issue. >> yes. >> to be resolved in people's minds, because it just seems to you know, to summon the things -- someone that thinks about the -- about the fishing industry, that these are not stationary or territory of -- or territorial entities in many instances. we see sharks up and down the coast of new england and they do not seem to limit themselves to a 5 mile radius. to say do not worry about it a few miles further away, the sharks only stay within a 5 mile radius, does not seem as though that would be the kind of warning that the public would think was a sufficient in order to guarantee the safety of their families. so, i think this is important information for us to have, and

the more that it can be put in very simple terms for the public debt the better i think it will be for the fishing industry and -- for the public, the better i think that it will be for the fishing industry and for the public. >> i would does like to respond to that on that. -- i would just like to respond to that. i think there are several answers to that question, or several pieces to the answer to that question. noaa testing has included testing outside of the closed areas, and the purpose of that testing was to look for whether or not, first of all, to determine whether or not to the closures were insufficiently protected. the 5 mile buffer zone that we put around, we believe is sufficiently protected. testing was performed outside of the area in which closures were.

beyond that, both noaa and fda have done it market sampling. this was-that was appropriately harvested in open waters -- this was fish that was appropriately harvested in open waters. we believe we would have picked up indications of a fish that had higher than expected levels. especially for fin fish, they cleared the toxins from the body very rapidly. -- a clear the toxins from the body very rapidly. -- they clear the toxins from the body very rapidly. the gulf making it up to new england is highly improbable. we do not believe that is>> are you actually testing for that, though, given the unprecedented underwater experiment that we are experiencing? >> we are testing a product that has been commercially harvested in the gulf and that

is currently being marketed. we are testing that product, and again, it is not showing levels above the levels that were there before the spill occurred. we believe that the fish coming out of the gulf do not have levels that are of concern. >> is the fda monitoring seafood recovered from the gulf for the presence of heavy metals? >> we are not, know. -- we are not, no. but there is a noaa program called a muscle watch program, because it is not monitoring muscles, it is monitoring oysters. those that are most likely to hang onto that within their flesh and the species most

likely to buy a concentrate -- bio-concentrate. this program has been in place for decades in the gulf and has been very solid nationwide. we have a solid background level to know what the level of these contaminants are, including any of the heavy metals, for example, that you would be concerned about. >> are you monitoring for it right now? >> i would defer to noaa to answer what has been done on this. fda is not, but noaa has a good central program. >> it is my understanding the compounds like mercury, arsenic, and other heavy metals that are present in crude oil have the ability to accumulate in and the tissue of fish at levels that may cause harm, particularly to pregnant women and children. as the fda corpus -- has the fda or noaa exam and seafood for

the -- examine the -- examined seafood for the presence of a metals? -- of metals. >> as part of the muscle watch program in the area. again, i am going to defer to my colleagues to answer that answer for that. >> so, back every year at fda, you do not screened for -- back over here at fda, you do not screen of for heavy metals, but you believe that noaa does. >> i do not want to speak for them, but i believe they have collected a sample. the results are not yet back. we do not have an analysis of them. we do not expect to see an increase based on this bill, but certainly the result will be confirmatory of that. >> i wrote a letter to the fda

on this issue of heavy metals six weeks ago and i have yet to receive an answer. >> i apologize for that, mr. chairman. i would be happy to respond to those questions at this time. >> i would not have asked the question if i did not believe it was important. heavy metals obviously have a danger attached to them. as a regulatory black hole been created today between the fda and noaa in terms of knowing what the response is to testing for having metals ended this dish, that we know can accumulate in at this fish -- testing for heavy metals in that this fish, that we know can accumulate in this fish. when can i expect a response from the fda?

>> in a matter of days. >> let me move on to the fda and noaa. you have agreed on a protocol to examine when closed waters can be reopened. the protocol relies heavily on surveillance, test and sampling that generate data about the concentration of particular of contaminants found in seafood. it is my understanding that there have been fishery reopenings in state waters within 3 miles of the coastline of louisiana and mississippi.

does noaa and fda have access to the data that is used to drive reopening decisions within state waters within 3 miles of coastline of louisiana and alabama? >> the answer is yes. the protocol that was developed jointly by fda, epa and noaa, along with the five gulf coast states, calls for the states to provide that data to fda and noaa. for reopening purposes, the states are acting under their

own authority, as i think you know. >> what role does the fda and noaa have in the opening and closing of state waters? >> when the state has made a decision that they would like to for a particular fishery, of for example, for finned fish or for shrimp, they develop a sampling protocol or plan that identifies how many of the species and where they're going to be located that they intend to collect. the fda and noaa . review that proposal and either concur with it or make recommendations for changes. they then go out and collect samples and submit them to the laboratory where the sensory testing that i described a minute ago is performed. if the sample passes the sensory testing, then it is submitted to a chemical laboratory. this is where the samples split. if it is federal waters, which

is not the question you raised, then the sample would go to a noaa laboratory. if it is a state sample, then it would go to a state laboratory that we have under contract. that is where we perform the analysis that we devise with dhs. >> can the fda and noaa state unequivocally that fish caught in a the state waters are safe to eat? can you state that unequivocally? >> fda has expressed comments in a fish that are commercially marketed from the gulf -- has expressed confidence in the fish that are commercially marketed from the gulf coast. we are aware of the state of the oiling in that area, and we are aware of the results of the

analytical tests before the water is reopened by the state. so yes, we are able to vouch for the safety of those fish with respect to the contamination from the spill. >> doctor, do you agree with that? do you agree that the federal government is able to vouch unequivocally that the fish caught in state waters are safe to eat, as well as federal waters? >> i would say that the fish caught is meeting all of the standards that were developed by the fda.

>> what about non-commercial fishing. recreational fishing is a major tourism sector in the gulf. can we ensure that those fish are safe to eat as well? >> fda is not directly responsible for recreational catch, but i can tell you that the state exorcises that control, except in federal waters. the states have implemented closures for recreational catch that mirror the closures they have for commercial catch. the safety of the recreational that should be at the same level as commercial.

>> with regard to the use of dispersants, a doctor from the natural resources defense council said in her testimony that it would be unwise to draw conclusions about the safety of this unprecedented application of chemical dispersants from two laboratory experiments and field observations. do you agree or disagree with that statement? >> i think it is important to follow the data. what that means is that we look at the data and what the data tells us, but never remain satisfied. that is why we have an ongoing monitoring program. that is why we will always continue to ask the tough questions.

that is why we are looking to have an ongoing, long-term research plan so that we do understand not only the current situation but the long-term effects. >> thank you. mr. kramer,phhs are one of the present in oil because of their significant health impacts. however, these compounds are also very quickly metabolized in aquatics species, particularly in certain types of fish. it is my understanding that they are often metabolized into products that are often retained in the flesh and can be more toxic than apparent compound. in an of market surveillance, is the fda's monitoring the metabolized levels of phhs into the test? >> it is my understanding that we are looking for specific phhs, and not a metabolized version. i think the short answer is no. >> i would like to add to the

point of clarification. to clarify on the metabolite issue, we have an engaging some experts in academia to discuss and assist with this. i of been speaking with some people l.s.u. about their experiences with this. i do want to add that today we have not found any level -- in fact, almost every test that we have conducted on the fish and shrimp that have been collected to date, has been completely- below our limited detection -- has been completely negative, mellow our limit of detection. >> -- below our limit of detection. >> i think that is important for people. i would recommend that you do some testing there. and think it is important for people to know that inside the oil barrier you are also doing testing. people will be concerned that there will be migration outside

of that oil area subsequently, especially if the fish move to areas where there are traditionally cost that might not be in that area, that might if you would do some of that testing as well, does so we can see what happens in the most concentrated area, as opposed to where you are now testing. i think that is important information. -- especially if the fish move to areas where they traditionally -- just so we can see what is in the most concentrated areas. i think that is important information.

i think that is important in relation going forward, long term. we should know what happened to the fish where the oil is most dense at this time. >> just one more point of clarification on this point, which is very well taken, and your point on heavy metals. we are also engaging with nih and other scientists to develop long-term toxicity studies. i think those are incredibly important in terms of looking at the potential for accumulation of heavy metals and toxicity that may derive from that. again, i would add that we think the surveillance through the muscle what program is incredibly important first line of defense, but there are active discussions about long- term toxicity studies, and we will be engaging in these studies for years to come. >> again, i think it would be important to begin those studies right now by going to

the most potentially toxic areas and finding the samples now that are then used as your base line. i think that, long term, that is going to be something people which is they're insignificant quantities in order to match that against what is found from the periphery. i would recommend to you that you do that. let me ask the question again. do you plan to test for metabolites? >> i think this is part of our ongoing discussion with nih. in fact, there is a meeting happening right now with several of the agencies and long-term toxicity studies, and the design of those is one of the points under discussion. >> thank you. mr. kramer, there has been much criticism of the seafood sampling plan, particularly about the method of risk assessment.

it is my understanding that the level of contamination with pah's , which is considered safe does not taken too vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children, and this is because the assumptions within the plan calculates safe levels based on an average adult male body weight of 176 pounds. has the fda produced guidelines to ensure that children and pregnant women are adequately protected from contaminants that may be present in the seafood? >> the short response to that is that we believe that the levels of concern that we established for the reopening protocol are quite conservative and will be sufficiently protective for all populations. we also acknowledge that these

are valuable comments, and we are committed to looking again at the calculation of the levels of concern to make any judgments about whether we need to modify the levels that we have established for the reopening. i would like to point out that, again, as we have mentioned before, at the levels that we are finding in fish flesh are essentially at levels that they would have been at before the spill. whether or not the values will change, we are not seeing levels that should be of concern for children or pregnant women. >> i appreciate the conclusion which you have reached, but as you know, for 100 years, almost

all research was done on the prototypical 176 pound male. only in the 1990's, under pressure from the women's movement, did independent research that dealt with the unique nature of women and children began to be introduced. the fact that the classic 176 pound male is still used here is something that i think you should be examined in terms of whether or not that is sufficient to deal with the more vulnerable populations which are women and children in this particular instance. the extrapolation of all of these lessons is something that i think is probably now updated, and this may be one of the last remaining models that continues to stay on the books as the exclusive means by which such a measurement is made of the risk to human beings. mr. kramer, an analytical test

indicates that contaminated seafood has been found that was harvested from open waters, how does noaa communicate this to fda, and what is the feedback methods to stop others from fishing in a the same place? >> we have communications at the number of levels, so we communicate at the senior leadership level. we communicate through the national incident command process. we also communicate on multiple daily calls between all three agencies at the staff, scientific and technical levels. any one of those routes could be used to move that information. fortunately, we have not had to deal with that information yet, but if it were to occur, we

would immediately investigate. that investigation would be to look at the analytical results confirm that they in fact show that the product is what fda would call adulterated, and if we found that it did reach that level of concern, either we or the state would act through our authority to remove that product from the market. also, to reevaluate the adequacy of the closure that is in place. >> thank you. doctor, last friday admiral allen issued a directive for a coordinated integrated system of pollution monitoring, involving federal, state and

academic monitoring efforts to detect remaining oil in the gulf. can you tell us about this directive and why it was necessary at this time? was this coordination not occurring over the past four months? >> the coronation in terms of tracking the subsurface oil has been happening since the beginning of this bill. -- of the spill. early on, we went out and made arrangements with experts who are experts in a well blowout at carson university. they provided us information about how the oil would act. we also made arrangements with a place that has a subsurface model that allowed us to track the oil. we now have our own models tracking it as well. tied in with all of the detailed sampling that is being done. i think that the directive -- other independent groups and agencies have been doing it, and i think the idea is to bring

them all together. >> are using this is nothing more than a continuation of what was going on -- are you saying that this is nothing more than a continuation of what was going on all along? >> i think that what the admiral is stressing is that we are focusing now on the subsurface oil with the service problem being removed. we can bring in extra resources to do that. many people i know of who were doing the surface trajectory are now being transferred to work on the subsurface trajectory. i think it is safe to say that it is a redirection as the problem has evolved. i would leave it at that. >> thank you. what do we know about the dispersed oil and dispersant that is on the ocean floor? what species are affected there, and how does that impact

the food chain? doctor? >> i think you ask an extremely important question. there are issues that we are looking to, in real time, develop research plant in the immediate and longer-term to fully understand what the oil is doing. i do refer back to the opening statements about, we are not detecting the dispersants in any concentrations within the limits of our methods of detection. we are not seeing threats from those substances. >> are you saying you're not seeing dispersant and oil collecting on the ocean floor at this time? >> in the thousands of samples that have been run, we are not detecting dispersants. we're not detecting the dispersant constituents on the ocean floor at this time. we had one hit that was

referred to at epa from epa testing, but the question that you asked about the ocean floor having oil, we have seen reports in the media talking about oil and the ocean floor. this is something that as we look to ensure we understand the long-term effects, this is exactly what of the questions that we need to investigate and find out, either confirm or disprove the presence of this oil. also coming to understand the impact of this oil. >> thank you. why do we not do this? why do not hear from -- why do we not hear from each one of you in the reverse order of your opening testimony, so that you can tell us what it is that you want the american public to

understand about the state of the gulf of mexico at this particular point in time? we will begin with you doctor. >> thank you very much. i think the single message that administrator jackson has sent is that we need to be vigilant on understanding what the nature of the problems are, the immediate term, and the long term. monitoring is crucial. this crisis is not over. monitoring will continue. work will continue.

research will continue into the long term. getting better understanding not only for our decisions, but to make sure we get it to the american public as quickly as possible, is one of our primary goals in accomplishing our mission of human health and the environment. >> thank you for their work on this issue. mr. kramer. >> thank you. the question that we are very often asked in fda is, what should a consumer do to make sure that their next meal of cold seafood is safe? -- of gulf seafood is it safe? the answer is that they do not need to do anything. that is the job of fda. and we are confident in the the program that the fda has put together. we are confident that the consumer is sufficiently protected and that they need not take any steps to protect

themselves from the seafood. it is essentially at the same level of safety that it was before this bill. having said that, we recognize that this "-- before this spill. having said that, we recognize that this is an unprecedented event. looking at the long-term safety of this source of food is something that we cannot overlook. i think we have mentioned here a few ideas of things that we do need to look at into long-term studies, the development of methods that can detect contaminant that we presently cannot detect. we think those are positive steps toward providing further assurance to the public. >> thank you very much. dr.. >> before i get to my closing,

i want to get to one thing. a good scientist -- in a good scientist, but perhaps a bad impromptu speaker, one of the things you brought up was the involvement of independent scientists. independent scientists, very qualified scientists will be reviewing the data. the field of science is so small that we could have a meeting in a ballroom and still have plenty of room to dance. we would have some of the biggest names in the the field for both review and development. i want to stress that because there are people who are -- there are people who are dealing with their first big spell and perhaps do not have -- big spill and perhaps do not have the background in this area. we're beginning a new phase, and all the agencies will be involved in this. i would like to think that when we went to develop our tools, but in terms of the flow rate calculations and in terms of other calculations, we went out to independent academics and other experts. in many cases, they were not being paid any compensation. i have not yet had a single instance where any of those people have refused to work on data projects and the requests that we have done. there is a silver lining in of the terrible event of the spill, -- when we develop our

tools in regards to the tabulations, we went out to many of the independent academic and other experts and many cases, they were not being paid any compensation. i have not yet had a single instance where any of those people have refused to work on projects and request that we have done. there is a silver lining in the terrible event of this bill. -- the spill. it is the steps that the american people are willing to volunteer their efforts from the highest expertise level to

the people going out and cleaning up the beaches. such tragedies do bring out the best in our country, and i think that is something that should be more brought forward perhaps. >> thank you. thank you to all of you for your work. the point that i was making earlier was that in terms of the study that was released last week, first, you gave the answer. now, you're going to be showing your work, but in a peer- reviewed way. that is the opposite of the way in which a study of that magnitude would be released. all i am saying is that given the way that this has unfolded, it is important that everyone, including independent scientists, who may not have participated in your creation of these models, can see the assumptions upon which they were based now, given the fact that the peer review is going on right now. but the science experiment in the gulf of mexico is occurring in real time. so that there can be a real capacity to have all questions

asked and answered, not months from now, as part of a boring, academic exercise sometime next year, but right now, when concern is at its highest. so again, i make my request again to you that you provide that information to independent scientists who are not part of that study so that there can be a fresh set of eyes and minds that are applied to it, because the consequences are great if you are wrong. if you are wrong, the consequences could be great. so, let's just error on the side of safety. let us have that information be given to the rest of the scientific community, given the way in which that record was put together. we thank you. again, in no way do we want to say anything that we thank you for the work which you have done thus far. it is exceedingly a difficult working environment. it is unprecedented in what has occurred in the gulf of mexico. we have this hearing principally because the public has a right to know that there should not be a six week period,

a month and half period in which congress has not been working on this issue, given the right of the public to be protected in all aspects. again, thank you, and we ask that you make yourself available to return again to answer additional questions, because this is something that, obviously, is going to affect the gulf of mexico for months and years to come. we appreciate your contributions. thank you. before we hear from our next set of witnesses, for the record, the subcommittee invited the louisiana department of

wildlife and fisheries to participate in this hearing. the louisiana department of wildlife and fisheries makes the decisions regarding opening or closing of fisheries in state waters affected by the spill, and has them working in consultation with the fda regarding opening and closing of fisheries.

although nobody from the department was able to attend, the louisiana department of wildlife and fisheries submitted a statement for the record, which i ask unanimous consent to move into the record at this time. without objection, so ordered. i would also like to move into the record a statement from the center for science in the public interest. without objection, so ordered. we will now move to hear from our witnesses, and we ask those witnesses, please move up to the witness table. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [no audio] >> welcome back to the subcommittee on energy and the environment. let me begin by making a unanimous consent request that

all members be allowed to submit statements for the record, and many questions which they would like to submit to the witnesses who are testifying here today. without objection, so ordered. our next witness is dr. ian macdonald. dr. mcdonald is a professional -- a professor of oceanography at florida state university. he uses satellite technology to locate natural oil releases on the ocean surface. thank you for coming dr. mcdonald. whenever you feel comfortable, please begin. >> i am a professor of oceanography at florida state university, but today i am here of my own accord. i have 30 years of professional and private experience travelling around, cruising on, diving to the bottom of the gulf of mexico, and i deeply and fiercely loved this ocean and its people.

i thank you for your exemplary service during this catastrophe. i would like to comment briefly with a critique on the noaa report that we discussed earlier. i feel that this report was misleading. although it was done by very competent scientists, without any side station to the scientific literature -- and a citation to the scientific literature, it is impossible for someone reading this report to check the numbers that are there, and we have concern about those numbers. as i think you very ably demonstrated in your examination, we really can only account for 10% of the oil that was discharged, the four 0.1 million barrels their discharge, but to burning and scanning. the balance of the oil that may

have been in the environment, there may be 10% that evaporated into the atmosphere, but the balance is still in the ocean. the question as, how does the partition that was done, the separation into categories that was done by the oil budget, is really pretty theoretical at this point. there are findings that come out and i think will be called into question. there are five times the number of barrels released as or in the exxon valdez disaster. this oil is going to be very resistant to a further by a degradation. it is going to be in our environment for a long time. i think that the imprint of the bp release, the discharge carlo will be detectable in the gulf of mexico for the -- the discharge, will be detectable in

the gulf of mexico for the rest of my life. it is not going away very quickly. i would also like to comment on an aspect of this bill that has not seeped -- aspect of the spill that has not received a lot of attention, and that is the methane gas that has been released. we know that the well was very rich in gas. we have good numbers on that from the flow rate technical group. if we take those numbers, in units of mass equivalents or barrels of oil equivalent, it turns out that the oil plus the gas is equal to 1.5 times the oil alone. in other words, if there are 4.1 barrels of oil released, the

actual discharge is in excess of 6 million barrels when you combine the gas. some of debts, much of this, still remains in the ocean. i would contend that for the purposes of the oil pollution act, this followed should be included in our assessment of how far this spill when down. -- went down. and would also like to comment on the so-called resilience of the gulf of a mexico. there has been a massive dose of hydrocarbons in the gulf of mexico ecosystem. there's been talk about the resilience of the gulf of mexico. might concern is not about a wholesale die off, but for a depression, a decrease in the productivity and the biodiversity in the ecosystem. this might be, if we had a 10% decrease, this might be very difficult to demonstrate scientifically.

it might be even harder to prove in a court of law. nonetheless, if we sustain this impact over a number of years, it would be as severe effect. my greatest concern is that some of the damage may be so severe that we may have a tipping point effect that will overwhelm the resilience of the ecosystem. this unfortunately has been the case in the sound that was affected by the exxon valdez spill. i have drafted as part of my submission here a list of species that i think we should be watching closely. these include some of the big species, the shrimp, the tuna and so forth. they also include more humble members of the ecosystem such as the lawyer crabs, clams that are so abundant on the beaches. we need to be watching populations through time, not just next year, but for years to

come. may take several years to notice the impact. a healthy environment has to support the species. if we watch those species, we will know how the gulf is doing. is my time up? >> yes, but you will have time during question and answer period to elaborate. our next witness is the president and sole owner of dina blanchard seafood -- dean blanchard seafood, the largest dockside shrimp a broker in the united states and the third largest in the world. thank you for coming. whenever you feel ready, please begin. >> thank you for having this. i want to say that i visit your state regularly, and reminds me of grand isle. we are here to talk about

seafood safety, and we have a few concerns. basically, i have taken a moment to outline a few of my concerns. as an independent seafood owner, is the seafood product is put onto the market that is later determined to have made the consumer ill because of oil and your dispersants -- and/or a dispersant contamination, the will be the responsible party? of that is our major concern right now because we are having a problem getting liability insurance. i am responsible for moving about 300 million pounds of shrimp, and i have never seen anyone get sick. pretty much everyone in the seafood business is born and raised in it. not just decide one day i am going to be a seafood guy.

we have good people in our business, and we know the shrimp. i am hoping that will keep the public's faith. i will not but nothing on the myself. i tried to stop eating shrimp, and i felt like i was going to die. i had to start eating it again. i have a feeling that if i get sued, i am going to be the one paying the bill. is another concern that we have, commercial fishermen have to fill up their boats, by ice and salt and all. they are afraid the open waters will be closed once more, or that they will find contaminated seafood and they will have to dispose of it.

it is difficult for an out of work fishermen to pay for these expenses without a confidence in the government keeps opening and closing. without that confidence, and bp's press release says that virtually all the recoverable oil has been recovered. now, you can get oil. you want to get good trip, you can catch that too. i told every fisherman that when you bring me the product, it will be scrutinized 10 times more than it has ever been before. if you think that anything is wrong, do not bring it to me. i will not buy it. al will not take the chance of getting sued or getting someone sick. the last thing i want to see is that i got somebody's sick or a pregnant woman, that would be hard to live with.

i will make sure that will not happen. we have a difficult time locating insurance companies that will sell less insurance. -- sell us insurance. i am scared of someone trying to make money off of this. that is the scary part. basically, we in the seafood industry have very little trust in the government. when i tried to sell seafood, i say that the government said that they see thousands of tests and everything is alright. i told them that it is the same government, but it is a different branch. that is some of the problem that we have. we appreciate the help for people like you that maybe we

will get down to the bottom of it. i firmly believe that all of the seafood that i have seen so far is safe. i eat seafood probably six or seven times a week. i have not had any problems with the seafood. we are hoping that the government is doing the right job and making sure that everybody is safe. maybe we can all get through this one day. thank you. >> thank you, mr. blanchard. thank you for being here today. our next witness is mr. a. c. cooper jr.. he is a fisherman and the vice president of the louisiana trappers' association -- shrimpers association. we thank you for coming mr.

cooper. whenever you are ready, please begin. >> i this want to talk a little bit about the damages done to our community. >> mr. cooper, could you move the microphone in. >> yes sir. we have reports of new mirror -- numerous fish kills. they are saying that the oil is not there. we know it is there. i work in one part of the space for two months and we wear has met chutes and gloves -- where hazardous material suits and gloves. a reported oil to the coast guard and i brought them out there and show them that it was there. this has had a catastrophic effect on our community and our way of life.

we do not need to let this late because bps or to step out and they are trying to get out now. we need to stay on top of things. if we let them leave now, we will be in deep trouble. everyone says that it is over with.

it is becoming clear that the use of the correct thing it was a tool. this is a wise decision in the oil spill. we think that that conclusion is premature. as you pointed out, you raise many important questions.

where is the chemically- dispersed oil? is this encountering the hon. ecosystems? is the oil were able to get into the food chain then the oil alone? it is it possible for it to magnified in the food chain. it is clear that the use of chemical dispersants is a trade- off but we don't know what a trade-off we have made. 75% is along very in the environment. is this an overt interpretation of the data and misleading?

we don't know how much oil remains in the environment. if you to a more direct interpretation, it says that 50% may remain in the environment. in addition, the federal oil budget appears to be a preliminary budget that was perhaps prematurely released. this was released before peer review or any discussion. this was of the fate of the oil.

for example, this did not provide estimates of how much went into an oil slick on the seafloor. the federal oil budget took a partial snapshot of the will in time and this does not directly address for the oil was, where it is going, how long it will remain in the environment. this also did not address the ecological impacts. >> to fully understand the risks, this needs to be filled out and the budget needs to be refined. recent statements from the federal government made today to assure americans that the open fishing grounds and the seafood has no oil and it and there is no health effect.

my colleague highlights three primary concerns. much of the contamination is not publicly available. no one has released data on fewer than 100 of the samples of the thousands that they say they have. this seafood monetary might not be adequate in terms of simple size or in terms of the failure to monitor the heavy metals which is discussed today.

in conclusion, the gulf oil disaster is the largest oil spill in u.s. history. we understand that the government was to turn the corner in one signal that the gulf is on the way to recovery. there's still a huge amount of will in the an -- amount of oil in the gulf. government needs to do careful study, to assess the fate of

this bill. and then that which is warranted. >> thank you. now we will turn to questions from the committee. i will begin with you, dr. mcdonald. there is a lot of concern about the methane from the spill spreading in the gulf. how long will it remain and what harm could it cause? i know that these questions are areas of active research for you and for the broader economic community. can you give us a brief overview of what scientists are finding? this weekend today, we have seen

the release of a number of careful studies. one by the university of south florida reporting on the results of the research and they careful study of the oil budget by a scientist at the university of georgia in athens. these show aspects of the spread of the oil and the compounds. this is the best science i have seen yet out of this process. the committee documents the spread of polysaccharide hydrocarbons.

lisa m. of of the components. they have a very large plume of this material spreading to the southwest of this bill. in that report, a document some 6%-7% of these released from the well was included in that plume. this is 1,100 meters. if this is a tracer, that suggests that we don't know very well what happened to the balance. the upper layer to the ocean may have received a bigger dose of oil than we are presently worried about. we do know from work that has been done that the oil spread over an area of many thousands of square kilometers and as it emulsifies, this rain sound

articles of oil. this became more concentrated as it reached the coast. for this is what the findings are from the document. they found oil on the bottom everywhere. either you are very unhappy or there is a lot of oil on the bottom. many plants have been made in this hearing. >> while this hearing was ongoing, this release the study and this is a snapshot from the middle of june and what they found was a plume of oil from the -- 1.2 miles long, 650 feet high and a depth of 3,000 feet.

microbes are degrading the plume very slowly this means that oil is persisting for longer time cent thought. we don't know how toxic this is or if it poses a threat. they did not find areas of severe oxygen completion, that is dead zones. that explains the discrepancy because of their use. i just wanted to put that on the

record. mr. cooper, how many years have you been shrimping? >> 35 years. >> have you been out shrimping recently? >> -- >> did you see anything different or unusual in terms of the waters? >> not in the area i went. these were clean areas. we did not have enough shrimp. >> can you tell me how about the long-term impact? >> we are concerned with the shrimp. as dr. cooper says, the will is present in ground and the might

be more exposure. >> this requires the right to survival of seafood. you have to be concerned. this is one trending ship, i'm sure that you have gone up before. this one event does not tell us the whole story. if they cannot catch it, all of the protection and the vigilance and efta was not because of the seafood industry.

>> are you convinced that there is no oil open to shrimping? >> i did find oil in them. >> is there ia way that you can be sure that there's a oil and not in the water? >> in one of the last days that i work, we found it. we called the coast guard and bp and have them come out there. the coast guard would not come. i went to a town hall meeting and i brought it before them and invited them to see what i found. they did come and i showed them.

they said that this is of recoverable oil. they have opened that day of for trolling. >> people are raising concerns about the quality of the seafood simply because they want to continue to collect checks from bp. can you deal with that issue for us so we can understand. how should we be doing this tension? >> we want to give them incentive to go fishing. we should let the fishermen

fish, even though they will have to go to different grounds, give them an incentive to go out. bp took the approach that there were one to do a pr program and do the simplest thing that works for them. they have never tried to pick up the oil. i talked to many people who said that they found oil, they contacted bp, bp told them not to try to pick up and go the other way. i've been dealing with this for over a hundred days. >> why do you think that? >> it is cheaper to sink it, out of sight, out of mind. all of this seafood is probably being tested more than any other product in the world.

i don't believe beef, pork, or any seafood in the world, we did see fit from foreign countries that personally i would not eat and it is being grown in a sewer and they check 2% of it. 40% is rejected. that is one thing i want to bring up. all of the seafood is -- within the other product in the world. whatever agency is tested them, they give us the paper and return to this product is good. question know that is why we're having this hearing.

>> that is what we are hearing. >> if they were held accountable, people have trusted the government agencies. >> there are many people who will be made accountable. we are going to move to this entire process. we are not going away. he will make sure that all of the lessons can be extracted to. we want to make sure the lessons are learned and implemented and are to protect the public.

do you think it you are being asked to work in an unsafe environment? >> this is unsafe. yes, they will make us where has met suits. how can you send out fisherman there? in some areas, yes.

they put him back in the water, they can go to work. we don't have the area to work. we are opening and closing the seasons. we pretty much had to do what they had to do. >> they are is smaller than normal size this week. there are other changes, aren't there changes that color the smells, the spot? >> in this area, no, sir. >> would you like to inject your thoughts at this point? >> thank you, mr. chairman. there are two small areas in south louisiana that have will and that is where mr. cooper

actually goes. we have 7,500 miles of shoreline in louisiana. only about 400 miles of those our oil. seafood from throughout louisiana is safe. it is wholesome. there can be questions, >> you are saying that the seafood which is being sold as safe but there are many areas where it is caught and sold and this is not safe. >> is this, outside of louisiana, this is safe? >> this is put into the commercial market. 87% is currently open to the harvest of seafood.

that occurred last week and it is the result of the testing protocols. we know that we talked a lot about the protocols and the oil testing. looking at the risk assessment, i took a look at it and in terms of oysters, oysters are consumed at about 1/4 pound per capita consumption. in the risk assessment, we used a number between 9 and 10 times per capita consumption on an annual basis. we figure that exposure at five years, we have the per-capita consumption by 40 times and the exposure in five years and we're looking at the risk of illness of one intend thousands which is potentially look at it as one in either hundred thousand or one in a million.

that is being magnified significantly. we are meeting by 100 to or have thousandfold all of the criteria in the reopening protocols. >> i just want to clarify. you are not representing the areas that the federal waters are now closed and it is safe to eat the fish in those areas? >> i did not say that, sir. in the open waters where they are harvested and sold, i would feed it to my kids and wife and we do eat this often. >> in those other areas, where he would not feed the fish to your family, in the waters that are now closed. >> and the waters that are now closed, we cannot. >> the bottom line is that as they do the reopening and go through the protocol, absolutely

i would see that to my family. >> can you give us a comment? >> i have been eating them. >> i would definitely eat them. i don't think there's a difference which in what is open and was closed. >> can you comment here and divide the question here for us in terms of what you believe the safe and what is not safe and tell the american people should be doing this. >> i would certainly need to them as well i have the occasion sometimes. my concern remains the product safety -- productivity, not the safety. a three and a 50 mile statistic is part in but it could have been worse.

you have some on the bottom farther out. as you go to the east, you see a lot of oil, mississippi, alabama. when is the book of short and take samples, they are finding this very well, they are finding it in the marshes, won her 50 miles did get a lot of march. the edges of these, where the draft is, my concern is that this goes back 10% or 5%, that violates these channels. that means the flow of water is greater. that means that the rest of the wetlands are greater. we have a tremendous amount of work to restore the gulf of mexico. we had a lot to do, now we have a lot more. my concern is the productivity and the ecosystem.

i believe in protecting our safety but we have heard the comments on this question. >> i would like to emphasize that long-term monitoring is imperative. what we learn from the exxon valdez is that oil that gets into the coast is toxic for decades. any time it gets disturbed, it can get into the environment. the coastal fisheries, it is important that they continue to monitor for the exposure. >> was anything that was of concern to you that you heard on the opening panel from the government officials? what do you think needs more

attention? >> a few things stuck out. one was that they are only now developing tests to determine whether this person some bioaccumulation. that is something that we should have known since their common tools in oil response. another thing that you know we are concerned about is that the risk assessment used by the fda is not adequately conservative for a specific hon. populations. it was reassuring to hear that they were open to be considering that margin of safety. i would say with regard to seafood safety, this is a primary concern. >> is there any concern that you had in the testimony that you would like us to continue? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

in response to my colleague, i feel that the risk assessment and the protocols for reopening basically are much more conservative than there should be to any concern related to. i think that this has gone way beyond what would the conservatives and i described this a moment ago in my answer. >> even though you heard concerns about heavy metals, that is not a concern? >> having spent countless hours talking to ph d's and doctors relating to this end all of these things through shellfish, i personally think that there is no concern relating to those

although we should be concerned. >> there have never been any studies on the subject, you have no concern? >> no, i do not. >> do you have concerns? >> regarding the government report, testing for heavy metals and the other issues that are unresolved to if mine concern is 40 gulf of mexico. i have not yet heard from noaa. an enormous dose of oil was given. mother nature is being made to clean up our big mass and i think that mother nature suffers for it. i think that we need a permanent fund for the restoration, the

understanding, and the sustenance of the gulf of mexico system in perpetuity and i don't hear that. i would like to hear that. >> mr. blanchard, mr. cooper, everyone, once -- they want the gulf to rebound. your industry did not cause this mess. you're likely harm some -- livelihoods were harmed. what did each of u.s. the federal government to do to help establish the safety of call seafood and to help reassure the consuming public about the safety of call seafood. you heard the question that i posed to to the government panel that appeared here earlier about

the need for additional tests to help address some of the issues that have not definitively addressed the metabolism of the oil, the effect of the long-term impacts that this disaster could have on the quality and productivity of seafoods in the gulf. do you think that those should be priorities? what did you like the government to do? >> i did not like what i heard of of the government. i would be going to the worst place and checking that first. the government says, we just checked the open places, why don't you check the close places? no one seems to be checking? we have been severely harmed by this?

since this happened, i got my secretary to look at the bills we paid, we paid $480,000 in bills and have received $165,000 in payments from bp. i heard the president say that he would not let our cash flow be interrupted. why is no one holding the be accountable to come in and make it right? >> this committee would like to work with you, we want to make sure thatbp stands for bill pay. >> as far as what is going on in

the gulf, they're trying to take the money that we made working with bp offer far claims and that is not fair for the fishermen. we are cleaning their mess. now they will hold us. that is not fair for what we have just done. now this will go against all of the claims but they did not think about doing something like this. that is not called for we expect them to do their job. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we believe that this is critical to the gulf and their survival in the gulf. the state of louisiana has

requested $407 million for a 20-year test program. we will continue to monitor the health. more importantly, one of our great challenges is the brand of the gulf of mexico, the brand of the gulf seafood. we have seven generations of family that have plied the waters in louisiana. people need to understand. there are no questions about what is in the market. there might be questions about fishing areas that are closed. we should ask those questions. this is wholesome and safe, this is a tremendously conservative science. we need to convince people about this. people instead of ordering

oysters on the half shell, they are having chicken or stake. we need to overcome that. 100 + days of oil gushing and the right hand corner of the television screen has branded us as something other than what we are. we will meet that challenge. this is a very small part of the whole gulf of mexico. we need to look at the whole. this is 200 gallons of oil that has escaped from the situation. we need to have the microbes that will eat oil. that was not the case in relationship to the valdez incident where they don't have the warm water. >> would you like to see more testing in the areas that have the heaviest concentrations of oil right now? would you like to see that implemented now said that we

will have that information in the long term going forward? >> i believe that that is happening. more is better. >> we heard on the opening panel that there was no intensive program to do that. would you like to see that? >> i would support that. i have been on conference calls with a have reported they are doing testing in closed areas. i've been on conference calls with the fda as well. that is what they have indicated, the testing of the seafood products in those areas. they have done oil plume testing and they have indicated that they are continuing to do that. >> you want them right now to be testing the fish inside of the

area? >> i believe that they are. >> you believe it is important for them to test the fish inside of the most loyal to areas? >> absolutely. >> that helps. >> we ask each one of you to give us.

>> the government is required to do studies on this. >> the gulf of mexico state's, louisiana is what i have been living in, they have been challenged by five major events. this spill is the most significant and recent.

we will not be broken as a result of this. the seafood community is viable. my family left france under orders in 1770, went to canada and was kicked out of canada. so far, we have not been kicked out of louisiana. we will be resilient. people are not really interested necessarily in the rough seas that you have but whether or not you bring the ship been, i hope that the federal government continues its efforts and doubles them if appropriate and needed to bring that shipped in to have safe seafood and a clean and healthy gulf coast. the gulf is a viable place to lift. seafood is wholesome and safe and harvested from the gulf of mexico and we want americans to

know that. >> >> we are testing our correction and this has been depleted, we want to see what is happening to our fisheries. last season, it opened, this was available and it will happen. that is one of the things we would like to see. >> thank you. >> i have had a product that was always known as the best because this was the best. i would just like the perception of the american public to know this is the best again. in our business, we don't work 925, we work 5 to 9.

i pretty much what my life back. they took everything that i work for all of these years and one company doesn't know what they're doing or they cut too many corners and they put me out of business. this just ruins my whole life and no one is being held responsible but me and i did not do anything wrong. i am so confused. i go to work, like i always do. until you have lived through what we have been living through, i know what will happen. every night i go to sleep, i cannot sleep. i know how many squares i have and the ceiling.

i hope that the government makes bp clean everything up and everything returns by to normal and the american public has confidence that the seafood that we will buy, we will not sell or anything. the last thing we want to do is get anyone sick. we will do the best we can to make sure everything is alright. >> to you and mr. cooper, we thank you for coming here. >> thank you. we know that you are individuals who have a tremendous amount at stake care. it is at any point tomorrow, next week, next month, you can just dial our number here on the committee to help you personally with your own family situations as you are going forward we will

give you the number to calls soon as this hearing is done so that you know someone will be behind you. >> bp will have to pay a fine and my concern is that fine to be dedicated to restoring the gulf of mexico. not disappear into a treasury somewhere. i hope that the houses of congress can work together and the parties can work together to guarantee that the money that is paid here goes into permanent restoration projects such as restoring marshes, better enforcement of coastal runoff, those are all things that have

to happen to make our goal for whole again. that is what we all want. in order to do that, if you will have massive support from the people from the gulf of mexico. >> i would like at the house of representatives just three weeks ago and did adopt one appeal and recommendations to the oil spill response bill that we passed on the house floor to create a new trust fund for oceans so the funds raised from trillions in our ocean will go towards protecting and improving our oceans. the senate has said that they will take up the legislation when they return in september, that is always problematic. we did in the house of representatives take the recommendation and implement them and hopefully the same will be true in the senate so that

they can go to president obama is best. what we have learned today is that the oil is not gone, the oil remaining in the gulf waters are washed up on the shore and this is equivalent to 10 exxon valdez size spills and could not be much more. most of the gulf has been reopened to fishing but to the industry is not in the clear. long-term impact on stocks remained unknown, one contaminated catch makes it to to market and makes people sick and then the reputation and credibility of one of america's most important fisheries will be in jeopardy. we must engage this issue with continued caution and vigilance is necessary.

we have seen some premature celebration. the dispersed will is not the same as the oil which has disappeared. data, formulas, algorithms need to be made public so that independent scientists can verify the conclusions that are now shaping the debate on what to do now. we need to test fishing stock in the closed fishing areas now so that we understand what is going on now. that will help us in the future to protect the fishermen, to protect the consumers in our country. we must spend the money now so that in the future, there are no questions that are examined and we insure that the compensation is given to those who needed as long as possible until we make

everything as safe as possible. all of that in my opinion is going to mean something that this committee and the american people need to be vigilant to make sure this is in place so that people in the gulf of mexico at the end of day are made completely whole. bp will try to walk away as fast as they can. they low balled the bill and the first week and they said it was $1,000. then they said it was 5,000 barrels. they knew in the first week that it was a huge spill. it turns out, between 53,000 and 63,000 barrels per day. that is not 1,000 barrels. that has changed the level of response and those first weeks, in those first months because of

the misleading information. people were less vigilant than they would have been and the response was less intense than it would have been if we understood the magnitude. we must continue that level of vigilance, we must assume that we need to use all of our resources to understand what is going on right now so that there can be proper protections which are put in place and that proper compensation is given to all of those whose lives have been adversely affected by what has happened. well they might be spending tens of millions of dollars on their television commercials saying that they are on the job even today, they have identified many questions which have yet to be answered in a satisfactory way and we need to make sure that they are or the long term will

be the residence of the gulf. we think all of you for being here today and we hope to stay in contact with you. behalf [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> in a few moments, president obama encourages senators to pass a small business bill. we will look bad on congressional testimony from roger clemens. he has been indicted for allegedly lying to congress about using steroids. after that, a town hall with

republican ed royce. then, the congressional budget report on the deficit. a couple of things to tell you about tomorrow morning. the condensed -- the executive commission will discuss china and human trafficking. that is on c-span to. then, we talked to admiral allen to talk about the response to the gulf oil spill. >> one of the things about the rhetorical life in washington is that every major figure from the president on down is merely reading what to somebody else in committee has produced. >> philip terzian wrote speeches

for jimmy carter. >> just before leaving for vacation, president obama called on seven republicans to allow a vote on a small business bill after the recess. this failed on a procedural vote after a dispute on an amendment. >> good morning, everyone. i have been urging congress to pass a jobs bill that will to two big things for small businesses. cut their taxes and make homes more available. i have been adamant about this because small businesses are the backbone of our economy. two out of every three new jobs this country, a lot of big

businesses and big banks are recovering from this recession. small businesses and community banks and loans to small businesses have been lagging behind and they need help. if you want this to create more jobs more quickly, we need to help them. a report yesterday from the labor department describes what is so critical. less than 50% of employees -- these are the businesses that use to create most of the jobs in this country. this report combined with the news that unemployment claims rose again compels us. this compels us to stand with the small businessmen and women who are trying to grow their companies and make payroll.

the sales have stalled in congress and they have eliminated taxes on key investments as small business. this would make it easier for community banks to do more lending and they would do the lungs with fewer fees which countless such an interest only would make a big difference. i would like to point out that this legislation is fully paid for and won not at a time to our deficit. so, normally would expect the democrats and republicans to join together. unfortunately, in part as a minority has refused to allow this jobs bill to come up for a vote. i recognize there times when democrats and republicans have legitimate differences rooted in different opinions about what is best for this country. there are times when good people

in good faith, this is not one of those times. this is based on ideas both democratic and republican. many divisions and the bill were actually offered by republican senators and this has been praised as being good for small business. a majority of senators are in favor of the bill. yet, the obstruction continues. >> the instructions and way of small business owners get in the loans and the tax cuts that they need to prosper. this defies common sense. >> let me make this simple point, there will be plenty of time between now and november to play politics. the business owners i met with this week, the ones i've met with across the country this year, they don't have time for games.

they're not interested in what is best for a political party, they are interested in what is best for the country. the jobs bill will be the first business out of the gate. the senate republican leadership needs to stop their efforts to block it. let's put aside for a partnership for will -- for essential for a while. thank you. >> are you worried that this is heading towards a double dip? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . .

>> the sentencing guidelines call for 15 to 21 months. >> what led to the charges of roger clemens? >> he went to congress of his own accord, not subpoenaed. he said he would set everything straight after the mitchell report, in which george mitchell looked into the steroid era, and roger clemens was mentioned there several times. he insisted it was not true and

he testified before congress he had never taken steroids or human growth hormones. >> the u.s. attorney released a statement about the indictment. what did he say about making false statements to congress? >> he said the department of justice takes that sort of thing seriously. he said, "are government cannot function of what this is are not held accountable for false statements before congress."

lead it to kind of a catastrophic outcome. it is very important that the public began to speak out, in my opinion. to the level of spending in washington. it will begin to bring down that deficit. i would also make another observation, and that is the

actions i have seen taken in washington in the last few years i don't think had the desired effect. i'm talking about the stimulus bill, because most of the benefits increased government agencies, government departments, and government deployment. we had close to 500,000 more new employees in the government's then we had. we had a 15% increase over last few years. if you look what has happened in the private sector, we have lost close to 5 million jobs in the private sector. the unemployment numbers are becoming worse because it is now 9.5%. i think as we go forward, for those of us with a background in business, and that was my

background, small business before got involved, i will just of my opinion of this, my view, and then we will hear from you on your perspectives. but it seems to me with all the uncertainty out there, with small businesses now, in a situation where we face a new assessment, a new tax, basically as a result of the mandate with the health care bill, with the potential that the legislation that passed through the house on the card check program, or we won't have a secret ballot in passes, and instead you have a process where if uri small businessmen, business owner and you are looking at increasing employment, will you be concerned? will you be worried about hiring new employees if it looks like the bill will go out of the senate? as a consequence of that

legislation, if somebody comes in and you are hiring new people to come into your work force and it is no longer the national labor relations board that will have a secret ballot election but instead you will have an election based upon the card check, you'll be resistant to that, at least the small businesses that create 70% of the jobs in this country indicate that is a problem. another situation, for the first businesses in this country holding two trillion dollars of cash on their balance sheets. economists call this according, but they're basically not expanding in the face of uncertainty. i believe when i hear from business leaders, when i hear from businessmen and businesswomen, they face a situation where they are concerned about the energy taxes that may raise their energy tax bill by 30%.

that level of uncertainty, that concern over those issues and the issue of whether or not we will do something long-term about the deficits, i think that level of uncertainty is freezing up. it is helping compound the problem that we are already in, where we don't have businesses making the decision to go forward and to expand. that is an overall concern that i have. with that said, let'sqji] get yr questions, and i will ask you to come up to the microphone, state your name and your question, and i will respond. here is the microphone. >> i am also concerned about the

budget, but i have a slightly different take. this budget mess started with the last administration, not this administration. one of the biggest problems to the budget right now are the wars. this is destroying our economy. why doesn't congress,á including you, get us out of iraq before the end of next year, get us out of afghanistan right now, and use that money to rebuild our country? thank you. [applause] >> that may respond if i could. in terms of iraq, we are on an agenda to bring our military out of iraq. what we're trying to do is do it in a way where we stand up the iraqi military, and we are on a program that so far it is pulling our troops out. with respect to afghanistan, that is also the plan, train the afghan military so that they handle the problem with al qaeda, so that we can get out of

the country. in terms of the budgetary process, it is important to remember that every spending bill under our constitution, every spending bill initiates -- originates in the house. since the current speaker became speaker, since the elections of 2006, for the last four years, she has been speaker of the house. the argument i made earlier is that five years ago, i was concerned with the budget deficit, $162 billion. since that time, during those four years, we have seen this budget, we have seen the spending. all of these bills originate in the house. we have seen this go up to a point where the deficit is now 10 times what it was. the other concern i have is with the sheer growth, the size of government during this time.

i think it needs to be addressed, but we will go now to the next question. >> thank you for having this event today. i am sure that you can appreciate the issues that we deal with and the uncertainty, especially taxes. liberal politicians and media have done an excellent job of demonizing corporations and the rich as basically being evil, greedy, not paying enough taxes. they have done this by counting the message home virtually every conference and precedent they have held with the media. all of those labels, by the way, are false for anybody who looks deeper. when will conservative rep stand up and mass -- en masse to say that we need less spending to help the economy. >> let me respond if i could. [applause] what i have tried to do in order to get the message out, besides

being on c-span, fox news, cnn, and other programs, it is to be on the radio stations, to hold these forms out in the community, and i am not alone in doing this. this is the second meeting i have held today. i had one in cyprus this morning. two weeks ago, i had one in orange. every chance i get, i go out and try to dialogue with my constituency. i think what is necessary is that we get people more involved in this issue, because the only way that things are going to change, if people feel the heat, they see the light. i think it is only by getting our citizens involved in a way that thomas jefferson originally envisioned, where they began to not only go to the polls but go to town hall meetings and right representatives and have their

voices heard. we're going to get the perspective outside of washington, d.c. i think what is needed now, we have plenty of people in government that all of us can talk to inside of d.c. we need to get beyond the beltway in d.c., across america, and hear from our constituents. i think that will help change the direction. go ahead, sir. >> i am a small businessman, probably one of the smallest ones in orange county or california, and part of the problem is the cost of government. we see all government employees making about twice with their counterparts are making in the civilian industry. we are in trouble. that has been a growing concern through several administrations. cannot blame bush for that.

when is somebody going to step up to the plate and say we are going to take a straight 10% across-the-board cut in everybody's salary? [applause] >> for those of us who have supported a salary freeze, and i have never voted for an increase in salary and congress, but for those of us who have argued for not just congress having a freeze, which we have had the last two years, but for having the federal government have a freeze, we have lost that vote. i am also a small businessman. technically, my wife said i should have been on the ballot as a short businessman, but i was a small businessman, and i share your concern. it is the regulations. i will tell you, new regulations, besides the inequity in terms of pay, the attitude towards small business,

and health care bill, there is a new mandate that every time you have an expenditure of more than $600, you have to put out a 1099 on that expenditure. if you are turning over inventory, can you imagine the cost to small business, the difficulty in terms of handling these kinds of mandates? it is true there are 19,000 new irs agents funded through the bill, so maybe they will help you do that, but at the end of the day, there is such a lack of balance. as i began my remarks, there is such a growth in the number of people in the public sector, 15% increase in public employees over the last several years, this has got to reach back to balance. we have to understand that the way out of the economic recession is to create and encourage the small business

that hires 70% of our work force. you are absolutely correct in this. i think part of the answer is to recognize that there should be equity between the pay raise in the private sector and public sector. other questions? >> hello. i salute you for being here and listening to us ordinary americans. my concern, i work in a small business, private college, and i am a chemistry and bio-medical science teacher. i know in the last election that you took money from six banks, as your primary donors, and then you voted to de-regulate, remove reasonable regulations on the banking industry. >> you are technically wrong. you are technically wrong in

this because i was one of the voices to regulate the system. >> i am talking about the legislation that just happened this summer. the re-regulation of the banking industry. i believe you voted against that. >> go ahead. >> the previous de-regulation that happened under the clinton and bush administrations has led to our current economic crash as well as the meltdown. i believe it -- >> let me give you my perception on that. am i have something more to say. >> in terms of the legislation that was supported by the investment banks, i don't think it is a good idea to pass legislation that guarantees a permanent backstop, a permanent bailout for the large investment banks. and i will tell you why. am i totally agree with that. >> you agree with my vote? >> i was against the park money in the bailout.

>> i voted against every single bailout. >> i was talking about is you voted to de-regulate the banks. >> i did not. >> i believe you did. am i have the amendment on the house floor to try to regulate -- >> i have the amendment on the house floor to try to regulate fannie mae and freddie mac. >> do i have free-speech as a citizen? >> go ahead. talk to minutes and then i will correct the record. >> i will let you corrected. maybe other people have this perception, too, that de- regulation of the banking industry led to the financial meltdown and crash and a loss of a bunch of small businesses. another thing is when you voted for the bush tax cuts and the 2% of the richest americans, i think this led to the deficit and the bankruptcy of our

country. audience: boos. >> think about it, if you have less tax money coming in -- let me talk. i have two minutes. you remove that much of the tax base. if you take away that much of the money from our country's treasury, then we go into a deficit. that is one thing that caused the deficit. >> now i will respond and i appreciate you raising these points. first of all, in terms of the question of the regulation of banks, -- de-regulation of the banks, there is phenomenal regulation of the banks. the question is the enforcement and the question of whether or not you will create systemic risk. congress created systemic risk, and i will tell you one of the ways they did it and one of the ways that brought down the housing market, and it is the key problem, and a large investment banks took advantage of what was done with fannie mae

and freddie mac, and so did aig. public to explain how this happened. in 2004, the federal reserve came to congress and said we face a systemic risk to our financial system. that risk is because there is something that congress has done. what congress did with government sponsored enterprises it is allowed them to go into arbitrage and to over-leverage, to leverage at 100-to-1, to borrow at near public rates and invest in a portfolio of mortgage-backed securities. the government sponsored enterprises were doing more than securitized loans, they were involved in arbitrage. what the fed asked for was the ability to regulate, the ability to regulate, because this was an area in which congress had tied

their hands. in point of fact, congress had piled on by muscling fannie and freddie 20 downpayment loans instead of 20% down. -- to do 0 downpayment loans instead of 20% down. that 50% of the portfolio was directly responsible for 85% of the losses when fannie and freddie collapsed, and when you realize what happened next, aig had insured the mortgage-backed securities in the portfolio. when fannie and freddie went down, aig went down, and then the investment banks that were involved in this also began to go down, and the reality is that

for the banks, g.s.e., fannie and freddie instruments, were considered capital. when it went down, now the banks were undercapitalized. now that argument becomes whether or not you passed legislation to bail out those banks. i was in favor of them going through a process of bankruptcy, expedited bankruptcy, just like railroads go through, airlines. am absolutely. am i am not a fan of the big banks. but the consequence of them not going through that process is that now a new bill comes forward, and i think you and i agree on not voting for this legislation that just went out. with that bill does is it provides permanent bailout of 40 from the federal government for these large institutions, but only these large institutions. you have to be systemically

significant. here is the problem. if your small community bank, your cost of capital is now 100 basis points lower. it is four points lower because you cannot borrow because of the presumptions that you will be bailed out. the idea that is out there in the business community is the word bailed out before. -- they were bailed out before. now the fdic says they are bailing, borrowing at a full 100 basis points. so the thing that is happening is the big banks get bigger and the small banks, too small to say, will be crowded out. lastly, let me wrap up, it is my belief that a certain rate, if you keep taxes too high, you will not maximize revenue to the federal government.

i think john kennedy was right about this. i think there is a level of taxation in which assets go to highest and best use, the economy grows at a faster rate, and it might seem counterintuitive, but if you get the tax rates too high, there is a lug on the economic engine. i do not support taxes as some would like to see them. i support taxing business, taxing individuals, but i think those rates can become almost putative when you add them with federal and state tax rates, and it all down the economic engine, but we may disagree. >> i agree the legislation is not ideal and it has a lot of giveaways to the biggest banks and big business, and i definitely think that is a bad idea. i think the spirit of it is good because we're not talking about the economic crash really

happening by fannie and freddie, which is what you are trying to converted into. the fundamental issue -- the fundamental issue is that the banks are responsible. >> listen, we agree on goldman sachs. let's leave it at that and let the next person. >> would you re-regular? >> they are regulated. the problem is effectively getting the regulation enforced, right? >> i want to give you a sample letter that i wrote to mayor bloomberg, and i would hope that more people would write to him regarding the cultural center and a mosque. can i give that to you? >> yes, thank you. i will just comment on that for a minute, because the man who is

the head of the cultural center, it is my understanding from what i have seen in the newspapers that he has $18,000 in the account. i understand neutrality in this, but the state department has decided to send him on a tour to qatar and the united arab emirates. my concern about that is as follows. if you or i wanted to put up an institution at ground zero, we would have to start with more than $18,000 in the bank. if we did not have the money, we would not have the state department coming forward and saying let's send you on a trip and see if you come back with the $100 million that it will cost to build, what is it, a 14- story mega-mosque, or whatever

you want to identify it as, in the proximity of ground zero. i don't think we have been evenhanded in terms of how we have approached this. the other thing i have concerns about is his comments, according to press reports, that he believes we were accessories to the fact of the 9/11 attack. that concerns me. i think his failure several months ago, when he was asked about hamas, about whether it is a terrorist organization, his refusal to answer that question is a problem. i know some friends in the muslim community who have a great deal of concern about some of his other comments that have appeared in newspapers in jordan in the past and in egypt. i am sitting down with them, going over their concerns.

does the government say that we are not going to get involved in a zoning issue, and then post on the website of the state department the comments by the mayor of new york in defense of this action? that is getting involved in the zoning issue. second, why does the state department then underwrite a trip at a time when there is a shortage of funds and historic plea when there have been these trips -- and historic plea when there have been these trips is fundraising. they say he is not going just for the purpose, for that purpose. i understand you not sending him for that purpose, but my question is, what is he going to be doing in gulf state countries whose objective is to fund mosques in the united states? these are concerns that it raises. we will go now to the next constituent.

>> i believe is the foreign worker visa program that allows our country to bring in hundreds of thousands of foreign workers at companies like microsoft, bill gates, claimed that americans -- he cannot find americans qualified to take computer and engineering jobs. my son just got a computer science degree and cannot find a job. i am curious about why does bill gates lobbied congress every year and they've raised the quota to allow more workers to come in? second, what does congress require these cumbria's -- require these companies to submit as troop the cannot find americans to take these jobs? finally, with follow-up is once these ford workers come here? i found out on the internet nobody tracks to find out they go home. why is that? why cannot we suspend that program when americans don't have jobs? [applause]

>> i think one of the observations i would make is in the past, there has been a great deal of fraud in these programs. there have been stories on that in the major newspapers. absolutely, this needs to be looked at much more closely. second, we are in a time when we have unemployment of 14.5 million americans. i think you are absolutely right to be concerned about that. there is a wider concern that i have in terms of the issue of how we're going to handle a legal immigration, because from what i have seen, -- the legal immigration, because what i have seen, the enforcement mechanisms that have been suggested are not being deployed even though they have been enacted into law. perry there was legislation twice on the border fence.

i co-sponsored this legislation. the first time because this was a request of the border patrol in terms of the san diego sector, and they argued if they completed the fence across san diego that they could gain effective control over the border and this would allow them to handle the crime in the area. the cartel's they argued had gotten in control. when the border fence was completed, according to the statistics, the crime bill by half on both sides of the border, which meant it was very effective. second, the border patrol testified this was a very effective use of resources because it allowed them -- it was a force multiplier. the second bill would continue and fund the border fence, the

double border fence. that is the way they like it designed. it is the easiest to enforce behind, and run it up to the mountains. wherever there was the capability by road to traverse, to run at all the way across the southwest border. that was enacted into law. but the foot dragging by the last administration and this administration on building that border fence is appalling. for a while, we had the national guard working on this, helping border patrol, but then the national guard was pulled off the border and we have not been able to get them redeployed to assist. while there were down there, by the way, they assisted in hundreds of thousands of apprehensions. the reason this issue is so important is because as a consequence of not having effective control of the border, the cartels have effective control, especially in parts of texas. i have had hearings in the

radio, texas, -- in laredo, texas, and the situation in phoenix has reached a point where that is the kidnapping capital of the u.s. part of the problem on enforcement is that the people of arizona have a different position than the people in this city council of phoenix. it is a sanctuary city in phoenix, so you have a lawsuit by the police officers in the city of phoenix against their government, where they say their hands are being tied and they cannot enforce the law. as a consequence, the police department is arguing that crime is getting out of control. the rest of the state reacted, the legislature passed legislation. the first thing the bill did was and the sanctuary city situation for phoenix, and the second thing it did was an act a

provision -- an act a provision in arizona where if you drive a car, to get a driver's license, you have to be legally here, either a citizen or resident alien. as a consequence of that, they felt it would be axiomatic that if a law enforcement officer stopped you what you are driving your car and you don't have the license, then there is reasonable suspicion that it might be time to call the immigration authorities to check out to see who this individual was. this takes on added interest if you consider that before 9/11, the day before, on their way to the airport, speeding, two of the hijackers were in fact stopped and they did not have

valid identification. as a matter of fact, there was a list, watch list, and they work on it. if the phone call had been made to the 1-800 number by the police department, they would have been apprehended, that particular team, and who knows what would have been discovered, but at least that one attack would of been stopped. the reality is because of the action by that city council, there was no emphasis on doing that. and so as a consequence, when we had the 9/11 commission, the commission said border security is national security. the first thing you should do is develop tamperproof identities and so forth. arizona take that action and now they're being sued by the department of justice, the federal government, on a very interesting theory. the theory being that it is illegal for arizona to enforce federal law when the executive

branch of the federal government decides not to enforce what congress has passed. that will be an interesting case before the supreme court. i hope i have covered the important elements. >> why can't we stop the visa program in immediately give americans jobs? >> these are all depends on laws in congress. you have to change the laws in congress in order to do that. believe it or not, changing these laws is a real lift. i was the co-sponsor of the border fence act, and i really thought once we had the signing ceremony that that job was going to get done. but it is an education. next question, please? >> hello, sir. i live in anaheim. my question is this, my grandfather is 81 years old,

already enjoyed 16 years of retirement, collects social security in that time. you are -- your minority leader john boehner said he was interested in exploring the possibility of raising the retirement age to it least 70. as a deficit hawk, i wonder where you stand as far as raising the retirement age and how high you would want to raise it, especially since this is the first year since 1983 that social security will give out more money than it takes in. >> argue for lowering the age? >> i would personally rather see an increase in fica to maintain social security where it is. >> my concern is you have a lot of public employees retiring at 50 and 55. how you feel about that? >> it is their privilege under the with the system is currently run.

bacon take a reduced amount over a longer time. >> i understand. i am just looking at the systems for pensions and retirement. i would want to see seniors get their retirement. ok? and to do that, i think we will probably end up with a commission that will study this issue and try to figure out irresolution, solution which is just. -- figure out a resolution, solution which is just. in the meantime, i think the suggestions, the ideas that i will throw out a few, the suggestion to bring mexico into social security will not help. . lot of ideas out there that go on the wrong direction. i happen to believe that if we get the economy growing at a fast enough rate, there would be sufficient input into social security.

if people began to work longer, if you are in the workforce and you are working, productive, and you have the economy growing at 3%, 4% per year, i think we can sustain social security. but if we adopt policies that lead to stagnant economic growth, he did population that lives longer and longer, everybody has less kids, then you run into a dynamic year where it will be very hard to solve. >> is there a specific age that he would be willing to see a climb? >> i have suggested that i thought the process would be one where we would get a commission and see what their recommendations across the board were, and then we could study that. >> is and they're already a commission? >> there was years ago, social

security commission. there is a commission looking at the debt situation, but what we need to do is look again at social security and get a bipartisan consensus which everybody agrees on. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is eve, from fullerton, and-kind of a combination of what the gentleman just said and the visa situation. i am 59 years old and i lost my job four years ago that i worked at for 10 years. the company was sold and moved out of state. all my life, i have done what i was posted to. educated myself, professional job, saved my money, which i have for retirement but i cannot touch without penalty until i retire, and it was a very nice sum, except i lost half of it and wall street crash. what little i had left i cannot touch until i retire. i am 59 years old.

nobody is giving me a job. i am out there all the time looking, so it is not because i am sitting on my butt not looking, and i just want to know how old the you think people should be before they retire? i cannot afford to wait 11 years to get my money that i paid into in my ira and social security, and i'm tired of competing with people from other countries. i had some temp jobs that i took. i am a graphic artist. the people in charge of the art department, a couple of the jobs, or from brazil. why don't i have that job? i am an american citizen, educated myself, did all the right things, and i lost my job and nobody wants to hire me because i'm 59 years old. and i am competing with people even trying to get minimum wage jobs. i cannot find one because there are people with two, three of them to make ends meet. i am flailing in the wind and i

have the support, unemployment ran out. >> let me address that if i could carry one of the great problems right now, when we have 14.5 million people unemployed in the country, there is a real concern about the fact that we're not moving forward with legislation, bipartisan legislation, by the way, that has been introduced by heath shuler. i am a co-sponsor of this bill. with that bill says is that you will have a matchup of the social security numbers of the employee who comes in to get the job, the current employees, with the social security office because we know there are 12 million people working on phony documents right now. and people come here, they commit document fraud, they buy

a phony social security number. it is in the system. it is in the social security data bank. if we match that up, if the employer would call in and we could lift the prohibition on this, the employers could actually be mandated to check to see if these are valid workers. the problem that you face is according to the gallup polling organization, i have a friend who polls for gallup. he says if i extrapolate these numbers, there are a billion people who would like to come to the united states, and we have a legal process for people to come here and is the most generous in the world. but on top of that, we have a lot of people who are circumventing the process. if you have 12 million phony social security numbers out there that people are using to work, it is going to affect

unemployment, especially at times of recession. this bill should be passed immediately. he and i are working to get it passed, and it is my hope we do that. >> i hope that you can, because it is hard when you are my age to compete against kids coming out of college trying to pay off student loans and people from other countries taking a job i could very well do. if bill gates needs people to work computers, i work crest -- cross-platform, mac or pc, and i would be more than happy to take that job. >> good afternoon, thank you. my name is richard, from west father 10. a couple of weeks ago when your telephone town hall meeting was on, i attempted to ask you a question. i was cut off in the middle of it and you proceeded to answer something i was not even asking. i'm hoping you'll give me a chance to finish an answer. >> sorry.

>> can you hear me? is this on? >> we can hear you. just continue. it >> sorry. this goes toward what you have all been talking about today, deficits and things like that. i am sure that you have heard of the push to ask congress -- none of this is directed at you, by the way, personally. it is your colleagues and government officials at state and federal levels. congress should be asked not to pass any laws apply to us that don't apply to you guys. similarly, vice versa, don't pass laws that apply to you and not us. there was a big push going around to get rid of incumbents for that very reason, but nobody is listening. is not because you individuals are not doing a good job, it is because as a collective unit

we're going backwards as a country. finally, apathy in this country that has ruled until now is being trumped by the situation we are living in and how bad is getting. now things are going to start to happen, especially if this incumbent thing goes through. my point, i guess, all the issues out there that this pertains to, just stick with economics for now because you address those and the small business and gentlemen addressed them. federal workers are getting, and i have the figures, sorry, let me put my glasses on. they earn 22% more than private- sector workers, and that is just salary, ok? the average federal civilian employee earns an average of $32,000 per year in non-cash

enumeration -- pension, health care, etc. -- compared with 9800 for the civilian population. why don't you and other federal workers at an example for us, freeze wages until such time as they come down to the average of the civilian population, and everybody would be happy? i mean everybody else would be. we would think you are doing your job. [applause] right now, it is unfortunate that people who might be doing a good job, like yourself, i feel, are lumped with everybody else who was not doing their job properly, and we are all suffering as a result. and yet you guys give yourself. this is, 5300, up 4300. i did not get a social security raise this year. i have pension, health care.

i would gladly traded for yours any day. the other thing that annoys me -- let me finish, please -- the other thing that annoys me is the fact that you guys get a pension after eight years, for life, and it is, what, 90%? it is a lot better than what i got working 33 years. you guys need to wake up, and hopefully the country will light up, and say if you don't all wake up, you are all gone. >> other than your numbers, i agree with the thrust of your argument. i want to share with you that the house voted not to have a pay raise last year or this year and the senate as well, and i know you feel you have something that says it does, but if you go to the website of the government you will see. now, that is not for other workers. last year and this year, there was no increase in salary for the house. the other thing i will share with you is tha