excellent and chairman shapiro to be commended for that. but i think there is a lot more that needs to be done with that. about a decade ago, chairman of the past what is known as regulation fair disclosure that does require -- and there is a law on that that requires if companies give inflation and taxes. they always reward the person that is out of line with their spending and they always punish the savers. why don't they reward the savers today by allowing them to take

the money out of there for a 1 k, ira, to purchase a first or second home, mobile home, automobile, or some major purchase to jump-start the economy with no tax consequences. host: we are going to leave it there. if we could get your reaction, this headline, sec sues new jersey. can you explain what is happening here? >> absolutely. state and local governments provide pensions and agreed to pay x-amount of money to their public servants, school teachers, these are planned that cannot run rich benefits but

provide a benefit to these people. there are millions of people covered by those plans. needless to say, there is an obligation to those people. the state has not been honest with people they sold bonds to with the just how much was on the obligations and how they are coming due. in the case of new jersey, and they were misleading the public that they were funding those obligations, falling further and further in debt. the sec has brought action here. the sec brought similar action against the city of san diego which had a similar problem. i think there are other states

and i suspect other cases coming down the road. this is a big, multi-trillion dollar problem for the states as well as for the cities and municipalities. we saw with san diego, it is also a problem with many cities, causes huge problems for the muni market, some investors need to pay attention to. >> lynn turner, we appreciate your time. that does it for today's "washington journal." tomorrow, we will continue to look at our financial series, what we can do to prevent a future financial crisis. we want to take you now to our live coverage at the national

center of addition, -- addiction report. they have a new report on attitudes toward substance abuse. guest: [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> good morning, this 15th annual back-to-school survey continues the need effort of the national center of addiction and substance abuse at columbus university, properly -- popularly known as casa, to talk to teenagers and parents. through the survey, we have an

benefactors that increase or decrease the likelihood that a teenager will the blues -- abuse substances, smoke, drink, or use illegal drugs. armed with this knowledge, we believe parents, teachers, clergy, coaches come other responsible adults, are better able to help our children grow up and drug free. we regard this as a work in progress as we try each year to identify those situations and characteristics that influences that they willaens drink, smoke, were abused drugs. over the past 16 years, we have surveyed thousands of american teenagers and their parents. we have learned how teenagers' attitudes and how their parents attitude impacts teenager behavior.

we ask questions such as, if you wanted to buy marijuana right now, how fast could you get it? how many parties that you go to it is alcohol or drugs available? through those questions, we gain insight into american teenager culture. perhaps the most important finding from surveying so many teenagers and from other researchers at casa is this, a child that reaches age 21 without smoking, abusing all the hall, without using illegal drugs, is virtually certain to be home free for the rest of his or her life. and for better or worse, no one has greater power to influence a teen-ager's decision whether to drink or use drugs, to choose not to use, and then that teenagers' parents. this year, we conducted two

nationally representative surveys. the first time, we did one over the internet. as we have done in past years, we did the other one by telephone bill to create the internet service temple has -- was generated using address- based gambling which is likely to pick up individuals in cell phone-only household. in the telephone survey, we asked trend questions. questions that we have used to measure trends over time. for the first time this year, we asked teens about gangs in their schools. we sought to assess the relationship of gangs in schools to the presence of drugs in schools, and the use of drugs by students in schools where there are gangs. the results are deeply troubling. our nation's public schools are

riddled with gangs and drugs, and schools where there are gangs are likely to be schools where there are drugs. six out of 10 schools with gangs or drug-infected, meaning drugs are kept, use, or sold on school grounds, compared to three of of 10 without gangs. 27% of public-school students 12 to 17-year-old public students report that their school this drug and gang-infected. that means 5.7 students -- 5.7 million public students go to school everyday where they face the menace of gangs and where drugs are sold and available. the consequences are enough to terror find any parent with a

child in a drug-infected school. if you want to know one of the reasons why so many public schools are failing our children, consider the difference our survey reveals between public schools and private and religious schools. 46% of teenagers in public schools say there are gangs at their schools, compared to only 2% of teenagers at private and religious schools. think about this. compared to private and religious schools, 23 times likelier to be gang-infected. the telephone survey reveals that drug-free school gap between public and private and religious schools is up sharply from its narrowest point in a decade. in the 2001 casa back-to-school survey, 62% of public-school

students, 79% of private and religious school students said they attended drug-free schools. in this year's survey, 43% of public-school students and 70% of private and religious school students say they attend drug- free schools. why the drug-free school caps from 17.235? -- 17 points to 35? sending a 12 year old to 17- year-old to a school with drugs and hoping that he or she will not smoke, drink, or use drugs, it is like handing the child a chichi before the test in asking them not to use it. or serving cheeseburgers and fries and ice cream and asking

them not to take a bite. [inaudible] i assure you, adults face the most disturbing finding about our criminal fines is that the percent of children in drug- affected mills schools, usually kids 12, 13 or younger is up sharply, placing our youngest teenagers and pre-teenagers in

the environment where drinking and drugs are common is the chance and count abuse. since we know the earlier town begins to smoke, drink, use drugs, the likelihood of that child to become addicted to ruin their lives. the steady increase in the number of 12-year-old to 17- year-old attending these types of schools is a tragedy. state require parents to send their children to school. in some states, this is a crime if parents fail to do so. these states have an obligation to provide safe and drug-free schools. let us think about this. if there is asbestos in a school, parents raise hell, will not send their child there until the dust is removed from the ceilings and walls, but they are

sending them to drug and gang- infested school day after day. the parents have got to raise hell about this problem and tell schools that we are not going to subject our kids to bed until you get it squared away. the combination of drugs and gangs in school is a malignant cancer that must be in the eliminated if we are to improve public education in our nation. requiring parents to send 12 to 17-year-old kids to school is an outrageous use of government power and a mandate that no parent should be forced to respect. when parents find their child is attending a drug-infected school with gangs in it, the parents have a right to demand school authorities get their act together before requiring those parents to send their child there. for ther, we've begun

first time, an effort to measure the impact of the bond between parent and teenagers, what we call family ties, related to substance abuse. we found teenagers with strong family ties are far less likely to smoke, drink, used marijuana, far less likely to move within circles of friends who smoke, drink, the abuse illegal and prescription drugs. before i go to the power point, i want to express appreciation to steve widener, the president of the company administering the survey, especially for his insightful work in looking at all the data. on casa staff, emily feinstein, steve widener, working to analyze the data. let me go to the power point and then i will take your questions.

this is our 15th survey. we have a group of survey advisors, an extraordinary experts in the field of surveying, and we have them review our survey and results every year as well as the report the right. -- we write. the telephone survey was the trends survey, about 1000 teenagers. the knowledge network survey was the internet 1, cellphone-only homes. that was half again about 1000 teenagers. and then about 5000 parents of those teenagers. every year, we ask them what their top concern is. they can say whatever they want. every year, and drugs is their number-one concern.

close behind is social pressures, including the pressure to trim, used drugs. drugs is clearly the number one problem for our teenagers. gangs and drugs in schools. what happened here was come every year before we do the survey, we do focus groups. we want to be sure the question we ask are the questions the kids will hear. wang which can change quickly. in the focus group in nashville, kids raised questions and discussion about drugs. i was in providence, rhode island doing a presentation on my book on how to raise a drug- free kid before a group of several hundred public school parents, and the decaying question was repeatedly asked. this year, we decide to ask questions about it for the first

time. here is what we found. about half of high school students, one-third of middle school students say that there are gangs in their schools. as you can see, schools that have gangs are twice as likely to be drug-infected, schools where drugs are used, kept, sold, compared to schools with no drugs. this is the difference between public and private schools. 46% of public-school kids say there are gangs in their schools. 2% of private and religious school, combined we do not have enough to break them out separately. 47% of public-school kids say there are drugs in their schools compared to only 6% of private and religious school.

this is one of the headlines in the survey. more than a quarter of public school students, 5.7 million, attend schools that are drug and gang infected. here is the impact of that. the blue bar, drug-free schools with no gangs. yellow is drug infected but no gangs. rennet is drug infected with gangs. as you can see with respect to usage, it is much higher in schools where there are both gangs and drugs. for example, five times likelier to smoke pot, 10 times likely to smoke, three or four times more likely to drink alcohol. their ability to get marijuana. every year, we ask their ability

how fast they can get marijuana. in the past, we have been asking how fast can you buy them? now we are asking, how fast can you get them? as you can see, in a school with gangs and drugs, 42% within one day, 16% within one hour or less. what are the kids like? what are their friends like? look at this. in a school with gangs and drugs, someone is likely to have a friend to drink regularly, smoke pot, abuse progression -- prescription drugs, and to have a classmate to use drugs like cocaine, heroin, math, ecstasy. 5 tons likely -- five times more

likely than in a drug and gang infected school. this is the trend i mentioned. we had that blood in 2002, but basically, the spread has been roughly the same from 2003 through 2009. then we have the sharp difference where only 43% of public-school students said their school was drug-free. 70% of private and parochial school students and their school was drug-free. this is a middle school mess, but it is also affecting 12, 13- year-old children and younger. although the survey goes down to just 12, 13-year-old. i should mention here -- i should have mentioned in earlier. whenever you are asking

questions to kids about prescribed conduct, you or gore to get lower levels of involvement than you otherwise would. research shows that consistently. so all levels of prescribed conduct will be lower than the reality. secondly, because we get federal money, we have to follow them, we have to get parental consent before we question kids. that will also tend to get your kids who are likely to be less involved. here, there is a significant increase of 232% in 2010, middle schools where drugs are kept, used, sold. again, what is the impact on these teenagers? look up the difference. the most dramatic is with

respect to marijuana. not 112, 13-year-old survey in a drug-free school said he smoked marijuana, compared to 10% of the 12, 13-year-old survey where drugs were kept, used, or sold. and their ability to get alcohol. 40% can get all the hall in -- alcohol and one day or less. 20% in one hour or less. marijuana, remarkable. a quarter of our 12, 13-year-old where they are available can die within -- buy within one hour. 2%. you can see the big difference

in the friends that these kids have. a much larger group of friends who use marijuana, at a much larger group of friends in these middle schools who drink regularly. a much larger group who abuse prescription drugs. in these schools, incidentally, from other research, prescription drugs most likely to be abused our aderol and d ridalyn. almost four out of 10 of them in drug infected schools have friends and classmates who use drugs like cocaine, heroin. i mention family ties. we tried this year to identify

factors that give a measure of a bond, strength of a family. here, we took several characteristics. we asked the kids what is your relationship with your mother, your relationship with your father, we asked them if their parents argued in front of them frequently, how often, if they thought their parents were good at listening to them, if they went to religious services with their parents at least once a month, if they had dinner five nights a week. we divided them up one-third, one-third, one-third. strong, average, weak ties. kids with strong family ties, the blue bar, average is yellow, week, the red part.

again, the importance of family to raising drug-free kids and reducing the risk that they will smoke, drink, or use drugs. again, the impact on those kids and the kinds of friends that they will have, who they will be going around with. again, much less likely to have friends who drink regularly or smoke pot then kids with week family ties. -- weak family ties. we have always said to parents, know your teenager's friends. this gave us some insight into how important that is. we asked kids, where do you get marijuana? three-fourths of them get it from a friend for a classmate.

they are not going to some awful neighborhood or some guy in a trench coat or a dealer to buy their marijuana. they are buying it from someone sitting next to them in their classroom or during recess. and then one-third of those teenagers said that there person knows the person applying the marijuana for them. parent may not know that they are supplying the marijuana, but they know that friend of their son. it is important of parents to know them. also, is a friend uses marijuana -- if a friend uses

marijuana, the red bar, the percentage of kids who themselves are likely to do drugs, smoke pot, tobacco, you can see much higher. and again, if they have friends that are drinking, the increased likelihood that they themselves will be drinking, smoking, smoking pot. the point is, parents should get to know their friends, have them over, get to know them. if they think a lot of their friends are held their drinking every weekend, or smoking pot, they better start worrying about whether their own child is smoking pot or drinking every weekend. there were some other notable findings. we asked parents -- in juan

island, new york, and along the connecticut coast, more communities are passing laws that make it a crime for parents to serve alcohol to underage kids, other than in their own home. we get lots of questions from parents, what do i do? my 16-year-old wants to go to a party where they are serving all gaul. not let them go, do i call? we asked them, would you support something in your community which would make it a crime for parents to serve under age kids? nine out of 10 parents said, yes, they would. as many of you know, certainly, parents in westchester and long island have gone to jail for doing this. it also reflects the tremendous

concern parents have with drinking among their schools. alcohol is by far and away the most abused drugs by kids. this is the point about high schools. we now have a steady rise in the percentage of kids that say drugs are used, kept, or sold at their school, now for a five- year period. for those that can get marijuana, how do you get in touch with the person you are going to buy it from? text messaging, cell phones have come to the mayor won a world. face-to-face. 14% on social networking sites. that is basically the way kids get it. we asked teenagers whether the

teenager is a note that drink, do drugs, are likely to engage in sex. three-quarters said yes. this was quite interesting. years ago, we learn from our surveys that kids whose first smoke was a joint, were much less likely to have a second one than those kids who were smoking and nicotine cigarettes. we noticed kid to have never tried tobacco, only 5% had tried marijuana, compared to 61% of kids who have tried tobacco. this has been consistent every year. kids to go to religious services more frequently are much likely

to smoke and use drugs. we're talking about teenagers 15 and 16 years old. they are not likely to be going to church without their parents, so does suggest some parental engagement. family dinners. again, we discovered in 1996, that family dinners were a protective factor. this has been consistent now for many years. more often kids have dinner with their parent the less likely they are to smoke, drink, or use drugs. that is why we created something called family day. it is a day to have dinner with your children. this is the 10th anniversary. it is always the fourth monday in a september. we expect governors to proclaim this across the nation. it is like the great american

smokeout. it is a reminder. this is an important time and a convenient way to communicate, listen to your kids, and get to know them. i am happy to take questions. >> [inaudible] most of the kids are going to get marijuana from people they know, obviously. somebody has to manufacture this stuff and make the initial contact. not necessarily related to the survey, from your research as you have done in the past, this is being manufactured locally, by the stereotype drug dealer that we see in south america? >> the federal government points out there is a lot of marijuana being grown in the country and there is a lot coming into the

country. the point is, the marijuana that is now being grown, it is much stronger, 10 times stronger than the marijuana in the 1970's. it is a much different drug. the federal data shows that we have more teenagers in treatment for marijuana than for any other substance. i should note, probably any kid in treatment for mayor won independence is all flow abuse and alcohol. -- marijuana dependence is probably abusing alcohol. >> but i noticed you mentioned a second focus group consisting of high-school graduates 18-20-

year olds. what more have you learned about this second focus group? particularly those going to college or university? how would you compare drug and alcohol usage and the views currently with the recent past, how do the older teenagers compare with their younger student counterparts? >> the questions were about their activity in high school. in terms what is happening in college, we had a report comes out two years ago on substance abuse on american college campuses, which lays out in great detail the activities on college campuses. >> do you expect information from two years ago would be equivalent to today? >> i do not think there have been many changes. you are talking about colleges?

take a look at that report. i think it is probably pretty solid. it is on the website. >> would you equate toward is, sort is, education groups, with gangs? >> i have never been in a sword or fraternity or social group. i only went to a just what college. -- jesuit college. any other questions? ok, thank you all very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

host: >> the congressional budget office update its budget today as well as the of love for the rest of the year. live coverage starting at 11:00 eastern on c-span2. coming up at 11:30, a house vote on energy and the environment. a look at how much oil remained in the gulf of mexico and whether fishing is safe. at 1:00 eastern, mitch landrieu talks about how new orleans has changed since the five year since hurricane katrina. coverage on c-span2. >> "book tv" continues tonight

with a look at former presidential cabinet members. james man talks about the core members of george bush's war cabinet. henry kissinger in the events that shaped his views on foreign policy. keith mcfarlane profiles the life and career of lewis and johnson. prime time all this week on c- span2. >> until that hearing at 11:30 eastern on capitol hill, a look at the annual report from americans for tax reform on the cost of government. journal" continues. host: grover norquist is president of americans for tax reform, to talk about the cost of government. you are out with your annual report. guest: cost of government day is

different from tax freedom day. tax freedom day are all the taxes you pay, divided by how big the economy is and taxes are one quarter or one-third of the economy. cost of government day goes beyond that and it builds on what milton friedman pointed out, which is the true cost of government is not just taxes, it is total government spending. we ought to have total federal, state, local spending, including both taxes and deficit spending, accumulated debt, and the regulatory burden, so when the government says you have to do this and you have to do that, it may be a good idea, but it is not free. so, what is the cost? what we have this year is we are working until today, august 19, to pay the total cost of government spending, plus regulation. back three years ago that was a month earlier. so when people sort of know there has been this explosion of spending on stimulus spending and bailout and the trillion

dollars that congress added to the discretionary spending over the next decade, we sort of hear these things but when you look at it on paper, americans last year and this year are working in months more of their salary and their earnings going to pay the cost of government than in previous years. it has gone up and down in the past. it has sort of bounced around in a fairly steady state. the last couple of years, it will explode. not just a sense you get of the slow economy in the headlines but in the numbers. host: you break it down. 52 days work to pay for state and local spending. americans have to work 104 days more to pay for federal spending. 26 days work to pay for state and local regulations. 48 days worked to pay for federal regulations. what is the solution? guest: the solution is to, one, stop digging. one of the challenges is there has been this explosion of spending.

the good news is we can stop -- there was money for tarp, the bailout. what has not been spent, pay down the debt and stop the program. do not rolled over, did not continue it. there have been several efforts to reinvigorate tarp and to begin. the stimulus spending from $800 billion that congress threw together and then without letting people read the bill, they passed it. we have seen up whole bunch of stories about some of the ridiculous spending. it certainly has not helped. the economy has worsened as that spending has taken place. what ever is left unspent out of the stimulus package, don't spending, and don't do what the democrats just did a week or so ago is just have many stimulus spending -- they call the stimulus, but they make the economy worse, not better. the theory behind the stimulus spending -- people say, what is the theory, why do they say the government spends a dollar and it will make us richer or create

jobs? the theory is as follows. if you take a dollar from somebody who earned it, i the pretax is, physically taking it, or through debt, borrowing it, and give it to someone else who is politically connected, that somehow we are all richer. imagine if president obama and harry reid and into pelosi went to one side of a lake and each with a bucket into the lake and walked around to the other side of the lake and poured it back into the lake and say we are stimulating the lead to great depths and we would do it 800 billion times and at the end of the process, obama, nancy -- harry reid, nancy pelosi, they claim there will be more water in the lake them before the process. host: the solution is to stop spending. do you consider raising taxes? guest: no, because the challenge is that taxes are what politicians do when they don't have the guts or the ability to govern. host: many economists say if the crunch the numbers, you cannot just cut spending alone in order

to tackle the deficit. the $1.30 trillion. that you have to raise taxes at the same time. guest: those economists are making certain assumptions, that the democratic congress will not go along with it or the president will veto it. that they want to continue certain spending. of course, if congress decides not to spend money, they can decide to do that. we have examples not just from the past, where we have actually reduced spending at various times. the first year of the reagan administration. the first year of the republican congress. but we also have it in the states with chris christie, who is a hero for taxpayers in new jersey. not an easy state. it is not a state -- democratic house, democratic assembly and senate in new jersey. and he stared down and tackled the teachers' union and the government employees union and wrestled down and bought the budget into balance without a single tax increase. the governor of virginia did the same thing. we see it at the state level

where they have to balance the budget each year, that you can in fact rain in spending. talking about a series of recommendations -- i testified before that commission that is supposed to recommend both tax increases and spending restraint. i would like to make the case -- if you put tax increases on the table -- we have seen it at the national level and the state level, if a politician says i am up for some tax increase and budget restraint, we did this with president bush 41 in 1990. remember, they went out to andrews air force base. they came back promising tax increases and spending restraint. we got the tax increases. those were very real. over the next 10 years after that, the next five for 10 years after bush's budget deal, spending went up more than projected, not just higher, but higher than projected. they took his tax money and spend it.

host: proponents of raising taxes -- here is a piece that points to clinton administration in that he not only raise taxes but he did, along with republican help because republicans were in control then, did cut back on spending. said clinton raised taxes in 1992 and a ship in a period of extraordinary robust growth and which cut taxes massively and 2001 and that meager growth in return. guest: i really would love to read this stuff on foreign policy because he seems so wise when it talks about countries i am not familiar with. in this case, our friend, mr. clinton, was not present in 1992 so he certainly did not cut taxes. he was president in 1993 and 1994 and he did not raise taxes. he cut taxes in '93. if you look at both the stock market, unemployment, and the measure of the economy and the deficit, in the two years when the democrats had the house and senate and clinton was

president, things did not get any better. there is an inflection point -- we have a chart on our web site -- on the day the republicans captured the house and senate in 1994 and all of a sudden the market and the businessmen and people who hired people saying, they are not going to -- there will not be another tax increase, they will rein in spending and they will not nationalize health care. we need to get away from looking at presidencies. there were three periods in the bush presidency. first two years the democrats controlled the senate were periods without spending restraint and a week tax cut. middle four years when the republicans at the house and senate and presidency, with 52, 50, then 55 senators, then you had strong economic growth and pro-growth tax reduction. the last two years when the democrats took the house and senate, spending started going back up even more and there were no tax cuts. host: let us take a closer look

at the bush tax cuts. last week there was a piece in the "the new york times" quoting a report circulated by the congressional joint taxation committee in congress and said that if you extend the tax cuts for individuals with income less than 200,000 and couples with less than two runs in the $50,000, that is what president obama wants to do. decouples was -- with less than $250,000. if you have an income of $500,000 to 1 million, the average tax cut under president obama's plan will be 6700, compared to tax cut of 17,500 it the bush tax cuts are not allowed to expire -- if they are going to extend.

zakaria be a foreign-policy expert but does cite the congressional budget office and he says by far these tax cuts were the largest of any expense under the bush administration, adding $2.30 trillion over 10 years. according to the congressional budget office nearly half of the cost of all legislation and -- enacted from 2001 until about the seven could be attributed to the tax cuts. could we go for it -- do we afford to go forward? guest: we need to continue to lower rates. what obama, harry reid, pelosi are doing are proposing one of the largest tax increases starting in january 1, 2011, in american history. they say they don't want to hit everybody, they will only hit rich people. remember, that is what they said when they ran for office. in days into the obama presidency with harry reid and to pelosi in the house, the first thing they did was -- tax rich people?

the past taxes on cigarettes. who smokes? the only person in the country who earns more than two runs and $50,000 a year and smoke cigarettes, is named barack obama. cigarettes are a regressive tax and that is the first thing they did it is taxable in the -- first thing they did it. taxing tanning salons. 10% tax on that. 20,000 tanning salons. i was not aware of this until the government decided to tax this. most of them owned by women. a tremendous blow to small businesses. so this idea that when you tax the company, somehow middle income people don't pay the taxes, is silly. what do you think when you raise taxes on general motors, who pays the taxes? people will buy general motors cars. the only way general motors has money. the idea that you can pretend you can tax some people and not others really is not the case. by the way, if the democrats

wanted to extend and maintain the lower rates, they could have done it in 2007 when they have house and senate, could have done it in 2008, could have done it last year when have house, senate, presidency or any time this year. they have not done it all that time. do you really believe they intend to? host: republican line. florida. you are first. caller: i am a republican. i voted for every presidential candidate that ran on a republican ticket since eisenhower but before we attack the democrats we ought to admit where we have fallen short. we should condemn the bush tax cut for the rich that ran up our deficit, condemn the part d medical care which he did not pay for, the iraq war which was not paid for and bush inherited

a balanced budget from clinton. host: we believe it there. let us talk about spending on those fronts. health care and iraq and afghanistan war efforts. should spending be scaled back in those areas? guest: look, let me address is bigger point first which is, i think all republicans and conservatives and people who preferred bush to gore or the massachusetts senator ran into a thousand four -- how quickly we forget -- john kerry, i am sorry. need to step back and say, bush spent too much money as president. the republican congress for the four years in between and the democratic congress's early on and later in the administration spent too much money and the bush administration never had on their list, spend less.

they had a whole bunch of things they wanted to do. spending less money was not one of them. host: it goes back to the previous point, why should americans believe democrats are going to lower taxes for the lower paying americans, why should americans believe republicans if they are put back in charge will control spending question on guest: that is a very important question and the key question. and i am truthfully optimistic on this for the following reason. one is there is going to be another contract with america by some similar name. and that is what gave the republicans an exoskeleton, a support system for the first two years when newt gingrich became speaker in 1995 and 1996. it forced the republicans to do exactly what they said they were going to do and that gave tremendous spending constraint. what he forgets is when bill clinton raised taxes, he also planned to spend so much that you were going to have $200 billion a year deficits over the next 10 years under current's

plan. what changed was not the higher revenue. what changed was the decision by the republicans not to spend as much as bill clinton and the democrats had planned to spend. that was the big shift. also republicans cut the capital gains tax which tremendously increased jobs, and limit, the stock market and capital gains taxes because people realize -- more revenue came in at a lower rate. there were two tax cuts during the republicans in congress. one was in 2001, which was marginal tax rates, a little bit cut, not very effective for making the economy better. the second one in 2003 cut the capital gains tax from 20% down to 15%, very helpful for job creation and investment. the other was taking the 35% cut of the tax to dividends down to 15%, had a lot more dividends paid to retired people and help people's pension plans become better funded and actually gain revenue for the government because of the stronger growth.

those were important shifts in the right direction. what happened in the last two years with the tea party movement was such a strong reaction to the overspending by the democrats that there came to be in the united states and anti-spending coalition. and i have been working on the tax issue for 30 years. and i have always agreed with milton friedman that, yes, taxes are important. spending is really what you have to wrestle to the ground and taxes are a key component of that. but spending is the big picture. .

because of the massive spending increases all coming together so quickly for the in 2009, the bailout, bills being written in the middle of the night where nobody gets to read them. it really shocked people in the tea party movement. several thousands of people around the nation who are scared about what is happening in the economy. >> you have everybody there because on the key issue, they want to be left alone. taxpayers, leave my property alone. gun owners. homeschoolers, leave my family alone. all the fairious communities of

faith. catholics, muslims, mormons. just leave me alone. they are not asking for baptist stafrps. with bush, you would say lower your taxes and spend too much, i'm going to leave your faith and family alone and spend too much, everyone sat there including me saying thank you for the big issue and mumble, mumble, you spend too much. there is a new group. we are here because where he don't want to you to spend too much.

host: should the leaders from the past that spend too much not be the leaders of this modern republican party? guest: i don't think you can blame bainer for any of this. host: the general point, it seems the same leadership there before is still leading the party. he saw a new willingness.

we are in a row of buildings saying spend less but on the issue i'm here to talk about, spend more. spend less, that's the tea party movement and luckily, the i coming elected republicans that changes leadership. particularly once he got elected. jo going to the democratic line. caller: this guy you have on tv this morning. he is seriously ridiculous. how can he with a straight face say the stimulus plan did not work.

ask some of those people that have jobs, some of the projects being done. >> what is the unemployment number and what is it now? caller: those figures can be manipulated but the people that didn't have a job and went back to work. they are back to work. what he missed is what happened first, they took $1 out of the pockets of somebody that earned it by borrowing it or taking it out of taxes. they want the tv cameras to

ignore the fact if they had not, that person's mortgage, their house would be worth less. down the road, they might have lost their job. in order to continue the economy going. guest: it is silly. i understand there are people who believe in that. i'm not opposed to witch craft, i just don't think it exists. if the economy turns around, i'll be wrong. in the last 200 years it hasn't worked. taking money from the economy

and giving it to people that collect it is bad for the economy. host: back to the lines. thank god for c-span and very balanced analysts. i recommend you have him back. two questions, have you issued a report and is it published. seems to be the 800 pound gorilla in the room. there's a known use or loose it directive. there's really no insensitive to cut spending. ask more, request more. it's a gain. two things. one, we have published the

studies. it's available on line at our website atr.org. we have copies we have been sending out but also available at our website. there are certain things congress does. i have a series of recommendations made to the commission studying this. we could require any piece of legislation that spends money go on line. if that would have happened, they wouldn't have voted on it without people being able to read it. within five days, people were

picking shards of glass out of it. you have 300 million americans looking at it. the other idea is that we do what governor perry of texas has done, which is to take every check that the government writes and put it on line. you can see all the expense reports the wording on read contracts. this could have been done less expensively. the more transparent si we have, the better decisions the government can make. people are looking to stop stupid. you should term limit

appropriate raters the budget committee can only serve for six years. appropriate raters serve for life. they come in and say i'm a spender for my whole career. i think we need to say six years on the appropriate operations committee. the oernl thought is to residence respect the bryd committee. reducing unnecessary expenditures.

there is an appropriate operation committee whose job is to spend on everything that moves. to would empower congressmen to spend for careers. >> the focus is on alaska where the attitude tends to be on the government, leave me alone. one person quoted in here says i'll give the government credit for every dollar they give me in taxes, they give us back $5.76.

>> i've asked -- i would urge politicians wanting to vote sgens those federal to state bail outs. alaska is a difficult case. the government forbids them from using their own land to drill for oil. if you allow them to drill, they could fund themselves and they wouldn't be in washington. i always felt the most important thing is the full out there. there is nothing out there. the idea that it is some sort of forest area. there's billions of dollars of oil there. let them drill for oil, they could take care of themselves. when you forbid that, they drill

in the federal budget. >> do you support simplifying the tax code and ending simple engineering veea taxes? >> yes, i think we should move to a single rate tax. i'm from massachusetts where we have bi constitution. a flat tax. can you not have a graduated income tax. five times, we've had debates where they said let's go to a graduated income tax. there has been conference on talk radio and newspapers where people say, you know year one, they may raise taxes on the kennedies and others. year two, they'll come for me.

we should move to having everyone tax at this rate. letting you know other people are ro at the same situation. i don't want other people having moeshl engineering i'd rather say one rate, simple as possible and as low as possible. >> going to baltimore on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i wanted to say thank goodness for c-span and the freedom of speech. first of all, i haven't called in three months, so please don't cut me off. give me my 2:00 to speak. this guy here has taken 20 minutes to speak some gib rish.

let me start off by saying, you say obama taxes cigarettes or the tanning salon. >> the thing is, cigarettes kills you anyway, the white corporate fat cats, they don't care if you die or not. >> accept the president said he wouldn't do it whether he got elected, so. host: going to mike on the republican line. good morning. caller: i have a concern that really this whole discussion around the taxes and who it a fafkts both sides of congress

have for years talked about the fiscal responsibility they say they are cutting taxes. the problem is, the deficit has never gone down. congress's idea is don't just stand there, spend. i think there's a trust factor that the public generally doesn't have with either party. as long as the deficit doesn't run up >> secondly, the cutoff at

$250,000 and $200,000. with the projections. they are saying they are going to cut some of the things you are going to write off. they don't realize that they'll be hit hardest in this. host: are you talking charity ability don't nations? caller: not just charity but mortgage interest. there's several things they have talked about removing from being write offs. that moves the bar. that middle income is something too. i'm right on that with me and my wife on that $250. if you tick away those write offs, i am hit like i'm the top

of the country. >> today, coming out with the latest report. tomorrow, the cbo director will be our guest. go ahead. guest: sure. there's been a big difference between them. the challenge is to get some of the changes on the roll. the argument that this is no difference between the two parties, something one could talk about during the bush years, spending drifted up more

than i am happy with. the jump in the last two years is night and day. that's why independence have shifted so dramatically. independence have looked around. i don't see a difference through the parties. what i'm most happy with is the republicans they are all running on the basis of i got the message and we'll tackle spending. republican primary owners have been firing appropriate raters used to come back and say look at all the cool stuff i stole from you and gave to the other people around. don't you like me?

host: on the republican line. go ahead. caller: whether you are democrat or republican. i'd like to know if we are the taxpayers of this country, would it be better to spend on us than on other parts of the world. look at what happened in the wars. i hope our soldiers can come home from afghanistan.

where is the best place to spend our money? host: the best is when we say to the government, you can have as much as we need and no more. you don't want to give the government your money and say, i hope they spend it wisely and then complain that they've spent it occupying off afghanistan. you make these decisions. you can always make a better decision about how to spend your resources for your family. people don't spend other people's money wisely. never have, never will. >> the "washington post" this morning calling on george w. bush to weigh in on this debate about developing this mosque close to ground zero.

would you like to hear from the former president? guest: not particularly. he has spoken out in the past saying, look, we have a conflict with al qaeda, not world religion. arguing the other team's brief on that. right now, it's important, we are about to have an election in november. the country is unhappy and scared by the amount that they are doing. everything that distracts from that issue especially since we have freedom of religion, no

politician mouthing off about any group having a church somewhere. the good thing about a country, they don't have a say in that. in manhattan, it used to be illegal to build synogages. when we got a constitution, that was all in the past under the dutch and british. when it become america, people could build in manhattan. we ought not to go back to the old european way of popular religions get to build and unpopular religions don't.

we have a way to go in some places those are very important issues. but for the political side of this. anybody who chases off on shiny things and gets distracted thanks are spending away from citizens. republicans need to remember that they skrued up in 1998 when they were about to win the house seats and they decided to spend the summer talking about lowinski. the republicans lost five seats because they weren't talking

about the economy. they are demonstrating in texas against a temple right now. it is a distraction from a very important election coming up. for republicans, it's particularly foolish. harry reid is stapled to obama's forehead. reid has already shown up and saying i'm not with that crazy person. he has made up imaginary space

between them. when in fact, they are joined at the hip when it comes to spending. it is worst than a crime. it is stupid. it's a focus on monica lewinski in 1998. host: going to the phones. caller: overall, it's refreshing of the tone to reducing the debt.

it could have been worst. is there an estimate of how much would be reduced in just identifying the tax people are paying? if it is simply receiving one plot amount. unemployment and the number has gone up since it passed.

explain to me how it moves it. it gave it to someone who didn't but it didn't make anyone richer. what you are missing is the picture of the guy that just lost his job or didn't get hired. >> name one thing you would like to cut? there are new studies that have come out showing that federal workers are paid significantly more than the private sector. somewhere between $19,000 and $25,000 per person. you don't have to lay anybody off. you don't have to not do

anything you are doing. you could continue all the services, helpful or not. at the state level, they would pay by the year. over time, we can phase that in. for new workers, we have to have pensions and taxes we can pay. the act put in as an explicitly racist piece of legislation because blacks were moving to the north. so they passed a law to require

everybody gets paid the union rate to keep young, unsxishsed black people from work. that increases the cost of the roads the government builds by about a quarter to a third. we could have more roads, better roads those are two examples. >> we'll need a quick question and quick response. >> good morning.

>> can you explain how 1% owns 70% of the wealth. i'd like to know a little bit about who funds you. this corporation or organization comes up all the time, koch. also, they contribute to freedom work who has started the tea party movement. do you have anything to do with koch industries, thank you. jo we have about 100,000 contributors to americans for tax reform. can you reach us at atr.org.

we would be delighted to have support from charles koch. >> you don't? guest: no. we'd love to. . there's a first part to that question that we missed. in the united stateses when everybody was a farmer, we have no limit on your opportunities to do whatever you want to do. some people decide to become priests and make no money at all. others decide to go out and reate thousands of well amth.

you can't earn money without employing people and getting jobs. i'm against people that use the state to kneecap their competors some alternative energy people want to tax others. as long as people don't use the government to kneecap or subsidize themselves, i think people should be free to do whatever they want or be monks and

>> throughout this week, washington journal has been taking a look at the impact of the new regulations. live tomorrow, provisions aimed ending its future crisis. thats here on c- span. coming up today at 1:00 p.m. eastern, them mayor of new orleans, mitch landrieu, will talk about the changes in the five years after a game katrina. clive coverage is on c-span2. former -- >> former washington post staff writer kiron dindane recalls the life of the first female cabinet secretary, frances perkins. then james man talks about the core members of daud -- of the george w. bush for cabinet. and david rafah and keith mcfarland profile the life and career of louis johnson. but tv prime time all this week

on c-span2. >> a live picture from the rayburn house office building on capitol hill well -- where a hearing on a continual efforts to clean of the gulf of mexico oil spill and whether food in the region is safe to eat. tuesday, the university of georgia released their report countering the claim that the saying that made most of the well has been recovered or dispersed. we expect this hearing to get underway shortly. the we will have live coverage of it for you here on c-span. alas, that brigade in iraq is leaving the country -- of the last combat brigade in iraq is leaving that country. we will have more phone calls on the "washington journal" and then we'll get back to this hearing.

inside the newspaper this morning, they have this picture of an army staff sgt holding a sign up saying that data is coming home. the headline on that story, umar -- a state department widened role. that is "the new york times" story about what role the state department will play. here is a graph showing totals for the end of each month of u.s. troops in iraq. october, to about seven, 166,300. -- in 2007. 50,000 today, august 2010. that is "the philadelphia inquirer." and "the new york times" story, a front-page. the state department will assume responsibility for training

iraqi police, largely carried out by contractors.

that is "the new york times" this morning. we want to get your thoughts on the last u.s. combat brigade leaving iraq. terry on the republican line from detroit. caller: i am a very proud american this morning. as a republican, i just want to say, i'd like barack obama because i am proud of the fact that we have a president who keeps his word. he continues to do the things he is doing and working as hard as he is working for america, this is one republican that is going to support him. and i am proud to see him working so hard to keep his word in spite of all of these negative things. i think the republicans ought to try running on their records and stop tearing america down. host: you agree with the president's decision to withdraw troops from iraq?

caller: yes. i think he made that decision during his campaign for president, and it has only been a year and a half he has been in office. i think it would be wise to just step back and take a deep breath and give him some support. because i think we have a great president right now. and i holden continues to do the things that makes america proud. host: we will go to scott on independent line in connecticut. your thoughts. caller: it is encouraging to hear a republican with that perspective, as an independent and obama supporter, that is encouraging. but war goes beyond politics. there was an expression after world war ii that says the advent of the nuclear age, with the atomic bomb, war itself has become the enemy and in the

current environment, you know, talk about a war on terror, which is really an impossible result look for, you cannot win a war on an idea like that. i think you have to really reevaluate the way that we go about resolving our conflicts. so, i am encouraged and glad that the troops are coming out of iraq, but with that being said, we are still going to have to really decide what we want to be as america and what our role is going to be in the world, and it cannot be the bully, the policeman. we have to look at ourselves as part of a global community. host: let me get your reaction then to the role of the state department will be blank in iraq. "the new york times" story says the department's plan to rely on 6000 to 7000 security factors also expected to form a quick reaction force to rescue civilians in trouble, is a sensitive issue.

it says -- what do you think? caller: you are dealing with now really the corruption of the military industrial complex. that is an issue onto itself you could devote several shows to. and that aspect of it is that maybe at its heart, we want to believe we are doing the right thing by having people over there, but i personally did not think it is the way to go. i am a john lennon fan, i believe that peace is the right approach. i think we've got to clean up our own house and the way we are throwing money around that

problem is thinking that is going to solve it, and we are really just hurting our future. we have to reevaluate our entire position in terms of where we want to be in a global context as part of a community and not the leader of the world. host: scott, talking about the next u.s. combat brigade leaving a record 50,000 troops will remain. the timeline of u.s. action in iraq. october, 2002, the war is authorized. march 19, 2003, invasion begins. april 9, 2003, iraq regime of saddam hussein collapses. it december 14, 2003, saddam hussein is captured. it goes on to say april, 2004, of rising -- uprising by insurgents. it december, 2006, gold and mosque destroyed. december 6, 2006, the study group issued its findings.

december 30, 2006, saddam hussein is executed. january 10, 2007, president bush announced a 20,000 additional troops. november 2008, iraqi government calls for u.s. withdrawal of 2011. january 2009, u.s. turns over airspace and green zone to iraq. that is the timeline we have put together this morning to talk about your thoughts on this last u.s. combat brigade leaving iraq. we will go back to the phone calls. tommy on the democratic line in the or libya, washington. go ahead. caller: good morning. first off, i am proud of the troops. that is number one did they fought hard and did what they had to do. i am very happy with our present right now. the fact that he has drawn them out, making the iraqi people and government stand up and do what they have to do. that is a good feeling in itself and us as americans should support not only the president but our senators and just make

it happen and that this country grow and prosper and get back on track, especially since the young generation is watching us. it only makes sense. host: we will go to new jersey. kurtz, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment about the phrase combat troops. i have been hearing that and it seems like that has only been used just recently as a phrase. host: why do you think that is? caller: if we are going to leave trip -- 50,000 troops behind, if you are and listed in the service, you are a combat troops. they can move you from a coat and put a rifle in your hand at any time -- they commute -- move you from a cook and put a rifle in your hand. it is not fair to leave them behind as a 50,000 and say we are moving out combat troops. they are all combat troops.

i never heard this phrase years back. that is the only comment i have to say about that. host: we will go to bill on the republican line in indianapolis. caller: yes. this is bill from indianapolis. your first caller that called in this morning -- yes, your first caller, he calls in just about every day. his name is hank one day, independent, jeff, next that, he is a democrat, one day he is a republican. he calls and, that obama, he is such a great man, such a great president. and you guys let him go on and on and on every day. build a commentator is the only one who will call people down from calling in every day. and you guys have a 30-day -- host: i apologize. i did not recognize his voice this morning. i am getting a note from the

producer saying it has been handled. but if that is the case, you are right. we do ask people to wait 30 days. my apologize -- my apologies for not recognizes -- recognizing his voice. with selected, and on the issue? caller: if no, i just got upset. but i watch every morning and i enjoy the program and meet you said around and let the same guy call. host: hawaii, go ahead. caller: i believe the first caller the guy just criticized, whatever, i believe the president is doing a great job -- job. i just love -- lost my folks in florida and i came back to hawaii to help the natives and get the right guy in office. god bless america. host: as we go to the next phone call, here are some of the faces of the fallen of the war in

afghanistan. "the washington post" has two phases -- pages this morning of those who have fallen, this is in afghanistan. dallas, texas. douglas, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i think you are reasonably fair in varying points of view. i don't agree with >> we go to capitol hill now for the affects of the oil on the gulf region and whether the food from the gulf is safe to eat. chairman ed markey is battling this session to order. -- is gaveling this session to order. >> for anyone who has been diagnosed with a life- threatening illness, one of the best words that you can hear is "remission," whether it is

cancer, hiv or some other illness. a battery of common cures can reduce the disease to lower, to perhaps even undetectable levels. yet even in remission, there is often unease that the disease could return and the festering inevitable scientific and metaphysical questions arise, where did it go? could it come back? right now, we are in a similar state in this environmental disaster. after many trials and several false starts, bp finally created a system to cap and silt-cap and seal the well. -- to cap and sealed well. oil has not come from the well in over a month. we are no longer at the bleeding stage. a tourniquet has been applied to the well. and now we are told we may need

to wait for the final procedure, the relief well, and tells of timber. -- until september. so, just like a patient intermission, we have reached a more stable state of health with this bill. to sit well as capped is tantamount to -- to say the well is capped is tantamount to a cure would be false confidence. like a bleeding trauma patients, the old oil and the gold continues posing risks. -- the veiled oil in the gulf continues posing risks. we have to ask the same questions of this disaster that a doctor would of a disease. where did it go, and could it come back? according to the most recent estimates, 4.9 million barrels of oil spewed from bp's well over the course of this 100-day gusher. of that oil, some was captured,

some was dispersed, and some evaporated naturally -- was naturally dispersed. and yet, 1.3 million barrels still remain unaccounted for in the waters and marshes of the gulf. and about five times -- an amount of five times larger than was built in the entire exxon valdez disaster. just as we are worried about road weapons sold on the black market -- rogue weapons sold on the black market, we must be vigilant about rogue oil harming the public, putting a black mark on gold seafood or golf tourism -- gulf seafood or gulf tourism. just a few weeks ago fda told me that they had determined that

dispersants' had a low potential to accumulate in seafood and do not pose a significant public health risk through human consumption. while this news is welcome, it addresses only the issue of shock turned toxicity. the fda knows little about the long-term impact that these compounds will have on marine life. nor do they know how the presence of oil and dispersants' may influence the concentration of other toxic compounds in seafood species. we have yet to see the full picture of hazards posed by this bill. the work done -- posed by this bill. the work done by noah and epa will be critical in ensuring the shellfish is safe to read for years to come.

where do we go from here? where should monitoring and cleanup efforts be focused in this new chapter of recovery and restoration. are the clouds of oil suspended below the ocean's surface still a concern. what about the plumes of methane gas. where have these plumes gone and will microbe's consuming methane use of oxygen in the water, potentially exist -- potentially asphyxiating areas of the gulf? what impact will be oil and chemical dispersant have on marine life in the gulf and on golf seafood -- seafood supply in the years ahead -- on gulf seafood supply in the years ahead? is the seafood safe to eat today? will it be safe to eat in the future? american families want the only oil in their seafood to be cooking oil.

ending bp's gusher in the gulf does not by itself cure the harm that has been done. the treatment of the region from this disaster has only just begun. to have a successful continued response to this spill, we need to do three things going forward. one, monitor the health of the waters, wetlands, wildlife, and people of the gulf. two, maintain the pressure on bp and others to continue the recovery and restoration process. and 3, muster the attention of our entire country on solving the environmental and economic challenges from our continued dependence on oil, especially foreign oil. we have three distinguished groups of witnesses appearing before us today.

we appreciate the fact that is the middle of the summer. we know that many people have gone away. however, the oil has not gone away. and it is important for the gulf of mexico residents to know that the attention on this issue has not gone away. that is why we are having this hearing today. our firstturn to witness. dr. bill lehr, a senior research scientist in noa. he has been active in the spill response to research for more than 15 years. whenever you're comfortable, please begin. >> thank you, chairman markey and members of the subcommittee

for this -- >> can you turn on -- >> it should be on. thank you for the opportunity to testify before you about the atmospheric administration's role in this response. i would like to talk about noa's role in this reason terrible event in the gulf of mexico. the scientific experts have been involved since the first day. >> could you lower your microphone? >> i'm so loud that most people don't put me on the microphone. support has included daily trajectories of the spilled

oil, and we have performed real time operations to of verify the spill and movement. in addition, noaa has coordinated with the federal and state code trusties and responsible parties to conduct natural resource damage assessment, which quantifies the total restoration projects and compensate the public for their lives -- losses. we have also participated in a number of interagency expert teams, which include the technical teams that look at the size of this bill that we referred to. we're also working with the coast guard and the national

institutes of technology and other experts to estimate for response purposes the fate of the spilled oil. there has been a lot of discussion on this. let me get into a little detail on it. basically, according to what our experts were able to determine, the oil that was spilled could be divided into four basic categories. about one-quarter of it was either recover directly, burned, or scanned on the surface. another one-quarter either evaporated or dissolved into the water column. another quarter, as you mentioned before, several times the size of exxon valdez remains out there. and another quarter was dispersed into the water column. part of that was through natural dispersion. other was through the use of dispersants.

dispersants on the deep water rise in spill was only used it where oil was present on the surface or at the sea floor. a total of 1 million gallons of dispersants were used. the effect of the dispersants are being monitored by noaa. there are over 2000 water samples that have been collected in the deep waters of the gulf. as was a analyzing for oil, they have also analyzed the dispersants' -- the components of the dispersants and obiwan the sample was -- and only one sample was detected near the well head. my colleagues from the epa can discuss what was collected near the shoreline. noaa prohibited recreational and commercial fishing in certain

areas because of the spill. now that the wellhead is capped and new oil is no longer falling into the gulf, scientists are going back into the spill area and taking seafood samples to determine which areas are safe for fishing and which areas are only open after the seafood passes rigorous chemical testing. seafood outside of the inclose there has passed sensory testing for contamination. no one safe levels of contamination of the seafood has been found -- no unsafe levels of contamination of the siege would have been found. it need to be -- of the seafood have been found. it needs of the obligations of the fda. -- it meets the obligations of the fda.

thank you for allowing me to justify today and i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you very much. our next witness is mr. donald kraemer, the deputy director of office of food safety at the u.s. food and drug administration where he is responsible for the administration of the fda's seafood policy. he has been with the fda since 1977. you may proceed, mr. kraemer. >> good afternoon. >> again, if you could move the microphone in a little bit closer. >> good afternoon, chairman markey and members of the subcommittee. i am donald kraemer, acting director of the safety of applied nutrition at the fda. with me is adviser to the chief

scientist at the fda. >> could you move the microphone a little closer? thank you. >> we appreciate the opportunity to discuss the of the's role in -- of the fda's role in ensuring the safety of the food are listed in the gulf. we have coordinated with a multi agency program to ensure that the seafood is free from contamination after the gulf oil spill. this is not only important for consumers who need to know that it is safe, but also for the fishing industry, who need to serve its product with confidence. the fda has worked with the epa, other federal agencies, and state authorities in the nine gulf region. i would like to note the high level of cooperation the fda has experienced among these

agencies and also led the research level -- also at the research level in order to carry out the analysis necessary. these measures included the precautionary closure of fisheries, the testing of seafood products, and analysis of the hazard analysis and critical control. fda has the ups strict protocol for reopening fisheries in a matter that will -- in a manner that will ensure safety. the primary preventive controls for protecting the public from potentially contaminated seafood is the closure of fishing areas

that have been or are likely to be affected by the oil spill. immediately after the oil spill, of the work with noaa and the states to ensure that the appropriate closures were put in place. of these enclosures were put in place -- these closures replaced by the fda as well as other agencies. the effect of the longstanding haccp program is proving its value in the face of this extraordinary public-health challenge. over the past several weeks, fda has conducted more than 300 inspections of food processors in the gulf region to verify that there are implementing controls to ensure that they receive fish harvested only from waters in which fishing is permitted. the third element is a verification that the other

controls are working properly. this is the analysis of a variety of seafood samples that have been commercially harvested from gulf waters. we are testing for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, for pah < in the water. the fda has previously tested shrimp, crabs and oysters. all test levels have shown levels well below the levels of concern, you should by factor of 100 to 1000. these of the same levels seen before the oil spill. with respect to the reopening of closed waters, fda, noaa, and the epa worked together to establish a single agreed upon per call for reopening to ensure -- protocol for reopening to ensure the safety of these waters. under the protocol, these orders

will not reopen until all of the world is no longer present in quantities that could 2 contaminates seafood, -- could contaminates seafood, and all areas pass sensory and chemical analysis to ensure that they contain no harmful residues. expert examiners check the order and appearance of raw seafood and the taste and odor of cooked seafood. samples of testing are sent for chemical analysis of oil, which allowed scientists to conclude conclusively whether contaminants are in the fish or shellfish dishes that could be consumed. today, the results of all chemical analyses have shown ph levels to be well below the levels of concern. again, by a factor of 100 to 1000. to date, alabama, louisiana, florida and mississippi have reopened some portions of their recreational waters to -- some

portions of their public waters to recreational activities. finally, with respect to the impact of dispersant's use in the gulf on seafood safety, the current science indicates a low risk that these dispersants will file concentrate in seafood and they are, therefore, unlikely to present a food safety concern. noaa data confirmed that these dispersants are not present in the overwhelming number of water samples taken. however, out of an abundance of caution and in order to gather additional information, noaa and fpa are conducting additional studies to reaffirm that the dispersants' do not accumulate in the tissues of fish and shellfish. the fda will study the long-term impact on seafood safety and we will undertake any new relevant information into account and i just protocols accordingly. i see i have exceeded my time, so i will forgo my concluding

comments. >> you may conclude, sir. >> thank you. to conclude, the responsibility we take very seriously. in coordination with state and federal agencies, we have been proactive in monitoring the sec -- this to ensure safe food supply. the protocol and approaches we have implemented are protecting american consumers while minimizing the negative impact on gold seafood processors. thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. our next witness is dr. dr. paul anastas, the assistant administrator for the epa office for research and development, and the epa's science advisory. he has conducted groundbreaking research on the design,

manufacturing, and use of environmentally friendly chemicals. welcome, dr.. please begin when you are comfortable. >> thank you, chairman markey. i appreciate the opportunity to testify on the important issue of dispersants and their use in the bp deepwater horizon crisis. we have now passed 1 -- a 120 of the oil spill tragedy, a tragedy that resulted in the loss of life, livelihood, and put the gulf coast ecosystem in peril. we are relieved the well is currently sealed and use of dispersants had been reduced to zero. we expect this will continue to be the case. as the president has said, this tragedy does not end with the ceiling of the well. the president and the epa are committed to long-term recovery and restoration of the gulf coast, one of our most precious

ecosystems. in addition to other responsibilities with oil spill response, epa continues to monitor the air, -- water, and other areas for sediments that could have an impact on health or environment. this data is posted on the epa website and is publicly available. epa has a role in dispersants, which are chemicals applied to will to break it down into small particles. the dispersant mixes with the oil and is degraded by other microscopic bacteria. specifically, epa is responsible for maintaining the product schedules of dispersants available in the oil spill response. the decision to use dispersants as part of a larger oil spill response is not one that epa took lightly. when considering dispersants, we are faced with environmental trade-offs. the potential long-term effects on a quiet life are still

largely on them, and bp has used over 1.8 million gallons of this person, a balding never before used in the united states. but because of our aggressive monitoring, what we know is this. our monitoring data overwhelming the confirms that dispersants are not present at levels of detection for the rare anomaly we investigate to either confirm or disprove the bill in the of detection to put this in context of the more than two dozen noaa generated test samples and the more than 1000 epa-generating samples there have been only two above the detection limit. these were identified. modern also shows the oxygen in the water is not being depleted to dangerous levels. now, given the unprecedented nature of the spill, the epa directed bp to look at less

toxic alternatives to dispersants. when the company failed to provide this information, the epa conducted this testing independently. specifically, the epa did acute toxicity tests to measure the lethal levels of the dispersant. we tested each along, then we tested the louisiana sweet crude oil alone, and we tested the mr. of these two -- two. we determined and the relative hazard of each of the dispersants. these two species are wanted to be representative of those in the gulf and were tested during a juvenile life stage when organisms are most sensitive to the limit stress. the tests work and stop -- conducted over a range of concentrations, including much greater than what what life is generally expected to encounter in the gulf.

epa testing deliver three important results. one, all of the eight dispersant when tested alone could be categorized as slightly toxic to practically non-toxic. two, the oil alone was moderately toxic. 3, matures of oil and a each of these disparate as were no more toxic than the oil alone. all of these results in the eight dispersants' tested produces roughly the same toxicity levels poobah the state is important, i want to emphasize continued monitoring is absolutely necessary. epa has directed bp to continue to monitor indicators of environmental stress, such as increased toxicity to animals. to date, we have not seen this all levels of oxygen. we have also seen no excessive mortality. while more work needs to be done, we see that this person time worked to help keep oil off

of our precious shorelines and away from sensitive coastal ecosystems. additional research is needed. congress has recently appropriated epa $2 million to begin a long-term study on the impacts of dispersants. these funds will support research on the short and long- term environmental and human health impacts associated with the oil spill and dispersant use. we will also for their research efforts to include innovative approaches to spill remediation and to address the mechanisms of environmental fate, transport, and a fax of the dispersant. epa will continue to take sides- based approaches to dispersants. we will continue to monitor, identify, and respond to public health and environmental concerns, in coordination with state and local partners. epa is committed to protecting gulf coast community from the adverse affects of the deepwater rise in oil spill. in conclusion, we will persist

in asking the hard questions until we more fully understand the long-term effects of the bp oil spill and conduct the investigations required to enable the gulf's long-term recovery. epa is delivered -- committed to working with the people of the gulf, federal partners, ngo's, to the recovery of the gulf of mexico, and the restoration of its precious ecosystem. i welcome any questions. >> thank you very much. the chair will now recognize himself for a period of asking questions. dr. lehr, intended or not, the reaction to the budget report released last week is one of relief. people want to believe everything is ok.

i think this report, the way it is being discussed is giving people a false sense of confidence and guarding the state of the gulf. overconfidence breed complacency. complacency is what got us into this situation in the first place. dr. lehr, how much oil was actually discharged into the gulf? >> [no audio] the best estimates of the combined efforts of the department of energy laboratories, the best estimate to date would be 4.1 million barrels, plus or minus 10%. >> 4.1 million -- >> that was actually discharged.

800,000 barrels that was released from the wellhead some must capture directly. >> the 800,000, is that included in the oil budget baseline? >> the oil but baseline follows closely the form established by the command system for preparing categories of where to record. for the purposes of response, we would follow standard to dirt, and yes, that is included in that budget. >> but that oil went directly into ships and was never in the water at all? >> that is correct. >> there were 4.1 million barrels that was actually discharged into the water. >> that is correct. >> out of that, how many barrels

are still in the gulf, on its shores, in some form? >> probably about three-fourths -- roughly -- to go through the calculations we have, the only oil that was removed from the environment would be the 800,000, including the amount that was burned. what has till evaporated is still in the environment. the stuff that has dissolved into the water column, the amounts of dispersants are falling as droplets, sheen on the surface, the tar balls, i would say most of that is still in the environment. you cannot do any recovery

cooperation on oil that has evaporated or is dissolved into the water column. >> so even according to the calculations of the oil budget report released last week, between 60% and 90% of the discharge oil, the oil that actually went into the ocean, remains in the gulf of mexico, and that would be between 2.45 and 3.75 million barrels. is that accurate? >> i would have to do the calculations. the oil that evaporating, which was a substantial amount, whether it is still in the gulf of mexico, we would need to see how it was transported by the wind. i think you would just want to stick with the amount in the water column war on the shore

line. that would be the amount that we would see as naturally or chemically dispersed. some of that has been recovered on the shore line as well. the amount that has been disbursed is biodegrading. we are still working on the rate. the numbers that we put into the budget calculator for response purposes, to answer your question about the fate of a long-term -- that is a different question for damage assessment. >> i am interested in understanding how bp has performed, in terms of removing spilled oil from the gulf, before it hits land. what percentage of the oil spilled into the gulf was actually removed from the ocean? burning, skimming, actually removing the oil from the

ecosystem. of the 4.1 million barrels of oil that actually went into the ocean, what percent was removed by bp? >> i would have to redo this calculation because we were basing it on 4.9 million. >> the only issue that the american people are concerned about is the 4.1 million barrels that actually went into the ocean. it is important for us to discuss that issue and separate it from the oil that went directly into the ships. people should have a good understanding of what percentage

of that oil has been removed thus far. do you have a number -- >> you would have to take the ratio of 4.9, the blood it by 4.1, and then multiplied it by these fractions that we have. >> if you could use your own chart and break it down in a way that would help understand how a muchbp did -- >> if you take the 5% that was burned, multiplied by the ratio of 4.1 -- i must admit, i cannot do that math in my head. if he take the amount that was skimmed, 3%, multiplied by 4.1 -- >> are you using 4.9?

>> i have to multiplied those numbers by the ratio. >> do you have the systems here with you? has anybody accompanied here? could one of your assistance do that -- assistants do that? >> i have a calculator here. i would need to multiplier 1.2 times each of those percentages. roughly, the burn would be 6%. kimmed would be roughly 4%.

>> between the skimming and burning, 10% of the 4.1 million barrels would have been removed from the ocean, leaving 90% on accounted for. >> there would also be what was recovered on the shore line. >> in the arithmetic we are doing right now -- burning is 6%, skimming is 4%. so let's continue. >> we have not quantified what was captured in the residual. as they do the beach recovery and so on, so i cannot give you the numbers on that.

we were looking at this for response purposes. >> again, let us recapitulate. 6% burned, 4% skimmed. an unknown amount collected on the beaches. can you tell us the reason that has not been calculated yet? >> you do not pick up just oil on the beaches, there is oil, and debris, and then separating that out. >> has there been a range put together, in terms of an estimate about how much oil that might represent? >> i am not aware. i can get that answer to you. >> in the wake of the exxon valdez spill, the office of

technology assessment and government published reports looking at the capacity to recover oil after a major spill. they found, given technologies available at that time, we could only recovered 10% to 15% of the spilled oil. recoveryto me bp's effort comes in at the low effort of what was achievable 21 years ago. you seem to have come in at approximately 10%, plus what was on the beaches. but still within that range that was determined to be recoverable after the exxon valdez spill. would you agree with that? >> in terms of the categories, yes. there was, of course, in this

case, and unusual event of natural dispersion and the record amount of chemical dispersants. that is considered a type of response. one would have to say, -- >> i understand that -- >> in terms of operations, this is about average, yes. >> i am just trying to divide the question so the public can understand what we are talking about. in terms of recoverable oil, somewhere in the range of 10%. in my mind, that is not a passing grade, only 10% of the 4.1 million barrels actually having been recovered. i think we saw this coming. talk about trying to

clean up the spilled oil but all of their techniques, even using a 21-year-old rating system, bp had done a poor job in cleaning up the gulf. so, dr. lehr, cooper wrote the pp saba, have pushed to make this process as transparent as possible. the more people we have independently analyzing and verifying the data and information associated with the spill, the better and more informed our response decisions will be. with regard to the oil budget, is this something noaa does as part of the operational response to a major oil spill? >> the oil budget is traditionally part of the

response. there is a special form that is filled out as part of the situation unit in the command system. standard procedures for that use, amongst other things, a model used by noaa, as well as other techniques, observers estimating the size of the spill. because this was so large, because it went on for so long, and in particular, that it was occurring 1 mile underneath the surface, it was necessary to develop a special tool, which is what we did with the budget talks later. i have noticed that they call this the noaa budget cuts later. i would like to get credit for that but one thing you have to do is recognize the contribution of others. this was the result of work between joint agencies and outside experts in the field. >> is there an established

methodology for making the oil budget calculations? >> there is have a standard form that you would calculate to divide the budget into, and had there is a normal procedure that we have to modify for the circumstances of the spill. >> in the case of the deepwater horizons bill, how long has noaa been calculating a budget to guide the response from unified command? >> we started working early, i believe in june, working on the development of the tool. we provided guidance some time in july for the incident command. >> has noaa been using the

established methodology for calculating and oil budget coming in this case? -- budget, in this case? >> all would have to ask for more clarification. we did use the standard procedures for estimating oil for each of the techniques, based on methods that had been used in the past but were modified. but they give you an example. -- let me give you an example. in calculating natural dispersants, we look at the energy dissipation rate that is due to breaking waves. of course, we had a plume that was sub-surface, we did not have breaking waves but we did have an energy dissipation rate, and to them, we had some of the experts work to calculate that

dissipation rates so that we could get a new rate for natural dispersion. in terms of that operation, -- of the operation, we have standard models for measuring that. louisiana sweet crude is in our oil data library base, but that is for spells that have been on the surface. oil 1 mile deep with the dissolution before it reaches the surface, many of the molecules that may evaporate on the surface dissolve in the water. it was the standard procedure, to the extent that we have to modify them for the specific instances that happened in this spill. >> can i ask, as noaa made available the background data and formulas that we used to reach the conclusion on this

bill the oil? -- the spilled oil? >> in terms of the flow rate, has a record time been released on that. as far as the oil budget caucus later -- which is what i assume you are referring to -- this was an oil spill emergency, not an experiment. we put together a power team. the priority was to get an answer as quickly as possible. the technical documentation is being written, and will be peer review. it will be long, boring, filled with graphs and charts, and i am sure that it will bore you, except for the handful of laws that do this for a living. some of you have asked for this.

i would ask for patients. in this case, patience is a virtue. you do not tell admiral allen that he has to wait while your report goes through peer review. we welcome people's comments on it. i would encourage the new people coming into the field from non- traditional areas to stay interested. we welcome the new blood. but you are going to have to wait for the report to get out. >> i appreciate the desire to complete a full peer review but you have already issued four pages of findings and a 10-page supplement that explains some of the calculations in greater detail. if much of this oil budget is standard procedure for noaa in response to an oil spill, why

can't that information be made available sooner, especially considering the historic issues that many have voiced regarding the conclusions of this report? >> i would prefer -- all scientists would -- because the questions now are on a different time frame, moving from response to the assessment, that it is better to take the time to do it right. some of the methods are standard but some had to be modified. i mentioned and the evaporation calculations and natural dispersion. we're doing a thorough literature survey. i understand, this report will be looked at, not only by oil

spill scientists that have been doing this for 20 years, and are contributing, but other scientists who are coming to this as their first major spill. we want to provide a document that will answer all their questions. >> will noaa agreed to make available to the public the citations of the scientific literature, formulas, or actual algorithm that would allow independent scientists to the valley with the findings. -- evaluate the findings? >> will you do so now? >> absolutely. >> you released a report last week. could you give us, for public consumption, the citations of the scientific literature, formulas, or actual algorithm is

hat you used in creativ andng your oil budget -- used in creating your will budget. >> again, this is not a noaa project. >> what we are trying to do is get at the methodology, so we understand what was used in order to produce your initial oil budget. you say that it needs to be reviewed for some time, in order to determine whether or not you got it right. so, i think, in order to ensure we have this done in a timeframe that provides the information to

the presidents -- residents of the gulf of mexico, that you released this evidence, this scientific reading, so that we can have an independent judgment that will allow, in real time, the able to make judgments as to whether or not the formula that was used was the correct one to be used, given the consequences to the public, if that formula was not constructed accurately. in other words, would you support making that information available to the public, speaking for noaa? >> yes, and i would assume all the experts that have contributed will also be releasing the information.

that is the purpose of the report. representative markey, we are going through the standard procedure which is done for a scientific report. you get the experts, they contribute to the report, we send it back to them to look at to make sure that we have got their comments, opinions, assessments correct, and then we send it out to independent scientists. that is what a peer review is. we welcome recommendations -- >> when will that happen, what is the time frame? >> it has been delayed one week because i have had to come here, but we're hoping to finish in within two months. >> that is not timely enough, that is the problem. we are trying to telescope the time friend and take in order to get that information into the hands of independent scientists.

so you do not want to make all of the models and data available, but you have given us conclusions that result from these models of the data. you then say you do not want to make the models and data available to outside scientists because you are still having everything peer review, post release of your budget report. to me, that is unacceptable. we need to have that information. the report that you released last week received international attention. there are many people making decisions based on that report, so it is important, right now, for that information to be made public so that not only is peer reviewed in the regular

process, but because of the real-life consequences for the people living in the gulf of mexico and outside the gulf of mexico because of the toxic nature of the material, that that information be made public. there is too long of a gap that will collapse under the process you have adopted. the real issue here is that the public has a right to know right now what is going on in the gulf of mexico. your report should be analyzed by others have right now so we are sure we got it right. if your numbers are wrong, two months from now could be too late in terms of remedial recommendations, which are not

made to the public, fishing industry, to the consuming public, in terms of consequences for their families. so i asked again for you to release that information, that data. the flow rate team estimated 4.9 million barrels a blow from the deepwater horizon well. the uncertainty of this estimate is plaza -10%. does noaa have certainty with regard to the figures on the estimates of what happened to all 4.9 million barrels? what is the best and worst case estimate for the residual oil that remains in the gulf? >> as part of the calculator, we

do have experts for uncertainty for each of the processes. for example, the burn, there are some standards for the burn rate that were applied to the spill. we have had very low uncertainty for those estimates. for an aberration and dissolution, we have taken samples from norwalk, from canada, -- noaa, from canada, and from a large organization in the european union. those have come back and we're fairly confident on those values. when you get into dispersed will come uncertainty becomes larger, particularly because of the subsurface chemicals. that is something that is relatively new to us. we have to and -- we have

employed the expertise of the national standards of the institute of technology, who have brought experts statisticians to calculate the uncertainties on it. that is in the extra pages that you were given. that will also be in the final report. representative markey, i will commit to date to do whatever i can to commit the report. i appreciate the concern on it. i hope that everyone appreciates, that because of the importance that you just stressed, we want to make sure it is done right. that is why i am making sure that we bother the experts -- >> here is how the thing. you should not have released it until you knew it was right. so much will depend on that release. if you are not confident it is right, it should not have been

released. it basically send a signal with regard to how much of the problem remains. that is something that is obviously of great concern to the people in the gulf. they do not want to be forgotten, do not want this to ed.downplayed, lowball i think it is important, since it has been released, to be examined right now, so we can be sure those numbers were accurate and independent scientists can quickly look at the formulas and corporate or question. but it should not be something that is done in a boring and academic setting over a prolonged period of time. it has to be done in and dynamic setting, in real time, because of the resources that may need

to be dedicated to this problem, to ensure it is really needed in a shorter period of time, on an otherwise your estimates are inaccurate. from a political perspective, the longer time he lapses, the lower the political pressure and public pressure will be there to insure that the resources are brought to the problem. we have to make sure we do this in a timely fashion so that, unlike exxon valdez, we actually do something in real time so everything that can be learned about it is learned. you agree that' the amount of oil that is not accounted for is still five times exxon valdez. >> i would also note that noaa

is taking a lead role in monitoring the oil that is out there. i do not think the report -- and it should not be interpreted -- to say that this bill is over with. >> -- spill was over with. >> there were some comments coming from that report. if that is happening in real time, the gabelli we should of the report should be happening in real time. if it is wrong, opportunities for a calibrated response to the defects in the report will have been lost. that is why it is important for you to surrender this information now to independent scientists. so according to noaa's oil

budget, 408,792 barrels of oil were chemically this burst out of a total of 4.1 million -- dispersed out of a total of 4.1 million barrels, a total of 9% of the total oil in the gulf. this means 43,900 barrels of dispersants were needed to get rid of 408,792 barrels of oil. this means 1 barrel of this person's dispersed just over 9 barrels of oil. the debt, according to your budget documentation, it is a person of 1/20 -- a dispersant rate of 1/20 is deemed successful. it seems the ratio you used in

this disaster of 1/9 would not be successful, in noaa's iphone definition. would you agree with that? >> the hardest thing we had calculating was the affect of the chemical dispersant. the chemical was applied subsurface, what we would call ideal conditions. this person was being injected into the oil, making direct contact, a direct flow. these are the ideal conditions for disbursement operations. we ask the people who make a live-in applying dispersants, the effectiveness, and they had numbers as high as 30, 40-to- one. we looked at the literature and literature suggested that a

successful operation would be 20-to-one. we were conservatives. we may have under -- estimated the effectiveness of that this person. on the surface, where a lot of this was applied, they were applying into an oil the had partially weathered, and according to past spills, as persons may not have been as effective. but there was one study done from a research group in norway, using these dispersants, that said it was showing some of the effectiveness, and there were some operation on scene that suggested that the dispersants were being at least partially successful. so what we did was to scale down what we thought would be the effectiveness of the surface operation. we estimated for, 5 barrels for

each barrel spray. that takes into account that some of the dispersant did not come in contact with the oil. secondly, the oil had emulsified to an extent that it was more difficult to disperse. >> dr. anastas, according to the budget documentation of dispersant to oil ratio, 1/20 is considered successful, but this was a ratio that was 1/9. do you believe that constitutes a successful application of dispersants? >> i think my colleague dr. lehr noted the uncertainty in the estimates of dispersion.

all of the monitoring that was conducted, in an ongoing way, that was required by epa during the application, especially the subsurface application of the dispersant, showed successful this. we ensured that particles were being formed. this was a high energy system. evidence shows that it was an effective and relatively efficient -- >> given your own numbers and analysis, how successful would you say it was? >> i do not think there is a way to measure the ratio between chemically-dispersed and the biologically-dispersed oil, so i do not know if we can have this -- precise numbers. the estimate, as dr. lehr noted,

20, 30, 40-to-one would have been more in the ballpark. >> dispersed those not exactly mean the same thing as gone, right? for example, if i put a spoonful of sugar in my ice-t, the sugar is disbursed. you cannot see it, but if i drink the iced tea, it is sweet because the sugar is still there. it is dispersed, but it is present. is that not somewhat analogous to the situation we face in the gulf with this disbursed oil? >> not exactly. sugar dissolves in a solution. it is person means it is broken up into small particles, the purpose of which is to make them more indigestible and digestible

by these microbes. the only time will actually go away is when it is degraded. that can happen through biological process cheese, through physical prophecies. physical processes, when it is broken down by the water itself is called hydrology. when broken down by temperature, ramallah j.. the degradation process is combined, and the purpose of the dispersant, it is to make it more accessible to these processes. >> what is the timeframe? how do you measure that, in terms of the actual amount of oil that is subject to being consumed because the this person has been released? how can you measure that over such a vast area? >> there have been studies done

by the epa and its partners. part of the rationale for applying this person's is it helps the rate of degradation increase by as much as 50% over those untraded. >> thank you. dr. lehr, government scientists have estimated 4.5 million barrels escaped from the bp macondo well, but that number does not include the methane that came from the well, much of which entered the gulf of mexico. although the impact of methane are not well understood as that of oil, we know it has the potential to cause harm when released at such a significant

levels above the natural seepage in the gulf. as part of the natural resources damaged and assess the plan, will noaa be looking at their relate -- rate of release from the bp well? >> in terms of the effect, i would assume they would take that into consideration. i am not part of a damage -- a damage assessment team. the budget calculated did not take into account because there is no response to dissolved gases. that is why it was not in the report that you saw. in terms of the damage

assessment, certainly, you would take into account all of the hydrocarbons released and the effect it would have on the environment. >> a few weeks ago in response to a letter i wrote, the fda wrote, while it does not monfort -- monitor for dispersant chemicals in the tissue of seafood, the agency is working closely with noaa to further determine if dispersant chemicals or their metabolites can buy a concentrated in the flesh of seafood species. what is the status of these studies? >> i would like to refer this question to dr. margolis. >> vicky margolis. i am a senior adviser for signs of innovation and policy at the

food and drug administration. we have been working with noaa on developing chemical methodologies for the detection of one of the major components is -- person's which this component is about 20% of the corrective this person which is applied in the gulf. essentially, what we have done is two series of studies where we are exposing crabs and fish and tanks in a controlled settings to this chemical at 100 parts per million, which is an effective concentration of 20 parts per million of the chemical. we then do this exposure for 24 hours with subsequent washouts in queens of water -- clean saltwater and then measure the concentration of the chemical in the pancreas, liver, as well as

muscle tissue. we have preliminary data to date that suggests there is not any by a concentration of the chemical in the pancreas -- >> can you explain what dos is? >> dos is essentially a detergent-like compound that is found in a variety of products, including a number of over-the- counter medical products. it is used to help disperse oil, but it is generally end entered non-toxic substance. >> please continue. >> essentially, we conducted these tanks studies and found no evidence to date of bio concentration of dos and the

crabs and shrimp tested so far. we are continuing to sample these in controlled settings. additionally, we are able to go back to the retrospective tinkles -- samples because this particular chemical is present in knee extraction that we made to measure the ph. >> what about the other components, in addition to dos? >> have you done analysis on the other chemicals that were shot into the ocean, in order to determine the toxicity of those components? >> we have not. we have started this as a marker because it is one of the critical components of the corrective. essentially, it serves as a marker for the dispersant.

>> what is the timeframe you are going to use in order to do an analysis of the other component in the correct set in determining whether or not there is toxicity, in danger that could attach to it, it human beings consume that chemical. >> some of the other chemicals that are present our petroleum distillates. they would be found in our pah analysis as well, so it would be difficult to distinguish those from petroleum distillates and the oil itself. we are not currently looking at any of the other components of -- we are not currently doing tests of the other components because we wanted to establish the methodologies using one of the principal components, which we

felt we could detect readily as a first step. >> how long will it take you before you actually conduct experiments on the other components? >> i cannot speak to that because it is not clear whether we have the methodology in hand to detect all of those at the present time. >> so, if you find dos in your seafood samples, then what? >> we would consider that as something that we would need to go back and reevaluate the samples for a possible presence of the dispersant. >> how are there -- are there other components that are known to be toxic? >> there are a number of

components -- i think the epa could probably speak better to toxicity studies that were done on the chemical. >> are there other chemicals that have been known to be very toxic? >> the studies that we did were on corexit itself. all of the contributions to texas to be considered. it is important to look at the formulation as a whole. the toxicity results but i presented in my statement -- >> so there is no point in even bothering to examine the other components in corexit because

you have already studied the other components? >> no, when you do a study on corexit as a whole, you are essentially doing a study on the components. >> if i could come back to the fda, does that mean there is no reason to do any further study of these materials, even though some of them are known to be toxic? >> mr. chairman, first of all, fta is fully aware of the components of the corexit, and we have looked at each one of them for toxicity, and in response to your letter to the agency, each of these components are low toxicity to humans. i think we have to separate the distinction between toxicity to marine animals, as was the concern that epa was

suggesting, to toxicity to humans, if it is is -- if it is present in the flesh of the fish. we have looked at each of these components of corexit, and they are all common household constituents. they are in things such as lip gloss, toothpaste, a variety of over-the-counter drugs. they have been approved for consumption by people. these are components that fda reviews for food additive purposes -- >> you have yet to put in place, though, a test to determine whether or not these chemicals -- this component -- are in the fish, correct?

you have only done a study on the dos as a marker, but not on these other chemicals. as you are sitting here, the fda, representing the public policy interest in determining whether or not these fish are safe to eat, it is without having completed the study, in terms of the actual component chemicals inside the fish? is that correct? >> if you do not mind, i would like to put that question in the context of what we have done. i do intend to answer specifically. the first question that fda wanted to answer, with respect to dispersants, was whether the components corexit -- what do

we know about them, how they can get into the flesh of a fish, and if so, what risk does it pose to humans? the answer to all of these is it it has a very low potential to get into the flesh of fish. that does not mean that it will not get in at any level, but there is a low likelihood, and highly unlikely to accumulate at levels that are found in the environment, which we believe is comforting. the second question is, components, are they toxic themselves? as i said, we are aware of all of these components and they have common uses in products that are either intentionally consumed, or in the case of lip gloss, are consumed as a matter of course because of the way they are used, and these they are used, and these