize hydrocarbons are relatively rapidly. if an adult fish or a fish that would be the size fishermen would catch or bring to market, if that fish is exposed to oil, it might be contaminated initially but it naturally eaks down the oil, and so after a period of times, weeks, that fish is no longer unfit for human consumption. it has broken down hydrocarbons, and it is safe to eat. that is what we are testing to make sure that that process,

that natural process has haened and that the seafood is safe. the example i gave you for bluefin tuna and it wwas to ille that our interest is not only in the fish that are recognizable as fish out there now, but they are very small microscopic, do juveniletages -0- stages that would have grown up to the fish many years from now. . . we will be following the impact for years if not decades.

we have done checking and this is telling us that this is being degraded naturally and the areas that are opening -- >> tell us about food safety. can you tell us precisely how often the monetary mechanisms which will change? whether the situation will change are you doing these checks frequently or will these continue. >> are you asking specifically about the monitoring for the safety?

>> let's keep those in separate categories. the maturing for seafood safety, we have a very extensive protocol. safety, we are protocols. we went out and got a lot of samples of fish and shellfish from around the gulf to have baseline samples against which we could compare any changes should they happen. we have those. if they have them processed. we have a specific protocol for monitoring and testing areas that we think are the next logical places to be opening -- or to be considered for opening. if an area was only lightly oiled once, we consider that a more likely candidate for targeting our testing effort.

we will be monitoring areas where we thing it is logical that there would be the possibility of reopening. when the testing shows it is sae, we will open those areas. >> so that -- these findings do not change the schedule? >> that is right. today's fighting shows what is happening in the big picture. it does not modify our efforts to monitor and test for seafood safety or to monitor and do research on the impacts of the spill at large. >> so that continues at exactly e same pace until something else says that we should change? is any evidence hat it has damaged the food chain in any way that could affect endangered

creatures? i understand why you would expect to get bad ews on some degree on the front. is there any evidence that you can talk about? >> the impact on the gulf will take time to understand and to evaluate with confidence. we are actively doing research and monitoring the impact, but it is premature to talk about any systemic overall impacts at this time. there is up in enough time to do justice to that topic. -- there has not been enough me to do justice to that topic. >> when is the end date? what is the timeframe from today for finishing the relief well? >> i will gi you two answers. >> i guess that answers my question. you do not know. >> it depends on the status of

the well. we are going to drill into the annulus. we are going to put mud and cement in and kill the annulus. we have the option to drill in and go into the pipend do the same thing there. it depends on the results of the static kill. if you have to do everything, the analogy i use is taking hollow tree rings and filling one up and making a smaller tree and going into the next tree. we are going to do that twice. one is the annulus and one is the pipe. how much of what we have to do at the bottom depends on the effectiveness of the static kill. we have to do it twice. it will be anywhere from fi or seven days for the first one and maybe five or seven days after that. >> worse case scenario, two weeks from today? >> toward the end of august. >> we heard so much of the doomsday scenario in the beginning of this, the blackened

beaches and oil coming of the coach and shrimpers being out of business forever. as part of the message today that the long-term impact is not as bad as we anticipated? >> we avoid to evaluate what all of this means. ithink -- we are going to evaluate what all of this means. it is safe to say that because of the environmental of fax of mother -- effects of mother nature and the fedel response that many of the doomsday scenarios that were talked about and repeated a lot have not and will not come to frution because of that. it is very good news. as admiral allen said, there have been many points along this that are important. we have not had an active amount

of hydrocarbon being admitted into the gulf since the sealing cap on the 15th of july. there are many points along this that i think we can point to as being important days. the static kill is a stepin the ultimate killing of the well. then we will focus -- our focus will be off of containment and capture and more directly on damage and restoration. >> since we appear to have moved into a new phase here, i was wondering if i could ask a question moving forward about the assessment of the equipment that the coast guard has at this time. have you folks found any evidence or need to go back and review whether you have the proper equipment to assist in

these kind of operations? the reason i ask is because the robotics beneath the surface. i was wondering, do you find that system -- is that the proper way to go? should we reconsider whether we are probably armed to deal with these sort of emergencies? >> you are asking a really good question. we will have to make a couple of things. i would say in the five years following the exxon valdez to the mid 1990's, we had a good program looking at response technologies. we develop protocols for use of dispersants. we had to negotiate the protocols with local stakeholders. the further we got away from that event, investment kind of tapered off. we had a daunting -- technology moving.

it is time for an assessment. allotted abilities were proposed because of the capping. we did not predict a lot of technologies were proposed because of the capping -- a lot to the debilities were proposed because of the capping. this is the time to do that. >> that is precisely why the presidt said of the commission. -- set up the commission. do you have a submarine with mechanical arms that can sustain pressure? capt. nemoain nemo was detained.

that is something we have to look at. when you get a permit to drill, the president wants to be ensured there is a containment structure and a plan in place that matches directly what is being undertaken. the size, the scope of the well, the depth at which it is being done, and what equipment needs to be on hand either from our perspective or from the perspective of a company that is making it. >> you covered it. >> what is the status of a project with governor jindal advocated? is there any need for that amount? >> i think that is a question for governor jindal. >> can you discuss the emotional response to this news within the administration?

>> i was somewhat joking. >> it is dominated the news cycles at times i am sure you'd rather talk about other things. was there a sigh of relief? >> many of us up here have been working on this for a hundred pl day. do not think anybody gets real high or real low, because we have met timelines that are not going to get met as they originally were. i would reiterate that i do not -- today is not an end. today does not mark somehow the dissolution of the energy in the effort in thegulf. it is a point along a journey

toward, that will ultimately end in restoring the gulf. we have all talked about what happened to the guf and to the natural barrier islands as a result of the hurricanes that have happened over the years and getting the gulf back and restoring the gulf back to the halt it was before that. >> is there a feeling that the oil clouds are parting? >> i do not think there is any doubt that the static kill having worked is good news. the evaluation that will now happen about the bottom kill, the progress that we have made on the relief well, the sealing cap that has been in place since july 15, and the notion that we have an accurate and scientific

accounting of where the oil is represents a good day among the hundred or so we have been dealing with. >> is there a strategy on natural reurce damage assessments? will those be done yely? will bp be billed for those? >> maybe carol would like to comment. it is required by the oil pollution act of 1990. it involves several trustees. that includes fish and wildlife and tribalesources. there is a government structure associated with that that leads with a coordinator. it replaces the coordinator for the sponse model to take a look at how they will do the assessment. the steering committee has already met a couple of times. >> is anything that happened in

the past 24-hours to change their plans? is he going to have any sort of public event? >> i didn't have the schedule in front of me. there will be a public component to that. we hav discussed that. i will get more information to you. >> overall, what has the administration learned from this whole incident? >> how much time do you have? >> it relates to the earlier question. i will give you one facet of it. as i look at the oil production infrastructure of the gulf of mexico as it relates to response, back when the act of 1990 was passed, it was focus. between 1984 and 1985 , the drilling began to move offshore. there were breakers. they were happy. we were focused on tankers.

we were not restricted to fixed rigs any more. we had floating rigs. many went to the bottom, including blowout preventers. the controls that control everything down there and the hydraulics benefited from sending electronic signals down. we try to press that stuff down a mile. it allowed them to move further offshore for response planning. it was focused on tanker driven incidents. what it had to bring in is a combination of technologies they use in the northern sea and off of angola. none of that existed in the gulf of mexico. the oil is transported by pipelines. we had to put together pieces of oil containment and production

structures that are used in different parts of the world and bring it to the gulf of mexico. the helix producer started producing. that is the first time a floating platform ever operated in the gulf of mexico. >> one of the things i have found interesting in this process is our ability to reach out and really engage the entire federal government. this has been a large undertaking. there are the obvious parties that have participated. we also brought in dr. chu and the national science labs. this became a government-wide effort to take the next step and get it close. now we will be engaging in more agencies as a move into the next phase. began as we move into the next phase. >> at this time, do you say te

8% represents the chemical dispersant aspects of the oil? how important was this decision on may 15 to do this unprecedented move where you took the oil from the surface and decided you would disperse it on the floor of the ocean? >> that was done after consultation with the industry. and some mobile -- exxonmmobile 71 said remanded it. for the dispersants to work, you have to have some agitation to make it interact with the oil and disperse. if you just deliver it after a platform to oil on the surface, it has an effect but it is not as effective if you can get it agitated. applying a small amount of

dispersant as it rises up and the energy that takes place greatly facilitates the dispersion. it facilitates the degradation of the oil. the decision to do that was one of the steps hat allowed this to reduce the amount of dispersants. >> it had never been tried before. it was a gutsy move. do you think it was the right decision? >> it is one of the conditions that allowed this to sit down with lisa jackson n may 25 and say we are going to reduce dispersants by 75%. we got to 72% before the capping stack went on. we were able to apply the dispersants we needed to apply. >> the one to follow up on the food chain question. researchers have found an oil

and disperse it makes under the shells of