over the guf of mexico. is tre a concern the dispersed oil is so small and has a greater chance of entering the food chain? >> oil is dispersed is in smaller droplets. it would be smaller -- smaller droplets affect smaller creatus. bigger tent affect bigger creatures. -- chunks affect bigger creatures. i think the dispersed oil -- i'm showing to figure out how to answer this simp. will that is dispersed -- oil that is dispersed is more likely to be encountere by and affect the sller life in the oceans.

>> of a bigger animals eat these. >> what i said was true whether the dispersed oil was dispersed naturally or dispersed chemically. it doesn't really matter how it got to be microscopic droplets. ther is likely to be some dispersed oil that affects various creatures in the ocean, and that is part of the long- term studies that we need to do to see what impact that is going to have on those food chains. let's say that a fish is eating some of the smaller creatures that had oil in them. that fish will degrade that oil and process it naturally.

it does not bio-accumulate. it is not a situation where we need to be concerned about that. over time, it will be broken down. the question is, what is e impact in the meantime? >> of the 27,000 rigs in the gulf, how many are active? , many do you feel secure about >> i'm going to throw that to carol. >> it changes. things move around. >> it is not something i in doing as part of the response. >> we will try to get it. >> several bills were going to be sent to bp. do you know the timeline? >> more than $200 million and four bills gone already.

the phase for oil and missions will come as will the damage assessments that we talked about. >> he mentioned one will be on environmental degradation. do you know what that degradation is going to be? >> it to be under the oil pollution act. there is a whole process for working through natural resource damage assessment. then there is an agreement that is reached and the money is paid by bp to the trustees. >> thank you. >> can you comment on -- is there any concern inside the white house about the appearances of the first lady's trip overseas? >> the first lady is on a private trip.

she is a private citizen. see is the mother of a daughter on a private trip. i think i will leave it at that. >> can you talk a little bit about the white house reaction to the vote in missouri last night against the federal mandate for insurance? >> there was a vote of no legal significance in the midst of heavy republican primaries. >> the president of mexico has said that he is going to be open to hear proposals to legalize drug consumption in mexico. some people in the federal government are saying it is not working. he is looking for another option. what is the white house reaction? >> let me get some guidance. >> what is the position of the president in terms of legalizing

the use of drugs? >> he has not been for drug legalization. >> what message do you have for america as far as impact on gas stations pric prices. >> this was an exploratory well. what happens is these wells are drilled and cemented and then they come back at some time for production. this is not oil that is taken out of the larger scheme of the oil economy as it was an exploratory well. >> what about bradley manning? >> i do not discuss active investigations. >> maine voted for the state aid

bill today and overcame the filibuster. do you consider it an emergency? >> i think today's vote represents an important development as we head back into the school year and tens of thousands, probably more than once hundred 60,000 teachers, as a result of this economy were likely facing pink slips. we know what that means for any of us who have children in school. we understand what that means. when the ticket number of teachers out of the classroom, you increase the students last teacher ratio. it affects our alarm -- student/teacher ratio. it affects our long-term ability. senator collins and senator

snowe stood up and joined 59 others in ensuring we would take some of those steps. this is something that was of great importance to the house. it is our hope that we can get something to the president's desk that can prevent those tens of thousands of teachers from the late dr. de >> do you think the president like to see it this way? >> as quickly as he can. >> iran got 300 antiaircraft missiles from belarus. >> of belarus has denied that. i would point you to that report. >> said mr. mcconnell and the present are meeting this afternoon on judicial nominations -- and the president are meeting this afternoon on judicial nominations. >> they are ecstatic a bipartisan meeting that happened a week ago where the president is frustrated by the pace at

which the senate deals with nominations for judgeships and nominations for service in this government. right now there are 12 federal judicial nominees that have passed the judiciary committee with a unanimous vote. there are other judges that have been through the process and approved. there will be a direct discussion about moving those judges. we heard a but in the previous eight years about the importance of federal judges. i doubt they have gotten less important in the previous 18 months. we have documented and talked about in this room the delay and utter obstruction in getting nominees confirmed to important positions in this government. i think the president was rightly frustrated and has been at a pace in the senate that is

unrivaled and unmatched in its slowness. that will be the topic of discussion. it is our hope that the senate in the time remaining before august will move quickly on many of those judgeships, the ones that have passed unanimously, as well as the appointees that have been waiting for months. >> prospects for recess appointments? >> let me know how that meeting goes and i will tell you that. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] behalwe have a special web pageh all of our coverage of the gulf of mexico oil spill, nearly two

dozen congressional hearings from here in washington and louisiana, plus all the briefings and links to related web pages. wheat also set up a twitter section for your comments. you will find it all at c- span.org/oilspil. >> on the life is the congressional reporter for politico. house lawmakers have let for their annual summer break. why is nancy pelosi calling everyone back to the capitol for roll call vote next week? >> the senate has agreed to a package of $26 billion that is intended to help defray the costs of state to keeping teachers employed and the cost of medicaid as well. that was a little bit of a surprise. the house was out of town.

more immediately, she is calling members of congress back so the house can go ahead and clear that for the president and get it into law. >> you say your surprise. how unusual is it for the house to be called into session after being released? >> it is unusual but not unheard of. the august recess goes back quite a while. traditionally, it is something that was put into law in 1970. it has happened before. when hurricane katrina hit, of the house came back two days earlier. sen notice to members said they would be called back into an emergency session. >> they come back. who are they likely supporters of the bill? how are republicans likely to vote on this? >>.

a credit majority -- the democratic majority are likely to support this bill. there are assets -- offsets in loopholes for corporations. another part of it rescinds some planned increases in food stamp payments down the road. you may say a few republicans vote for this, those are with teachers' unions potentially. that is what we saw in the senate. the two main centers, and senator collins and senator snowe. you'll probably see most republicans do this. >> $26 billion in aid to states for medicaid assisted in teacher salaries are involved here. >> that is correct.

>> what you are talking about how the bill is proposing to pay for some of that. >> that is right. >> republican notice says the house may take up a privileged resolution by tom price about an anticipated lame duck session after the november elections. what is that about? >> republicans are concerned that democrats after the election will come back between november and january and passed through a wish list of legislation on the backs of members of congress who will not change hands until january. that is what tom price is aiming to do, to close off that ability for the house to do that. it is a thing democratic leaders said is not on their minds. it to be pretty basic stuff.

i think the appetite for defeated members of congress to do it will be fairly small. >> thank you very much for speaking with us today. jonathan allen, congressional reporter for politico. >> thank you. >> more about the oil spill in a hearing on the use of dispersants to break of the oil. in about 2.5 hours, president obama present this year's citizens medals. after that m, and afterattera -- jason mattera. later, it timothy geithner on taxes and fiscal policy. >> we are not ruling options in. we are not ruling and options out. >> this month of march the 20th anniversary of the beginning of the first gulf war. look back at the key players an

event that became desert storm. it is all free, every program since 1987. watch what you want when you want it. >> we then find out about the new books coming out this fall. >> jimmy carter wrote this is a very intimate look at his white house years. this is a super top-secret. this is bob woodward. this is going to be one of the biggest fall titles are ground. this is not is with a memoir by george bush -- sweeping mor emoir by george bush. >> for the latest in nonfiction authors and books, watch "booktv" every weekend.

>> now a hearing on the use a chemical dispersants in the gulf oil spill cleanup. a government report says they have been affected. their long term affect is unknown. this is a little more than two hours. >> the hearing will come to order. we will commence with some opening statement by the members of the committee and the subcommittee. then we will hear from our to witnesses from the obama protection agency and the atmospheric administration. i will ask for our chairman to lead with her statement. >> thank you. i want to thank the chairman

whitehouse for his at leadership of the oversight committee. this hearing is part of the public works oversight of the federal government's response to the deepwater horizon disaster. today will be examining the issues around the use of chemical dispersants in dealing with the deepwater spill, which we now wi dig know -- know is the largest in history. as of august 3, the unified commander reports that bp has used an extraordinary quantity of dispersants in dealing with the gulf spill. 1.8 million gallons altogether, including 1 1 million gallons applied on the surface and almost 780,000 gallons beneath the surface of the sea. dispersants work like detergents, breaking up oil into smaller droplets which may end

of suspended in the water column beneath the surface. while this application was carried out in the hopes of protecting the shoreline from oil slicks, it does research questions about the short and long-term impact on the environment and about unintended consequences. well dispersants may have been applied in the hope of reducing the effects of heavy oil slick on shorelines and wildlife, more needs to be done to fully understand the impact of dispersants and dispersed oil are having beneath the surface. these decisions have real consequences of not just for wildlife but for the fishermen and oyster men whose livelihoods and families depend on the long- term health. questions have been raised about the press since the -- they used for approving dispersant use. our witnesses will address what we know about dispersants, what we have learnt since the start

of the disaster. they will speak to what we do not yet know about dispersants and oil and what we need to do to find the answers. this committee has approved important legislation sponsored by senators to support greater investment in research on a spill response. today's hearing is an important statement in getting answers to the questions. since we have a joint hearing, i asked senator whitehouse to chair it. i will turn back to him. that i will year of -- >> i will yield to the ranking member. >> thank you force is in today's hearing. -- for scheduling today's hearing. following the tragic exxon but valdez, laws were updated.

i remember that well. i remember being up there at the time. the ncp was required to have a preapproved list of dispersants deemed safe for emergency use by the environmental protection agency. will spill responders have an effective tool to fight the devastating effects of an oil spill quickly and without delays. nobody is advocating for the use of dispersants unless they are absolutely necessary. with the bp disaster, they appeared to be the lesser of two evils. this important rtool was implemented in -- it was

approved again the use of dispersants. i'm concerned that the back-and- forth may have exasperated the damages caused by the bps po. the actions are somewhat baffling considering top officials have stated that dispersants are safe and effective. carol browner has been quoted gain it was," we have been using dispersants. we do monitor its regularly. right now they are not seeing anything of concern." noaa is also monitoring. they are not saying anything of concern. the monitoring is telling us that everything is ok. we will continue to monitor. the jackson said, "we know that

dispersants are less toxic than the oil and that faye breakdown over a period of weeks rather than remaining for several years." in their report last tuesday, noaa administrator stated, " the crude oil is biodegrading quickly. is a vivid and amount of oil has been dispersed -- a significant amount of oil has been dispersed." it is approved by the epa for use in 1994. the dispersants is currently approved for use in 28 countries. 30 groups have access to samples as well as complete access to ingredient in the mixtures. these groups include 16 academic institutions, multiple federal agencies, and numerous

divisions of epa, and five departments within the state government of louisiana. legislation has now been introduced in the senate and passed in the house. the house passed the language that introduced a two-year moratorium. it will limit our ability to respond to any potential future spills and could diminish our domestic manufacture and supply of dispersants in the future. there are uncertainties due to the volume and method of dispersants in this current response effort. we must be measured in how we address these uncertainties, because we could ultimately do more harm than good . i applaud senator lautenberg's efforts. i am not sure if senator

lautenberg's legislation is needed. i also have concerns with aspects of the bill that will continue to study -- that we will continue to city. i will work with senator luxembourg -- loss incurautenbe bipartisan situation. >> it took 11 lives and triggered a chain of events that has led to the largest and most district of environmental disaster in our history. after three long months of oil gushing from the debt of the gulf and a temporary cap stemmed the flow. it is on its way to being killed. we are by no means through this disaster. will continue to laugh at the shores of the gulf. oil concentrate in areas scientists refer to as seaweed

beds. it continues to kill diving birds and marine mammals. 1.8 million gallons of dispersants was used to break of the oil in the small part of the gulf to increase the service area of the oil and facilitate the digestion of the oil. it is applied in an unprecedented manner, 1 mile between the service of the waters. this was done so that the oil would never reach the surface or if it did it would do so in a dispersed and less visible form. the application of dispersant is why we are seeing less oil on the surface than we expected. it is unclear if this will limit the damage from the spill or cause even greater harm. we are seeing large quantities of oil present in the water columns. it could be starting to settle on to the seafloor. we do not know yet what effect this could have on the ecosystem.

two types of chemical dispersants have been used in response to this bill. one dispersant was a dignified as highly toxic about one month into its use. when asked to, defy less toxic alternative, bp responded that this is the most effective dispersant available and little was known about the relative toxicity of alternatives. epa to got the task to analyze the available alternatives. that analysis was completed yesterday, three months after the spill began. while this was a necessary undertaking, it is regrettable that it was not available before the spill began. we still know very little about the long-term ecological impact of using so much dispersant on top of so much oil. whether to use dispersant, which to use, when to use them, these

are all difficult decisions and more difficult when made on the fly without prior review from agencies responsible for protecting our health and natural resources. i the court to hear in the test cementing of noaa and epa. i want to thank and welcome dr. david smith of the university of rhode island for being here. my wife is a graduate of oceanography. i can remember lugging bucket assault -- of saltwater run the labs. -- around the labs. >> the key part was the winter driving. -- diving. i was not as up for that as you might expect. i did it. when that would suit first

fills, it is mighty chilly. >> it is remarkable what one will do for love. >> i looked forward to a discussion about the consequences of dispersant and how to use the approval regime. we owe this to the communities along the gulf coast. we also owe it to all americans to assure them that we are prepared the next time such a disaster strikes. i think my colleagues on the committee and subcommittee. senator carper. >> thank you. thank you to both for holding the hearing. we want to rethink our witnesses for coming today and for your testimony. -- thank our witnesses for coming today and for your testimony. we express our heart felt sorrow to those of lost loved ones and families that are suffering in this terrible accident.

i say that our hearts feel for those live in the gulf, that work in the gulf, and to whose livelihoods were disrupted. with that having been said, i come from a coastal state -- a little coastal state in the mid- atlantic. i understand better than some folks in the middle part of the country what the important is for sure lines to our economy -- shorelines to our economy. our oceans and our shores give life to many industries are tourism, recreation, fishing, transportation, construction, research, real-estate, and many more. we have to work together to make sure that the laws and regulations that we have in place protect these critical industries and our lives from harm.

one of the reasons -- when the lessons i have learnt as chair of the said committee on nuclear safety where i oversee nuclear regulatory commission is the importance of effective regulatory oversight to ensure that we avoid future accidents in the first place. their strong oversight and research, i hope we can develop more effective response measures before. with the oil that leaked and the efforts to clean up the oil, and safeguarding public health is a very real concern. despite the best efforts of our best in our middle scientists, some of whom are here today, the reality is that we may not know for some time at the long-term effects of this disaster. i look forward today to hearing

more from our witnesses about the epa puts a efforts to oversee the deployment of chemical does permit -- chemical dispersants currently being used. our understanding is that the impact of oil on our shores would have been greater without the dispersants. on the other hand, much is still unknown about the impact of these dispersants over the long term. i want to hear from our scientists who have assembled today what they are best understanding is of the impact the dispersants are having on marine life as well as the impact on human health. while i believe that we must use our resources to mitigate the efforts of this disaster, i feel strongly that we must do so prudently and with the best information that is at our disposal. we will discuss what steps the federal government can take to minimize the damage of the spill, to avoid an accident like

this from occurring again in the first place there effective rhetoric oversight, and to ensure the safe use and defenseman of tools that are at our disposal -- and use of tools that are at our disposal. thank you. >> sinister barrasso -- senator barrasso. >> i thank our guests for being here today. the ecological fallout is not yet fully understood. there is a front-page story in the "new york times" times. -- today. 26% of the spill is still existing. we still do not fully understand the fallout of the oil spill in the gulf. clearly, we do need to thank those who responded for their hard work in the gulf. the responders in the gulf were

faced with a choice. they could allow millions of gallons of oil to pollute the beaches in the marshes and wetlands. this would include the devastation of the wildlife in the area and include hurting jobs in the tourism industry and the towns that depend on those same industries to provide a tax base from which to pay for schools and for emergency services. on the other hand, and they could choose to use approved chemical dispersants to break down the oil so bacteria could deal with the problem and prevent some of those tragic consequences from occurring. the amount of dispersant they would need to use would be unprecedented. the dispersants at their disposal had been approved by the clinton administration in 1994. responders knew the use of dispersants to address massive oil spills is a well-documented practice. responders chose the latter. i think they made the right

choice. do not take my word for it. in terms of the choice between using dispersants and allowing oil to devastate the gulf of economy, robert gibbs said "i think the most harmful substance that is being admitted into the environment in the gulf is the oil." lisa jackson agreed when she said, "this spill is an emergency in every sense of the word and dispersants are wonderful in a situation that cannot be more urgent." the wall street journal also said, "they believe this person news has been an essential tool in mitigating the spill's impact." even admiral thad allen call this a legitimate alternative to the dispersant.

i would suggest that those to criticize the use of dispersants are the same people who cannot offer one alternative to the use of dispersants in this situation. police responded with a catch- 22. -- it leads responders with a catch-22. some criticize the use want to over regulate the use of them. there is no need for such an action at this time. sponsors of legislation having which included in their bill that has the epa do an " assessment of the adequacy of existing federal laws." if there are lessons to be learned from the response, but learn them. legislating new dispersant regulation before we know how existing law is working does not make sense to me. but only slowed the risk to any future -- it would only slow the risk to any future spills. >> senator luxembouautenberg.

>> thank you to senator inhow for examining the risks associated with the dispersants. added to the woes and horror of the largest accidental oil spill in the history of the world, oil pouring into the gulf of mexico, the peak rest in to apply chemical dispersants in order to break the oil slick into small droplets. to date, bp has applied almost 2 million gallons of chemical dispersants to deal with the disaster. never before have we seen disbursements used on this scale. it is no wonder that the epa

issued a directive on may 19 for bp to find less toxic alternate is to the choice of dispersants. bp said there was not enough long-term testing data available on dispersant to know which ones were safe to use. it they kept using the same dispersants. the truth is, with only minimal toxicity data available, and the damage -- the damage these dispersants could cause remains a mystery. that is why i introduced a state dispersant act. this common sense bill requires long-term testing of dispersant which is critical to understanding the full range of their effects. if a dispersant can not meet minimum toxicity standards, then the dispersants should not be used on an oil spill.

my bill protect the public's right to know by requiring the disclosure of all ingredients that make up a dispersants. the bill is endorsed by over 30 environmental groups including the environmental defense fund, and natural resources council, and oceana. i ask unanimous consent that it be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> lisa jackson has also stated that the lot needs to be changed to provide more information on the safety of disbursements and almost everyone agrees that current law is in adequate -- inadequate. everyone except rush limbaugh. we heard him say that mother nature can handle the dispersants. it is callous, irresponsible, and i doubt that families in the area are willing to wait and see

to find out whether or not there is any risk in the distribution of these dispersants. relief workers and wildlife in the gulf have become unwitting participant in the dangerous science experiment. there are enough warning signs about the risks of the dispersants to know that we need more federal testing. my state and new jersey -- by the way, where i sit with two colleagues to the right to me -- we are the largest state. it is a comforting feeling. we have to do more thorough testing. new jersey classifies one of the chemicals used in dispersants as a serious health hazard because of the potential to cause cancer, liver, and kidney damage. mr. chairman, i hope we can move

quickly. this was an excellent idea. -- by the chairman of the committee and yourself to get moving on this. i hope we can move quickly enough to require better testing and shed some light on these dispersants. thank you. >> thank you. our first witness is dr. paul anastas. he is the director of the office of research development at the in permit to protection agency. he has extensive previous experience. that includes a role in the white house and the office of science and ability policy. -- in the office of science and technology. >> thank you very much. thank you for having me here to testify about dispersants and

their use in the bp horizon crisis. we have now passed day 100 of the bp oil's full tragedy. it resulted in loss of life, livelihood, and put our most precious ecosystem is in peril. the well is currently stilealed. we hope this will in need to be the case. the tragedy is not into the ceiling of the well. the president and epa are committed to the restoration of the gulf coast. the epa continues to monitor sediments and water for dispersants that could have an impact on health or the environment. this data is posted on epa's website. epa has a role with the use of dispersants which are a apply to the oil to break it down into

small dispersants. it is rapidly diluted into bacteria. epa is responsible for managing the product schedule of dispersants available for use. we are faced with environmental trade-offs. the long-term affects on aquatic life is still unknown. bp has used a volume never before used in the united states. what we do know is this. we are not seeing dispersants in our results. we've had thousands of samples. onshore and offshore. we are not in the dispersants away from the wellhead. -- we have not seen the dispersants away from the wellhead. the dispersants are not persistence in the environment.

they are not depleting oxygen in the water to dangerous levels. given the unprecedented nature, they have asked epa to identify less toxic dispersants. when the company failed to identify its, they decided to do it in a peer reviewed manner. epa conducted a test to determine lethal concentrations of eight available dispersants. we tested each of the dispersants alone. then tested the louisiana crude oil along. then we tested the dispersants. to determine the hazard of each of these dispersants, of these two species are considered to be representative of those found in the gulf. the tests were conducted over a

range of concentrations including those greater than what those are expected in the gulf. the system did leveraging deliver three results. -- the system delivered through results. all can be categorized as slightly toxic when tested along. the oil alone was generally moderately toxic. mixtures of oil and each of the eight dispersants were no more toxic than the oil alone. all of these results indicate that thit has acute toxicity. what it is important, i want to emphasize that continued monitoring it is absolutely necessary. to date, we of not seen oxygen levels approach levels of concern to aquatic life.

well more work needs to be done, we see that the dispersants are working to help to keep the oil off our pressure shorelines and away from sensitive and assistance. munching has not found chemicals in water or sediment. the crisis has made it evident that additional research is needed. congress has appropriated epa $2 million to begin long-term studies on the impacts of dispersants. it will support research on the short and long-term environmental impacts associated with the oil spill and dispersant use. we will further our research effort to include innovative approaches to spills and address the mechanism of environmental a f-- environmental a fax effects.

we will continue responding to environmental concerns including beach clean up. epa is committed to protecting the communities. we will persist in asking the hard questions until we more fully understand the long-term affects of the bp oil spill and conduct investigations to enable the long-term recovery of the gulf. we are committed to working with people of the gulf coast, the scientific community toward the restoration of the precious ecosystem. i will welcome any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear now from mr. david webster hall websterwest -- david westerhall.

came to this position after 27 year career -- westerholm. he came to this position after a 27 year career. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify on the role in the deepwater horizon bp oil spill response in the use of dispersants. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the critical role in the importance of our contributions to protect natural resources, communities, and economies affected by this tragic event. the spill is a stark reminder of the large oil spill still occur and that we must rebuild and maintain our response. when an oil spill does record did occur, there are no good outcomes. -- when an oil spill does occur, there are no good outcomes. the goal of the unified command

is to minimize the environmental damage and speed recovery. epa is required to repair and mitigate other devices that may be used to carry out the plan. the plan requires regional response teams of which noaa and these days participate. -- in the state participate. they make sure the trade-off decisions are deliberated. noaa'supports team -- noaa's support team is a special team and provides a broad array of scientific services to the response, including recommendations to the coordinator and a pretty dispersants. where a member of the special monitoring of applied responsibility programs. it is an agency assigned to monitor the of the sticky --

appropriateness. it reduces the amount of oil coming ashore. and no single response method is 100% of effective. each had its own window opportunity defined by the state of oil and weather, and establishing a need to consider the use of all available methods. chemical dispersants can be an effective tool. like all met it, it involves trade-offs in terms of effectiveness a potential for impact. consideration of what we have learned has factored into our use of dispersants. research on the effectiveness has been under way for more than three decades. vital gaps still exists. one numerous studies have been

conducted from areas such as the rate of biodegradation in deeper waters is much less understood. one area of focus [unintelligible] we know that effectively dispersed oil will decline more rapidly in concentration and untraded shoreline will -- then on treated -- -- than untreated shorelin oil. early life stages of fish and shellfish are much more sensitive in juvenile or adult to dispersants and dispersed oil. these organisms resides below the surface of the ocean where concentrations of dispersed oil are initially greatest. they are most likely to be impacted. there are no data on the toxicity of will at a live

stage. we have to make inferences based on the existing body. at the service and subsurface, -- at the surface and subsurface, it will decline rapidly with distance from the wellhead. noaa as been conducting chemical analysis of seafood collected in the aftermath of the incident. seafood samples consisting of shrimp and oysters are analyzed for hydrocarbons to determine the uptake of these present in oil. none of the seafood samples have pa concentrations that exceed noaa and fda guidelines. to conclude, the unified command will reevaluate our response strategy's come action, and

planning. noaa will continue to provide scientific support to a unified command. i would like to assure you that we will not relent in our efforts to protect the livelihood of gulf coast residents and mitigate the infirm and the impact of the spill. thank you for allowing me to testify. i am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. thank you both. there were tough choices to be made as to how you deal with this. we have to look at everything that was available. i do have some questions about the dispersants themselves. i guess i'm going to ask epa to comment. then if noaa has a comment as well. it was the first dispersant that was used. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> after 30 days, they switched

to 9500. >> that is correct. >> i have the data sheets on these two choices. the first one the hazard is ingredient -- and i may not say it right -- you talk to ethanol -- beuztociyhthaniol. >> it, as liver and kidney bleeding. then the switch was made to 9500. the active ingredient was basically kerosene. is that correct? >> that is not an active ingredient. it is a solvent.

>> is that the main part of thi? >> it is a fraction of the oil like kerosene. it is not an active ingredient. it is the solvent. >> are you aware that on their own sheets and they describe their own products -- define it as acute come a human health hazards. are you aware? >> yes. >> were you on the ground when bp or the coast guard was in charge, letting people know about the warning center on these? -- earnings that are on these? >> i think all the information was being shared. >> to home? -- oto whome? >> to the people on the ground.

>> it says repeated or excessive exposure may cause injury to red blood cells, a kidney, or the liver. do not get on skin or clothing. do not take internally. where suitable protective clothing w protectiveear -- wear suitable protective clothing. the other says to keep away -- he container tight in close. avoid breathing the vapor. to use with adequate ventilation. seek medical advice. avoid contact. after contact with skin, wash immediately. the companies themselves have indicated that there is an acute risk to human health. i want to make sure that we are letting people know. to your knowledge, people were known? >> yes. ocea was aware of these issues

and address them. >> my under -- addressed them. >> my understanding is that there are communities involved here that are saying -- suing them -- do you have that paper? i do not have it with me. i will come back to that. here it is. i am sorry. a personal injury lawsuits involving the chemical dispersants was filed in alabama where two residents and property owners alleged that the use of the product is causing people to get sick. do you know that people in alabama have claimed that they have gotten ill?

>> i will just say that i have seen those reports reported in the media, yes. >> do you know any more about that? what the symptoms are? >> i've seen reported that people are reporting rashes and redness. >> in alabama and louisiana in different places? >> yes. >> how many people? >> i do not have any numbers. >> a group of louisiana oystermaen are claiming that it is four times more toxic than the oil itself. do either you believe that statement is true? >> i have no data to support that statement. >> do you know whether 9500 is

more toxic than the oil itself? >> i have directed that they actually just reported that shows the test that we ran on aquatic species is less toxic than the oil itself. >> you disagree with them. did you tested at different levels? what level did you test it at? >> this one was across a wide range of concentrations of the way -- what was the lowest? >> parts per billion. >> did you consistently test parts per billion? >> we tested at parts per billion. then you keep on increasing the concentration and to use a toxic affect. this is the way the tests were run. you continue to increase the concentration until your species

show because it affects. >> i will place in the record a document from the department of health and hospitals of louisiana which says -- louisiana, there have been 334 reports. this is week 30 of the spill. there been through hundred 34 reports of health complaints believe to be related to exposure to pollutants from the oil spill. to under 50 reports came from workers. 84 came from the -- to under 50 reports came from worker. -- 250 report came from workers. 84 came from the general public. some have hospitalizations. the house positions were related to odors.

i am concerned about the workers who got close to it. you are saying that -- if you read these reports from the company itself, if you are saying that to your knowledge the workers were warned that they had to wear protective gear and they knew about it. >> i know that ocea was actively involved in informing workers. >> that is important. . . fisheries which senator barrasso is so right, we have to protect the jobs th are related toishing, recreation, tourism it took a long time to learn that some of the fisheries, the herring population, was just decimated. and people lost everything. because exxon sued for 20 years

at the end of the day the average recovery for these people was just minuscule. so it took very long to find out the impact on the fisheries. do we know, i'll ask noaa, whether we know today that the fisheries are going to be fine or do you think it's going to take time to know how much time and are you continuing to monitor the various fisheries there? >> senator, let me start with the last question and -- which was are we monitoring and the answer is yes. then you asked how much time? i don't think i would be able to speculate at this time how much time it's going to take us to actually do all the testing necessary to see how fast those fisheries recovered. but certainly there was a baseline data that was taken to compare it against which was prespill or outside of the spill zone. we have historic data and so what we are going to be looking

at is a number of species and the impact on that an the fishermen over the course of the next years. >> is anything showing up? >> as you may be aware, at this point we still have a lot of area of the gulf, at least in the federal waters, closed to fishing. some of the samples are just being collected now to see if it's safe to reopen those areas. i think it's premature, again, to show if there was any impact of oil -- >> when do you think you'll be able to make the first judgment on the state of the fishing indust? >> in the first we have opened one area and over the next month or so we will be able to -- >> will you accepted us these monitoring results? >> in fact, they are being posed -- posted as we get them on our website and on geoplatform.gov. >> thank you, senator barrasso. >> thank you very much. start with the e.p.a. do you believe that the e.p.a.

has all the necessary ability right now to test, to research, and to understand and mitigate any negative impacts from the use of dispersants in the gulf without additional legislaon from congress? >> i think the administrator has made it clear and stated publicly that when we look at the lessons learned, that we do need to look back how the national contingency plan brings us in the data that we need, the information that we need in order to make sound decisions going forward. i do believe that that's something that the administrator has said on the record and i agree with that. >> when were you doing some of your -- statement, august 2, during your phase 2 testing of the dispersants, you said dispersants are working to kee oil away from the shore. you said dissolved oxygen levels have not fallen below levels of concern to aquatic life. you said dispersant plus oil mixtures have roughly the same

toxicity as the oil itself. and that dispersants are less toxic than the oil being released into the gulf. would you go further to say that the use of the dispersants has been effective in terms of combating this oil spill and that it was the right call at the time to the extent of the spill to use the dispersants? >> the decision to make -- to use dispersants was aecision not taken lightly. any time you want to -- you are faced with adding substances into an ecosystem like the gulf of mexico, that's something that needs to be done properly and that's why constant monitoring was put in place. that said, when you look at all the tools to combat this tragedy, the skimming, burning, recovery, containment dispersants have shown to be one important tool in that toolbox in the response. >> i want to read a quote if i could from e.p.a. administrator

lisa jackson, then at the end ask whether you agree with it. she said, science tells us that dispersants can help protect these invaluable resources by breaking up the oil and speeding its natural degradation offshore. she said, we also know that dispersants which are less toxic than oil break down over a period of weeks rather than remaining for several years as untreated oil might do. do you agree with her comments and statements? >> i agree with the statement of the administrator. >> great. if i could go to noaa. you said in your testimony that the response to date has been successful in limiting the shoreline impacts. you also said that no response method is 100% effective. so given the statements about the shoreline impacts, are the critics of the responders who use dispersants trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good here? >> that's a great question. i think i like to use the analogy of, we talked about lesser of two elves, i don't know -- evils, i don't know that

i like that quote, i like to use the analogy of maybe a medical doctor making a diagnosis on a particular disease possibly cancer, where you have a lot of options. radiation, cut it out, chemotherapy. over the years we have learned more and more, and are able to apply better science to it. at that moment in time you have to make the decision. and you make that decision based on any number of options you have and tools you have available to combat it. i would say that decision as dr. anastas pointed out is not taken lightly and the unified command made that decision with a lot of factors in mind which include economic impact which could have occurred. some were unprecedented in terms of deep-water injection of dispersants. in the aftermath of that it would be difficult for me up here to second-guess the

decisi process going on down there when given all the information that they had. to answer your question, i believe that the application dispersants based on what we know about the other meth tholgi -- methodologies did prohibit some of the oil from getting to the shoreline. the actual long-term impact and all that is still -- needs to be studied and future additional research will help us make better decisions. >> thank you. looks like my time has expired. thank you. >> thank you, senator barrasso. i hope the witnesses and the audience will forgive the constant bustle in and out of the committee. we have two votes happening back to back on the floor so i just rushed over to vote on the first one. and that will continue and i'll have to rush over a vote again and people are going over to make their votes. because it's two of them there will be a lot of back and forth. just by way of explaining. it's nothing you're sayi that's causing us to jump up and

rush out. i wept down to visit -- went down to visit the gulf and the coast guard folks who took us around tked a lot about how the use of corexit as a dispersant, they used the word approved over and over. it's a mantra, approved dispersant. and i have a question about the way that the dispersants get deployed and how that approval process works because it doesn't seem to me, at least i can't see a point at which one agency actually takes a look at a dispersant and gives it its blessing and says, ok. this is actually approved. it's kind of approval creep and eventually pple say it's approved, but i don't know what point anything actually gets done to make it approved. here's what i understand the process is. correct me if i'm wrong.

under-the-national contingency plan, there is a product schedule of dispersants that can be used and e.p.a. maintains that product schedule, correct? in order to get a dispersants on to that product schedule, the manufacturer nominates it on to the list, correct? >> correct. >> and the test that is done is a test of effectiveness that it has to be more than 45% effective. however that's measured, at dispersing oil s. that correct? >> correct. >> but there is no testing at any time that is done about its toxicity or health effects at that time by e.p.a.? >> the data that is submitted to e.p.a. includes acute aquatic toxicity data. >> but there is nothing done by e.p.a. they -- it's part of the filing

by the company to put some toxic quality information in the filing, but e.p.a. doesn't do any evaluation or assessment. it could be as toxic as all get out and it still goes on the list as long as it meets the 45% efctiveness threshold. >> it is part of the filing. >> not an approval at that point. >> that's correct. it's part of the filing. i want to emphasize that while i'm not an attorney, i would be ppy to get any process questions to you. question, it is -- yes, it is part of the compiling of the data. >> that's why the national contingency plan states having a product on the product schedule does not constitute approval by the e.p.a. >> it is a listing on the n.c.p. list. >> not an approval of any kind. except as to the question of

effectiveness. the 45% threshold. >> that is the threshold, correct. >> so, then it's on the list and now you have an incident and now the federal on-scene coordinator has the ability to take dispersants that are on the list and determine which is appropriate for use and then apply those dispersants? >> correct. >> the coast guard folks were describing the list as being an approved list. when i asked them, they said that they did not do any approval of the list. in fact, they took the entire list and said, everything on it approved for use. as best i can tell. is that correct? >> senator, i might make one point of clarification here. there is an interim step that was left out that any type of

alternative technology which would include dispersants or burning would have to go through the regional response team. >> the process. >> and in that processoth the coast guard and e.p.a. and co-chairs they will submit that to the other federal agencies. but each of the states are also in the regional response team. and the trust, federal trustees, noaa and department of interior, at that time the regional response team can do a preapproval for use of dispersants in a certain location. usually it's offshore. and they make that for expediting. >> they did that in this case? >> they did that in this case. >> however, if they decide not to d that, then on a case by case basis the federal on-scene coordinator with the exception of certain emergencies which include peril to human life would have to go through that process for that approval step n

this case it was approved. the use of dispersants, and that the fosc had that preapproval in place and at that point the final decision would have to be made by the coast guard. >> here's my question about this because when the r.o.t. process preapproved the entire product schedule of all dispersants, obviously that accelerated everything that the federal on- scene coordinator could then do because they would not have to go back tough that secondary process you described of case by case approval. >> correct. >> but would a layperson would consider to be an approval that this particular chemical is safe for use in these circumstances? never anywhere in this process that i can see actually gets done. there are three steps. the first step is the filing by

the manufacturer that provides tocks -- some toxicity data. then there is the selection by e.p.a. which based on only on effectiveness. has nothing to do with toxicity. then you have the r.o.t. preapproval so-called but in that case there was no examination done of which might be better or worse. they took the entire list and said you are all in. and so if you're looking at, for instance, corext 7526 or the product, it strikes me that to use the word approved about it may be technically true because it technically was in the rot preapproval process, but what a regular human would think of as something having been approved never actually happened. nobody ever actually looked at that and said that is too toxic to use in these circumstances or

is more or less toxic than the other -- that's why after the fact you had to do the relative toxicity testing after they had all been preapproved, correct? >> that's a great point. i think one of the issues that the r.o.t. looks at is the collective of all those dispersants saying if you picked any one of those would it be safe to use in this particular environment. that's what they approved. they didn't preselect any given dispersant. once it made the list they had to treat that list as a collective. your point being it may be appropriate to differentiate within that list. . and it may be important to have somedy oer than the manufacture and and basically and reviewed disclosure of certain toxicity data come to a decision about the safety or not of their product. i cannot think of another circumstance in which a

regulatory agency approved something up for use without actually coming to a formal decision that it is safe to be used and without any process other than that the manufacturer provides information and then it is posted. but there did not appear to be anvaluating moment. >> if you're making an extremy important point. you are correct that the national contingency plan outlines of the list of criteria, what needs to be submitted in order to be on the list. >> and particularly when you have with the administrator referred to as a real emergency going on, the time at that point for the process to go through the scientific value to of process of determining what the toxicity consequences are off of the public data that had been filed.

you're under a lot of pressure. it is a little hard to say, you know, , bp -- sorry, bp, sorry, president, we cannot use the dispersants because we needed to do more steadying. it is more like here's what we have, take your best shot. it sounds like that is more or less what happened. >> we want to have more science, more data, more testing up front, so when you are making decisions in an emergency situation, you have that data at your fingertips. >> how are you going to fill that in? what will happen to this process so that an evaluation moment by somebody in government takes place before a chemical ge dispersed to the environment with the nominal word approved attached to it, which led a lot of people to believe this stuff is safer than it actually is? >> the administrator has said publicly that we need to go back

to look at how the national contingency plan is currently structured to look at how we get more science, how we get more data, how we get more information into this process so th is far more transparent, far more informative, and i think we're looking forward to bringing those proposals and recommendations for work. >> so reforming that administrative process is and then that is under way within epa? >> that is correct. >> ok, that is really good to hear. i appreciate that. the other issue that comes up that i think is sort of an obvious one but also a related one is that when you have a toxin in the environment, there is the immediate or acute a fact that it could have, and you are able to test for that because it is immediate and acute, and you have done so, but an equally

common and dangerous way for lks and get the vector into huns is through bioaccumulation. why don't you briefly describe what bioaccumulation is and i will go on with my question. >> certainly. this on the properties that the chemicalas, how soluble is in water, a soluble it is in tissues, a chemical has of the potential to build up in the body, wildlife or fish, and a chemical that does that would be considered by a cumulative. >> and bioaccumulation can be a very powerful and concentrating force if the ultimate animal to which the human is exposed is at the top of the food chain, and it is eating animals that are in turn eating animals that are in turn eating animals that are in

turn eating animals better becoming exposed to the chemical and taking up the chemical. and now you have a very, very high levels of concentration at the apex. >> substances that are bio cumulates can, as you describe, ago up the food chain. that is called biomagnification. if the substance were by accumulative, it could be magnified so you'd have higher concentrations at the top of the to change. >> magnified by what order of magnitude? >> several magnitude orders. throughout the food chain. >> so it could be 1000 or 10,000 times more concentrated at e top of the food chain than it is in a creature of the bottom of the food chain? >> that is the biomagnification process. i do think we need to speak

specifically about whether or not that is happening with the dispersants. >> let's do that. >> ok. because one of the things we're very ccerned about is by okeeheelee patient -- bioaccumulation and biomagnification. we first, of course, did modeling data. all of our community -- computer modeling data show these substances, all the active agreed mid -- ingredients of the dispersants, were not bioaccumulative. we also use monitoring data. in near shore, far away from the shore, d.c., we are seeing none of the components -- a deep sea, we're seeing the end of the componen of the dispersants persisting or by accumulating, and surly not by magnifying. the data is telling us that we're not seeing that happen with the dispersants.

>> would you be expecting it to happen this soon after the exposure? >> yes, looking at the chemical structures of all the constituents of the dispersant, it is not surprising to me that these are not bioaccumulated. >> because they do not do that by tir nature. so it is consistent with what you're seeing in the field that there's not bioaccumulation happening to any great degree. >> yes. the best scientific knowledge would suggest that they would not. the modeling data and the monitoring data support that conclusion. if i may, -- >> it is just the two of us, can go well beyond my time limit. yes i have to have the conversation. >> i am purposely focusing on, as i often say, the data, the data, the data.

i tnk it is really important to focus on what it is that we note, with the data is telling us, and how we get informed by the data. i am not suggesting that we have perfect knowledge. i am not suggesting that we do not need more information. i am saying straight out that it is important to keep on wit these are questions. >> let me ask a different question which relates to the combined effect of dispersants and oil. as i understand it, you have done some studies of the dispersants by themselves and showed that in some circumstances, they are disruptive of and a grand -- endocrine and some species, if you will, some cells.

but that when you tried to test or if you tried to test the dispersant/goyal combination and do the same endocrine disruption test, the damage of the oil/dispersant mixes of grit of the sample that you cannot pick out in theamage any eocrine disruption because the cell damage is so acute and so quick that there's nothing left to test for endocrine disruption. that strikes me as a potential signal any way that whatevere may know about the effects of the dispersant on their own, that there m be different help the facts once the dispersants bond with the oil, ich i

understand is their nature to do. that is why they work. they bond with the oil and form a sort of a connection between the oil and the water. so that a creature that is taking up the dispersant is also very likely to be taking up some degree of oil as well. and in combination, the two or four more dangerous than the dispersant alone. it is that all correct? >> let me clarify, senator. in the test we ran on the dispersants since all alone, it was a range of tests which included a screening for in the current -- for endocri dene is russian. across the various tests, we saw only two of the dispersants a very weak signal. and it was not found to be scientifically significant for

endocrine disruption. i think it is important to say even in the dispersants alone, what we found was not scientifically significant for de endocrine disruption. >> if found indication of it but not scientifically significant or not a scientifically significant signal of that? >> and not a scientifically signal of endocrine destruction. when we tried to use the same screening protocol on the oil itself and in the oil and this person, the structure of the cells to not allow for that. the way these tests were set up and not allow for any significant results on endocrine disruption. >> we're told the reason is the damage to the cell is so immediate and so acute that you cannot pick it up because they are destroyed. >> we expose these cells in a

way and at a concentration that would not allow for the test to be successfully condued. >> to go back to bioaccumulation, once you have combined the dispersants and the oil, and now it is being taken up by the bottom level food chain species together, are you equally confident that the bioaccumulation problems as minimal as it is for dispersants alone? >> well, i should certainly let my colleague from noah speak to that as well. the dispersed will appears to be to the degree it is neutrally

buoyant. is not a the bottom of the ocean. while we -- our models are not currently able to model bioaccumulation of the oil + dispersant, it is the monitoring data, the actual data we are seeing that is showing that it is not persisting and bio accumulati. the oil + dispersant, we're not detecting that in our monitoring. >> and i guess that goes back to the question i had earlier, would you expect to be seeing it at this time, or is the time delay for bioaccumulation such that you would really only see the more pronounced effects months, years, even decades later as the original code word of bottom of the food chain species gradually eaten and

began to concentrate and the things that ate them got eaten and began to concentrate another level up and so forth, that seems to have a time component to it. unless things are being eaten a lot faster than i think out there. >> of the oil and the dispersant is what is being monitored for. i should like my colleagues speak to what is being seen or not being seen. >> mr. david westerholm, you have been hand the ball. >> and i will take it. i will go back to what i said earlier. it would be remiss if we said that we knew everything about the situation to be able to address your question adequately for every species. with some of the higher order species, we're not seeing the bioaccumulation in the tissues. we might find some in the bile. most of it is excreted. >> but would you expected? is ts even feeding season?

>> i would expect to see it residing in the pit was going to bioaccumulate, you would be able to see that at a level. >> what are you doing to test for that? >> on the seafood safety side, we're looking at the tissu and hers, but we're also looking from our damage assessment side to the impact this may have on some of the species. but i will take step back and say, you kno other species, some that we have not tested, some of the deeper sea species, and also whether the dispersant would get to shore with oysters are some other creature, we may be able to see some accumulation but not necessarily biomagnification in a higher order species. >> and that is an indicator?

>> i think it goes back to your statement earlier of how pructs a listed on the national contingency plan and whether this should be one of the criteria for approval process in the future of not having it by zero accumulate. we have seen it in other regulatory practices, an epa can speak to this. certain chemicals that would bioaccumulate have not been allowed to be used in society. i think the same thing, we should have a series of more constructive tests to be able to definitively prove that and the news that as part of that approval process. >> and to go back to what we do know about the dispersant that the chairman referred to, which has these characteristics of liver damage and internal bleeding in all those sorts of things to humans, how does that

transpire? what is the mechanism by which the damage corrects it to what happens in humans sufficient to put it on the hazard notice that is not dangerous in any of the ways that you are describing? i am liddell but confused as to how it can be dangerous to humans -- i am a little bit confused on how it can be dangerous to humans. >> there are a coue was a can happen. on the chemical, it can be an inhalation hazard to humans. it could be skin contact hazard. >> said direct exposure. >> at a level that certain safety protocols would be enacted to make sure you are wearing protective clothing or in a position not to be exposed in an aerial dispersant mode with that in mind, that acute toxicity in some of the impacts of that would be by rect

exposure to humans. it would not necessarily be passed through ingestion through the food chain. i am sure that on the msds, she is looking at the hazards of those chemicals, and that was for exposure to humans on that particular product in whether it -- in whatever concentration it shows for that. >> and the reason that that acute toxicity is not showing up in your field studies is because the concentration that you are testing at this below the level that would cause it or is it because the creatures you are testing are more resilient than he meant to do not suffer the same injury when exposed to the chemical? >> i would suggest that, for instance, with the component you're talking about, corexit, in determining a toxic effect, it is looking at all the

possible ways that this could cause acute toxicity. it is something where, for instance, it is consumed in high concentrations. then these types of defects may occur. when we're talking about releasing these substances into the gulf, we do have to keep in mind that one square mile of the 1lf -- we're talking about trillion gallons of water. so those are very low concentrations. now the concentrations of the test species are exposed to our increasing concentrations until you do see the toxic effects. so they are being exposed to high concentration. in the species are at juvenile life stages, so they're supposed to be at a live stage where they are more sensitive to pollutants.

>> the second vote now has seven minutes remaining. and with no one else here, i am is starting to feel the pressure of that vote. so what i will do -- here is senator harper. [laughter] perfect ming. i will go vote and come right back. if you'd share the hearing for the two witnesses here, and then i thk we can move on to the nextanel if nobody else comes to ask questions. >> chair asks unanimous consent to bring up the vote? [laughter] it is awaiting action. so moved and then we will break for lunch. [laughter] again, gentlemen, welcome. good to see. how is the hearing going for you so far? >> very well. >> very well.

>> first of all, thanks again for joining us d for your testimony. there is a woman behind us who is part of committee staff who is a marine biologist. i was asking her to give me a little. marine biology 101 with respect to microbes inhe oce. about thisd of talk in the basic and fundamental wa how does it work? wheel coming out of the ocean floor. and we had these chemical dispersants that we apply to the oil. explain to us what happens, without it lot of detail about chemicals but then what happens. and how long the microbes live up to the consumer to oil. just a little bit of a rundown on that so i can understand it better. >> i will sta with that one.

and again, when u are looking at the microbes, if you think of it at the bacterial level and thick and the oil globule as a certain sum, friends, it would surround that oil in the would eat their way in. there will supply much like bacteria do to continue to feed off that. maybe i should take a step back and say that there are lot of natural oil seeps in that area. petroleum hydro covers have been in that area for some time. these particular microbes tend to flourish naturally in the gulf of mexico area anyway, so they are present. maybe that is why we're potentially seeing the initial dications that there is an acceleration ofhe bio degradation may be more than expected. the fact that you put dispersants on oil, in theory and in models, we break them into a much smaller diameter globules, which allows areater

surface area for a larger number of microbes. if you think of one big ball, you can get so many around. if you split it into 100, you can get more microbes in the process will go faster. to answer your question about the by degradation, it really then depends upon how large a piece of oil you started with before that has dissolved to the subset of where there is no more biodegradation that would occur. and with nothing else to feed on, the microbes themselves die, or they will have to find something else. there is a life cycle that they have, too, and the multiplication have around the oil. but we know that the subsurface injection of dispersant has -- as well as the natural dispersant. even if there was no dispersants apply, natural dispersant probably occurs coming up to the water column with any war between 10% to 20% of the oil

coming off the well had release. and again, it also depends on the residency time and how much that oil wethers through the water, coming to the service. so on weathered oil provides a much better service and will biodegrade faster. the microbes can eat it. the weathered oil gets more like the tar balls and up to more than an asphalt team process. i guess dissipating the total question of how long it takes, but it really depends on the science. >> thank you for that explanation. would you like to add anything? >> yes, thank you, senator. i think it is important to recognize that we, as siemens, my think we're very clever. but we are -- as humans, might think we're very clever. but nature has been doing this for billions of years.

natural dispersants are something that are in the gulf. what we're doing is basically making major in order to try it and accomplish this and make the process happen faster than it otherwise would have. >> the oil is disbursed. larger pieces of the oil dispersant are much smaller. the microbes are able to glob on the oil. as the microbes consume what is there in the water, do they have a short life span? did it live for days, weeks, months? >> i do not know the specific life span. but this is of a particular microbes. yes, they feed on these. ideally, when they need them,

they're producing as a result. carbon dioxide and water. that is the natural breakdown product of the oil when it is consumed in digested and metabolized. -- whenmicrobe's die, microbe's die, perhaps the go to the bottom of the ocean. what happens when microbe's die? ter reading of this oil? who eats the microbes? i would add twhat he said, they break down the oil into component parts. much like organic material fall into the ocean or suspended depending on the particle size, that is whayou're left with. >> what kind of threat doesn't pose to the marine environment? >> if the microbes have consumed and metabolized the oil, they

should be, that scenari no additional risk to the marine environment. >> and people ask what happened all this oil, it is a huge amount of oil at the bottom of the gulf. now it seems to be going away. >> what percent is evaporated? >> i would say about 24%, 25%. >> is it being consumed by these microbes? what percent would you say is being consumed by the microbes? as much as being evaporated or more? >> i think you have to put that in two categories. that that has already been coumed and that that will be consumed. there is some oil that rises to the surface and some that does not. it could be consumed as a ghost to the shoreline. a could be as much as 50% of that which is first in what was residual in the water column or on shoreline since starting to be biodegraded.

celeste -- the last 25% is what has been skimmed off or burned. even the tar balls over time, many of those will be the residual one at the last much longer, but most of what is in the water column and what going to shore will start to biodegrade. >> thank you. in the stand that the epa has been researching the effects of dispersant in a subsurface environment. what do your studies tell us, and what did not tell us in terms of the long-term consequences of using dispersants? >> what we're looking to do going forward is have a better, deepernderstanding of the long term transport and disclosure of

these dispersants. while we have some knowledge of how these dispersants travel in the various -- in the water, and the various currents, specifically, how long it will take, how they will be metabolized, what are the products, what exposures they will give to fish and wildlife, those are some of the long-term questions that we want to have answered as we move going forward. >> what steps can the federal government take to ensure that the next generation of dispersants in the gulf are greener and even may be more environmentally friendly than the ones we are already using? >> this is a key question. it certainly is a key question for dispernts. it is theey question for the chemicals we use in our day lif currently. what we have currently is a situation where we often focused on character raising the

chemicals that we use in ways that we try to understand what they going to cause a toxic effect to humans are the environment, if they go into my own accumulate and persist. what we have done as a sign to the community is the insights needed to design the next generation of substances. this era of so-called green chemistry is a scientific approach to understanding not only the basis of the hazard that these chemicals cause, but more importantly, how you design them so they're not going to cause problems in the future. so applyinghe principles of green chemistry to dispersants it's going to be essential. it will be essential in order to do this toave 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 tt the next generation of dispersants are more environmentally benign. >> ok. as this tragedyas 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 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?

partularly 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, b 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 t 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 ok 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 lono

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 hard 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 substance 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 of chemical

compounds, including aromatic hydrocarbon and other hydrocarbons. we believe, and it appears to be of help with more recent research that the use of dispersants creates the release of these toxins 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 dispersant/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 may not 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 the gulf in the summer. they feed opportunistic we in the deep water, and squid, cephalopods. 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. they 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 witness is dr. david smith of the graduate school of oceanography from my home state university, rhode island. it is one of the jewels and crowns of our university system. we're delighted that david could be here. welcome, dr. smith. >> good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to testify on this very important subject. the unburned a doctorate off

associated 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 organisms 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 application at this see service. the deepwater horizon presents a much different scenario when dispersants were introduced at the wellhead approximately 1,500

meters. as we continue to extract oil from the deep ocean, we will face similar scenarios 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 oils, 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 reach the service. it came up and was stripped of a lot of its organic chemicals as it came to this service.

we're seeing evidence of that now. will that enters the environment goes through a series of weather and processes. you're left with trying to clean up not just goyal but oil in all the weather products. they'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 recycled. if you can do that, you should. you should always have that as your first preference.

if the oil is thick enough to burn, it 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, offshore water 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

problem. 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 as a grand experiment. we need to take the advantage of the research opportunity and the long term research opportunity 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 food chain. 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 is not as bad as it could have been. we certainly need to monitor for the long-term damage. how long will it 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. >> thank 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 savitz, the senior scientist with oceana.

she served as director executive of the coast alliance before that and work with the environmental working group and is an environmental scientist with the chesapeake bay foundation. 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 life is affected by this bill includes in danger, threaten, and commercially important species. many questions have arisen including whether not dispersant chemicals should 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 pros and 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 ecological 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 exposed 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 the impact 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 prevent 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 opportunity to devise a plan to replace our oil demand and stop drilling offshore. they're clear options that could allow 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 not rely on lose- lose decisions and do not make our oceans the biggest losers. 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, drilling should 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 dangerous jobs with claim jobs, when the powers are debuted -- daily lives and one that stimulates 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 was thinking 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 millions 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 tests just 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 it is 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 better 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 oil 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 effect? 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 ask -- 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 that you have said have been left, or are unanswered at this point. and what else would need to be 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

purpose. 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 slip 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 probably cannot have. it is a real problem. having said that, the components 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. at which point 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 some 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 study if there will be long-term impacts from this spill. we cannot go into the environment in release large quantities of oil.

the mineral management service has generated royalty income to the pro-government of billions of dollars. virtually all of it has been spent on not understanding the environment. almost none of tloheing at a den 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 have 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 to 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 gives me the opportunity to make a shameless plug for my national endowment for the oceans legislation that would take some of these revenues and set them aside in a process both geographically-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 doctors they are not.

they are so short term. there is a 48 or 96-hour study. even if all the dispersant 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 short-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

where 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 will 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 inherently 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 that 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 beneath the water 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 is 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 data. 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, of particular concern we should worry about? >> at this time i have not seen the evidence that is occurring 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 tie 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 -- i will 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 to it, 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. a seep 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 from

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 temperatures 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 work his 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

♪ [tango musing playing] ♪

>> in a few moments, and author at the young america's foundation student conference. he wrote about how the liberal machine brainwashed my generation. in an hour, the treasury secretary on taxes and fiscal policy. "washington journal" is live at

7 eastern. our series on health care law will focus on how medicare recipients will be affected. the editor of the national review will join us. and we will speak to one person overseeing the gulf oil spill response. and later, a hearing at -- on u.s. manufacturing. >> the senate is expected to confirm elena kagan as the next supreme court justice. you can see how your senators are planning to vote and follow the entire process online at c- span.org and also on c-span2. >> we are not ruling in the options in or out. >> this month marks the 20th anniversary of the first gulf war. look at the players and the events that are key. it is on line on our video

library. it is free, and watch what you want when you want. >> editor of the conservative website and author of "obama zombies". this is the annual young american foundation student conference. it is one hour. >> good morning. i trust you had a well-rested night. today has many

accomplishments. he entered for the robert novak. after graduating from roger williams university, jason became the media spokesperson fighting liberals on the airwaves and in the print media. he is a national treasure. he is known for his trademark ambush videos. he has gone after charlie rangel and white house press secretary robert gibbs, forcing them to account for their lives on film. he recently wrote a new york times best selling book. he has appeared on multiple television programs and radio programs. please welcome a great conservative warrior. [applause]

>> how are you guys doing this morning? good? some of you look a little hong over. i will not call you out. raise your hand. [laughter] at least he is honest. i am not sure you heard the news since you have been at the conference. bristol palin told people magazine that she broke up with levi johnston for good. [applause] if you are keeping track, a few weeks ago, she told another magazine that they were getting married. they shocked the world. she still feels betrayed by levi johnston. she has not gotten over the fact that he posed nude for playgirl and possibly impregnated another teenager. no marriage for levi johnston with us -- bristol palin. the good news is he seems that

for the global office. al gore said he trained him on how to solicit a massage. [laughter] speaking of bill clinton, he recently told reporters that one of the things he wants to do before he dies is a conjugal visit to the gel cell -- jail cell of lindsay lohan. we will diagnose things about the obama zombies this morning and look at ways to wake them up from their slumber. i want to thank the american foundation for hosting me and the conference and in general, the foundation is like family. i used to work this conference. it is great to be here as a speaker. i actually have some of my internship of human events here. brett and been right here. -- ben right here.

both men are single. [laughter] we will remind -- rewind to the night of the 2008 election. obama zombies, to them, the victory of barack obama was not just political, it brought salvation. after he was pronounced the victor, up from those students that voted in college, some hands were held, and others were raised to the sky as they collectively weapons and saying amazing grace. amazing grace. the him about the dots eternal love for mankind. emotional reactions were everywhere. it can only be described as an obasm.

one person said it is the most excited i have ever been in my end tire life. i think i had an emotional seizure. my entire body seas. it was like i really mattered. i think i am in love with america right now, because i picked the president. one person on campus proclaimed, it is the most spiritual experience i have had to my entire life. obama -- one female person proclaimed "oh, my god" like a pre pubescent girl at a jonah's brothers con sort -- concert. when obama appeared before super

tuesday on nbc studios, an 18 year-old confessed his romance for barack. he said, i am a straight man deeply in love with barack obama. another student from new york also outside nbc studios said the way obama makes you feel it is like when you are going to pick up a girl for a date. [laughter] let's set the record straight. i do not care if you are a democrat or conservative, no politician should make you feel like you're on a hot date with a check. -- chick. demi mooore and her husband put

together a video of their support with an all-star cast of celebrities. cameron diaz, nicole ritchie, the codes of fanning -- dakota fanning, and many others. about this video, one person said, i think we need to be leaders, not celebrities. as citizens, we have to be leaders of the movement we want to create. let us go through some of these pledges. one went, i pledge to end hunger in america. in the history of the planet, hunter has never been eliminated. but here comes barack obama, the skies will open, and poverty will be abolished.

another line, i pledged to laugh more and smile more. i pledge to be a great mother and a great father. i pledge to be a voice for those that have no voice. i pledge to consider myself an american and not an african- american. that was delivered by michael strahan, an nfl football player. he will refer him -- refer to himself as an american not an african-american because barack obama was elected president. pledging to the most 9 -- mind- numbing duties as citizens is to represent my country with pride, dignity, and honesty.

won pledges allegiance to the united funkadelica. i have no idea what it means. it is doubtful that the person who wrote it does either. [laughter] and they will make you pledge your allegiance to falunk. i pledged to never give anyone the finger when i am driving. i pledged to show more love to strangers. i pledge to be a better mentor to younger people. i pledge to flush only after a deuce not a single. that came after reaching that comment was made by jason bateman of arrested development.

prior to january 21, 2009, if you were a delinquent parent, -- [unintelligible] hollywood and obama will implement a moral compass in you. that is what obama zombies look like. it is as if he is going to drop ipods from the skies. one person told the washington post, having a kid can get it like obama makes it difficult to support any -- candidate like obama makes it difficult to support anyone else.

style over substance, feelings over fact. how do we get obama zombies? one key factor is -- academia goes to the left. professors and administrators supported barack obama over john mccain by a ratio of 12 to one. this coming from the left who constantly is harping on diversity and tolerance. diversity never includes offering students a wide variety of ideas, including conservatives once and having them form their opinions and come to their own conclusions.

it is very bizarre. one of my favorite things is we put together a list. we ran through some of the most bizarre, college courses. we know we are not going to learn about american history or some of the great founding fathers. we will learn on native american feminism. there is cyber feminism at cornell university. and at occidental college, it deconstructs what it means to be a feminist to a black man. [laughter] you may be wondering, what actually is a feminist black man? since the crossover between ru

paul and barney frank. [laughter] on a sad note, while many young people voted for barack obama in droves, and they supported obama then mccain by a margin of almost 40 points, the biggest demographic shift in american history, the obama policies aimed at the future of young people is a sad. i say and propose that it makes as much sense to support barack obama through our gun people as it would to let michael vick babysit your dog or let tiger was pick up your wife from the airport. w -- woods pick up your wife

from the airport. [laughter] young people were the biggest supporters of a government takeover health care. obama care passed and he went to george mason university and met by thousands of students sharing of the fact they will be able to stay on their parents' insurance until they were 26 years old. write to their encapsulates liberalism. it is about individual and independence. as you get older and mature, look at the attachments between your parents and you should be cut. it continues nevertheless. that is only the beginning. the prices for us are going to

increase dramatically. community ratings -- it will wake people up and show policies are a direct offense to their futures. health-care providers can not do -- differentiate prices to your age or health. young people are usually charged a lot less, whether it is your parents' insurance or you are in the market yourself. we are less likely to get sick, so we are charged less. insurance companies say, we will charge a lower fee for younger people. now it is discriminatory. you have to charge old and young alike. young people are subsidizing the health-care costs of their parents and their grandparents. even the associated press and the washington post said that

minimally with obama care, young people can expect their premiums to rise by almost 20%. people cheered on obama care. it is because they have no concept of what it means to have a basic american right. mtv did a report called the young, hot, and uninsured. one person in the interview spoke on the mentality of how young people are overprotective, spoiled brats. he told mtv the fact that he has to go to the hospital after a snowboarding accident. he said i heard myself. i tore my rotator cuff and i could not go to the doctor. i could, but i did not want to pay that out of pocket expense, because it would have been hard

to do. if you do not have health care, do not go snore -- snowboarding. why should we have to pay for him? some think he is entitled. this mantra goes back to students not getting an exhaustive education in academic and knowing what our fundamental principles were as a country. they thought health care was their right, and you have the ability to rob peter to pay paul to cover expenses. you have a right to health care just as much as you have to [unintelligible] [laughter] the next area is probably the most pervasive.

it is man-made global warming. id is endemic on college campuses. time magazine had a cover story called another ice age. there was another one called the cool new world. those are called classics. they say the planet is warming. academia is on the forefront of one side of this hot, new contested issue. there are hundreds of scientists around the world that disagree. they think it is caused by the sun. i happen to agree. academia has been helping capt.

planets at warp speed. i am sure during q&a you want to come up. universities will curb carbon emissions, served organic foods, and have green vehicles, etc.. there are other schools that take it to a different level. there is a college that deciding global warming to have students do it in the dark. how romantic. nothing like saving the planet once sex act at a time. [laughter] in other obama som the favorite, the less water you use, the more you save.

the problem is it is clogging up cafeteria lines, because students can only hold some much in their hands, so they have to go up four seconds and thirds and fifths if they happen to be because they are not using their cafeteria trays. they think they are saving the planet by not using their trade. it is traceless tuesdays. at a another university, they were trying to teach students the idea of climate change. they would do this by notifying their students, their classmates when one of their peers went to the bathroom. every time you use the bathroom on the carnegie-mellon campus, there are kiosks that register and go up every time a light

switch is flat on, and every time someone flushes the toilet. you can chastise your classmates for going to the crapper and dumping all over the environment. and at the university since in energy bill to the department according to their schools sustainability director. the person said different departments have a huge incentive to give -- to get everyone in school to reduce usage. sacrifice the core mission of the university for global warming. but what most young people to not realize, and it is the radicalism professed on the global warming crowd. al gore had assembled the

something 3 guarding global warming. he had a lot of celebrities and opera music artists such as cameron diaz, sting, on every continent they had these rock concert put together to preach everything in our mental. many did not realize that they -- everything environmental. and there was something handed out at each of the concerts'. it was the survival guide. take a look at it. let us see if some of these essential tools to stop global warming can go through it.

it was during tax season to, one of the best ways to understand your environment is with a little personal dumpster diving. they wanted you to audit your garbage during tax season. the wanted to support financially a sheet of ice. they posted its picture in a prominent place in check on it each year. you can support a child they say, in addition, a glacier in antarctica. the next is the left wants us to have a certain kind of test.

your dog, cat must seem like an 8 deal companion for today's world. in the future, the camel may become the perfect pet for the environmental challenges of the 21st century. the ego manifest tells us that camel's require easy maintenance, in the source of protein, and can be milked. on page 94 of the guide, this is al gore's official guide, get past the cinderella castle you west region once drew in your notebook. think simple, organic, straw.

so when the hurricanes are on the way because of global warming, your straw home may not with stained -- withstand the impact, but it would help with your car and foot print. and we find a recommendation to start your own as zoo. polar bears, penguins, tigers, and pandas. there is a problem with having this. they acknowledge this problem and say it is a rewarding problem to have. a zoo will require you to

spend countless hours shuttlingdung, but it is a rewarding one -- shoveling dung, but it is a rewarding one. i am not wasting my time auditing my garbage. we are tired of the left getting people to think they are saving the planet, but what they really want is to erode the personally freedoms that our founding fathers and died for. there were some liberal think tanks that said the emergence of some electronic gadgets these days, flat screen tvs, we have

increased energy production, and it is causing more global warming, and we need policies to regulate it halt and other electronic gadgets that the young people consume by and large. how the left uses its as a segue to get young people to buy into their big government programs we see what the left is really up to. my friends would notthe idea of supporting ice or hosting their own zoo. the other big issue in dealing with the young people is obama

zombies are not fond of math and arithmetic, because their policies never play out in the real world, but we should remind them how obama spending spree is bankrupting our generation. in a year and a half, more deficits have been racked up since george w. bush did in all eight years combined while fighting a couple of wars. that is remarkable. the obama administration by their own projection say the national debt could reach $24 trillion in the next nine years. we hear numbers like that, it

does not even register on our radar. break it down. kobe bryant makes $25 million a year. how many seasons with the have to pay -- play to pay up that projected national debt? any guesses? close. nine hunters 60,000 seasons. -- 960,000 seasons. young people have the highest unemployment than any other demographic. it is a pest 20%. for young black men, the unemployment rate is 50%. they may have thought he was cool were a hit candidate, they

may have thought he was the messiah and was going to come. some said he would heal the planet and stop it waters from rising. it is absurd. for young people, it was a one- way ticket to vote for the dude. you can point to how barack obama policies said they would create 3.5 million jobs to keep unemployment at 8%. now we have lost close to 8 million jobs while he has enacted the stimulus plan.

unemployment is hovering around 10% for the foreseeable future. young people will be the biggest losers when it comes to this. and the obama administration is now debating or arguing that we should have the bush tax cuts. bush tax cuts would cut income taxes on every single income, if they are faced out on those on top -- i am thankful for rich people, because i am glad my paycheck does not bounce every couple of weeks. i am glad that there are small business owners who are going to provide me with a job.

liberals love to talk about a bottom of the economy. they say economies are grown from the bottom up. if liberals really think that is the case, i encourage them to go to the very bottom of the bottom. go to a bomb on the streets -- bum on the street. no, you want those that are successful who have the strategy and acumen and are risk averse enough to be those that create jobs for the majority of the country. there are those three principles when it comes to health care, global warming, and budgets

busting deficit of the barack obama. we want to wake obama som is up. the biggest tool to appeal to our peers in ways they can understand is social justice. it is fair to take from the rich and give to the poor. now on your campus, are like you to have a petition and ask your classmates if they would sign it to redistrict -- redistribute grade point averages. that "a" you may have studied you -- or that 4.0 that you busted your butt for, we are going to split that and give that to someone with a

"c." your peers here that, they will not be for it. the ones that are for it are lost causes altogether. something goes off when you tell your peers about this. you are bringing conservatism down to a level they can understand. you bring person responsibility to a level they can understand. they have to think about theoretical issues. most young people live their lives in a conservative fashion. what i mean is they are distrustful of government intervention. facebook, youtube, we are attracted to spaces where we have total control of. if young people are suspicious

of some government bureaucrat telling them what facebook friends are allowed to have, what sites they can browse on the internet, with a video they can watch on youtube, they should be suspicious of a government bureaucrat telling them you have to be in a one size fits all health-care plan. we will we distribute your wealth. we will pick winners and losers in the market economy. we have to bridge that gap for them. look at facebook as a model for how capitalism and free markets work. one student created it in his dormitory. now it is the most interactive form and known to man worth billions and billions of dollars. all we have to do is point to

these applications for the iphone. 250,000 applications for the iphone. i can speak with one of my buddies over g-mail over in south korea. this is free enterprise working its way out and not through government intervention. we have to show them that they live their lives in a conservative fashion. they are attracted to conservative products born out of a conservative philosophy. we are rich and poor alike. we have applications that rich people 50 years ago could not a dream about.

this is the free market and where young people are inherently attracted steve. it is our job to bridge that gap for them. we cannot continue to maintain to have these obama zombies as we move forward. the young people say the support is dropping for obama. barack obama actually loses a generic ballot to a republican in 2012. great news. it is up to us as we are on college campuses to get that word out there. i am not that much older than many of you. i can speak on authority on this issue.

you will have the ability to remain silent in your classroom from a professor or you can be an activist. you have to take the role that is more difficult and more rewarding. i did not expect to ever be here in front of you today. i wanted to be a professional basketball player. those dreams were dashed. i had no idea i would ever work for this foundation and the editor of the longest standing conservative publication. it is a privilege and honor. it happened because i got active on a college campus. my first year, i had professors who used the classroom to spread conservative ideas.

i had a psychology core curriculum class, and the professor started out by saying do we have any of those conservative christians here against gay marriage? no one raised their hand. i raised my hand. by the end of the class, more than 50% of the row agreed with my position. they were waiting for that one person to take the lead. when i was in marketing class, i have professors get up there and say, this has nothing to do whatever class lecture. ronald reagan was the worst president we ever had, and here is why. i could have stood silent and say, he is a professor. i will not do anything. i raised my hand and challenge

the professor. was i challenge that we did was i polished at the time to debate these issues? not really. i knew i was going to remain silent. three standing up for my believes your leadership potential grows, and people want to follow you. i encourage you to take every opportunity when you are on your campus to stand and make a difference. do not live a mediocre, college life. every time i would bring conservatives on campus, they would rip down our fires -- flyers. put them back up and tried to get people to come to the event. i got a death threat of my life because i was trying to bring a conservative speaker on campus. so much so that they had to hire

police officers for protection on campus. i was doing something worthy of my death. anytime the left would call me a name, view that as a compliment. if they are not viciously attacking you, you are doing something wrong. i encourage you to take your time very seriously on a college campus. starting your own college paper. getting involved in your local radio station. getting the conservative world out there. view your campus as a missionary field. we have an uphill battle on our hands. no doubt about it.

the conservative message is not going to say that we will provide you the things for free. you have to provide for yourself. our message is one of a freedom and liberty. it will resonate with our peers. can we awaken our generation of obama zombies? it will not be easy. in that immortal phrase, yes, we can. thank you. [applause] do you have any questions?

>> the microphone has to be turned on. >> i know this is completely off topic, but what are your opinions on the liberals attempt to legalize marijuana? [laughter] >> if we could have a trade-off where we lowered income-tax this war had a flat tax such as 10%

in legalized marijuana and tax the hell out of it, and have the potheads pay our taxes -- [laughter] i think i could work with that. [applause] >> thank you. >> i am from cleveland i'll silvestre reyes -- cleveland, ohio. you had mentioned it as a way ofing gpa's slapping the wake obama zombies. do you have any other ideas in our war against obama zombies? >> i have a six point battle plan on ways you can wake up obama zombies.

most young people are not going to have a policy debate. you have to bring it to a level they understand. that is why i talked about redistributing the grade point average. also regulating the internet, that is on the horizon. the fcc started to take steps to treat broadband cable connections and internet connections and review its as they do on the talk radio airwaves and regulate its. the left seizes -- seize every way in america to tax your life. every type of creation or machinery, they want to tax.

and they are in the process of trying to tax the internet and get that passed. some young people may have gotten caught up in the height. we had john mccain as our presidential candidate. if you see him and barack obama, come on. john mccain, god bless his heart for what he did for this country, but he looked like he was going to die in the second. he was not passionate. he did not have any slogans that people could rally behind. we needed someone charismatic and rally young people and old people together to a common theme, freedom and liberty. you want -- eat no young person is going to say for big government. it is counter-cultural.

the culture is the government. it is a sprawling barack receive. you want to maximize the freedom of the individual and minimize the influence of washington. >> thanks for being with us. can you talk about your campus activism and give it examples of the things you did when you were younger? you are still very young. things you are doing now that we can get ideas from. >> i went to a university in rhode island. my freshman year of college, i met one person for the first time. we brought in colter to the school. -- anne coulter to the school.

we brought her twice. i never saw so many people flipped out over the notion of bringing in a conservative speaker. the left is for uniformity. they want everyone to think, and act the same, and be the same. they do not want a diversity of thought. right then, it was such a battle to get funding for her and host the event when it took place. the biggest thing i did, and probably the most proud of, and i encourage if your school works this way, do it as well. i said, why have these groups in the multicultural student union have five people that go to their events but have budgets for all of this money and the conservatives only get $500.

i want to position myself to be chairman of the finance committee. i will stop it with my friends. we will reverse this. it is a battle out there. i want to beat the left. i got elected as a student senator and became chairman of the finance committee. i had people i knew were conservatives. i asked and outspoken liberal to be on the finance committee. i knew she would go against everything we propose. but at least i had the pretense of me trying to be objective. [laughter] the budget went from $500 the $15,000 for the

republicans. and the budget of the multicultural union went down dramatically. we said if your event sucked and its head 10 people go to it, we will have a benchmark and penalize you cannot give you as much funding if your event does not have a lot of people coming to it. the left was struggling to get 20 people to their events. i would encourage students to find out how your funding works and get as much money to bring conservative speakers. if it is not you on your campus, your peers will not hear a conservative message. >> my question was where you get your ideas for things you do outside of writing?

you did a video where you went around to some sort of rally and had people signing up. it was people for elimination of white people. what and you wrote something saying i will poop on it. where do you come up with these ideas? [laughter] >> i do not know. 3:00 a.m. i used to go to these different events or i left a rally and pretended to be a granola- crunching hippie. i infiltrated its. these videos were hilarious.

we went to this march for amnesty. there is a large faction of the amnesty shows that think america should be part of mexico. the media never highlights them. we went to the rally. there were hundreds of people there. and i wanted to show how they had a hatred in sympathy for what people in general and for the united states. they wanted mexico to index texas and california and new mexico, and all of these places. we created an organization called people for the elimination of white people. we had all of these signs and be

with the tell people about the initiative. they were supportive of it. they would say, we need to get rid of the white man. it was all on camera. i wanted to make sure i was sitting in with my brothers and sisters by getting a tan. we went to a protest against guantanamo bay. we dressed up as they get smug detainee in jumpsuits. we have petitions -- gitmo detainee in jumpsuits. we ask for a longer bric times and other things. those in guantanamo bay deserve to the right to espn, msnbc.com,

so theyrmony account, can have someone to love them when they get out. [laughter] and also jihad olympics. people would sign it. it was absolutely amazing. sometimes you want to use comedy to roast the left. man is jont spokeswoma stewart, a comedian act. we can learn a lot from them. >> thank you. >> i have a couple of questions for you. i feel minorities have a hard time understanding that just because you do not have to vote the status quo -- many said, what are you voting for someone

who looks like you and things like that. why are not they acknowledging the job that he is doing? how do i tried to convey a message to them that it is not that i do not want to see an african-american succeed, but that he is not doing his job? conservatives need someone they can rally behind in 2012, and i was wondering who you thought that would be? >> i really do not know. i am not looking to coronate anyone right now. i think the field is open. whoever it can build that excitement. this is not an endorsement of her candidacy, but the woman that has the most