reserve. thank you. guest: think you for your comment. it is important to point out that ron paul originally asked for a complete and total audit of the fed. he did not get it. they ended up having to settle for a one time audit of the fed that is restricted to a specific time. that will date from 2007 to the date the bill was passed. even that will be very important, but i do not think it will have a radical, a profound affect on anything. the real problem with the fed over the last couple of decades is that every time we get into the financial crisis or have a bubble that bursts, the fed slashes interest rates down to nothing. it allows the guys on wall street to drink themselves sober by borrowing cheap money for nothing.

at the least, we will be able to see the process when we get the audit. it will make it clear to the american people that they were able to borrow themselves out of trouble thanks to the federal reserve. maybe there will be some influence to change that in the future. host: matt is that is the final of five guests that have been if with us to discuss the new bill that has been into law. if you have missed any of it, you can go check it out on our website. to our viewers, you have a great friday and we will see you back monday -- tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. c-spa[captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> secretary of state hillary clinton is expected to announce in about an hour that israel and palestinian leaders have agreed to direct peace talks. media reports said those talks will begin next month here in washington. on board, the u.s., russia, and others at the united nations. live coverage at 11:00 a.m. eastern. retired admiral thad allen will be at the press club this afternoon talking about the gulf oil spill. he will be talking about the impact, bp's response and what remains to be done. live coverage today at 11:00

a.m. eastern. it and following that, roger clemens, the most decorated baseball pitcher in history. for lying toted a congress two years ago. and c-span2 this week is showing the british inquiry into the iraq war. today, clare short testifies. you can watch that at 5:15 p.m. eastern. the congressional budget office projects the federal deficit will have $1.30 trillion, the second biggest shortfall in many years. "washington journal" talked with the cbo director this morning about projections. if we will show you the 45- minute discussion now. two. "washington journal" continues. >> director of the congressional budget office.

c-span watches and knows this is important for members debaten policy. yesterday, spb o here in washington gave us new estimates for the federal budget deficit and trends for the u.s. economy. what's your major story from what you said yesterday? guest: central message is projections o of the budget have not changed since the previous projections in march and or forecast of economic conditions have not changed since january. the bad news is things haven't changed because the economy faces very serious economic problems and very serious budget problems. host: specific data point you projected the unemployment rate that's so important many people stay steady to nine and nine and a half percent rate, which many people say is not a real snap shot of the unemployed americans that the numbers are larger.

i was interesting that you projected several years it returns to a 5% rate. what did you see to get the country to the 5% rate? guest: we think it'll take some years to get there. about 5% by the end of 14. that's long-time from now and i think there will be a lot of suffering between now and then because of the elevated unemployment rate. eventually, we think it'll come back down because our economy has shown for many decade as great underlying resill yans. a lot of entrepreneurial activity and we'll be investing and hiring again. the path between here and there is very uncertain and we also discuss in the report, the risk that the recession will have lasting effects on the labor market and we built some of those into the expectations because when people lose jobs and stay out of work for a long time and the rate of long-term

unemployment is elevated in the recession. all unemployment rates are risen but the rate of people unemployed for more than half a year is at a level we've not seen before and there's a risk and those people will have particular difficulty getting back into jobs again. host: why is that? guest: different things happen. part of it is people were working in certain industries that are now faltering and a lot of people were building house there's years ago, and are not now and probably not six years from now. the composition of the economy shift as way from people's six expertise perhaps. people are not learning the thing this would in new jobs so it's harder for them. host: phone numbers to invite your participation. if you would like to make comments or ask questions about the state of the u.s. economy and projections over the next

several years we welcome it. (202) 737-0001 for republicans. (202) 737-0002 for democrats and (202) 628-0205 for independence dependents. send an e-mail or message by twitter. we'll take all of those in our conversation with the head of the congressional budget office. we as a nation received bad news about the continuing rate of foreclosure since housing was at the heart of this, how does this rate effect the projections for the econy? guest: a variety of ways. part of it is there's less demand for housing. people that like to be in-houses can't afford to be in-houses so that is pulling down construction. we're building far fewer houses we need in a regular economy to house the expanding population. another way it effects the forecast is people losing their

homes are reluctant to spend money or anything else so it holds down consumer spending in away that's drag on the economy. another way it effects the forecast is relating to the issue we discussed on people trying to find new jobs. sometimes they're available in some oth part of the state or the country where somebody lives to day. if they owe more in mortgage thanl their house is worth it's hard to sell that house and move. tradition this country has a fairly mobile population. that's harder with people trying hang on to their houses. host: financial times wrote they're story with warning on bush tax cuts extension. the lead on this from james is permanent extension of the tax cuts enacted under george w. bush would boost growth in the short-term but as 3 point 3 billion in the next decade

according to the cb o. conclusions is a blow to republican and some members of the business community tha extend the tax cut would bring in extra revenues to a cycle of economic growth. would you like to additional thoughts to that? guest: our projections for the budget and the economy both assume current law is unchange and we view that and have done that for 35 years so the projections are neutral benchmark that policy makers can use in judging the effe of the action they're considering. under current circumstances that means we assume the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, at the end of this years they're scheduled under current law. we assume minimal tax effects many more people than congress making a fix to the problem as they have in the last several years.

we assume mamen payments under medicare fall. that's appropriate for the baseline projections but makes it difficult for people to compare our forecast with the other people. most other people making forecasts are building in assumed ange in the policies. we try to show how if one picked an alternative fiscal path or policy, we would then get a different budget outcome and economic outcomes and forecast and the projections of the economy are much closer to what many private forecasters are saying. that's the context. yes, what we find is if those tax cuts were extended and we - the analysis didn't extend tul of the cuts except for people with the higher incomes. if the other where is extended and a t.p. experts were of

inflation there would be a boost relative to the baseline forecast, but overtime as decade goes on. the higher government deficits and the extra accumulation of government debt you get would ultimately weigh on the economy and output would be lowery the end of the decade than under the baseline projection. host: we'll start here. on twitter. mr. douglas elmendorf are there particular sectors growing or types that should produce unemployment? guest: at the moment, there's very little net gain in jobs in the economy. there's people being hired all the time but there's almost as many people losing jobs so at the moment, there's very little growth. particular sectors have been hurt are construction. to some extent manufacturing. for many years now. employment in the services is growing more strongly as part of the shift of the economy. right at this time, there aren't a lot of sectors doing very

well. host: headline in the washington times suggests, your projections are based on a 2% growth in the next couple of years. what happens if the nation doesn't meet that? guest: to be careful we're projected 2.8 percent and 2% in 2011 conditioned on the current fial policy law. if the economy falls short, there will be higher unemployment and larger budget deficits because the budget responds automatically. if incomes are lower, payment of unemployment compensation is higher. worst economic outcome and becoming a bad budget outcome. we talk about alternatives. this economic forecasting is very challenging business. there are important risks as economic growth could be a good deal stronger or weaker than we expect. also risks in inflation could be

significantly higher or lower thane expect. that report talks about the risks. host: little later on after we take calls, you mentioned economic forecasting being a challenging business. arguing in the financial times there's a new model, as needed for economic forecasting and i want to get to the inside for economists. let's get viewers involved. start with a call from spring, texas. barbara, democrats line. good morning. would you turn down your t.v. volume, please? caller: yes. i was wondering if the most of the outsourcing was - for our corporation share. in the - if i understand the corporate tax rate - as the most recent that they do this because basing the tax is too high. so that they can - what if we,

you know, got together with the corporations and lowered the tax rate - substantially, with the situation they would bring back jobs to the u.s.. not talking about all the jobs, but bring back, you know a portion of the jobs back to the united states. you think they could do that? guest: well, i think there are a number of factors that effect where businesses choose to do goods and services to employ people. taxes are one of those factors and i think there's a widespread view among analyst asross the political spectrum that we probably don't have the most effective corporate taxes in this country that we could have. in particular, an official tax rate higher than other countries but also special loopholes and provisionshat distort the behave of companies in ways that aren't very useful for the country. there's been proposals overtime

and on-going work suggests we're doing it in ways that t tax code might be adjusted and may have some of the effects your suggesting in terms of where employment is located in this country or others. host: c.b.o.'s august report and easily available on the internet but we've linked it at c-span dot or f if you would like to read yesterdays comments. yesterday a comment from wisconsin. tom on the independent line. you're on for mr. douglas elmendorf. caller: thank you for taking my call. one comment. this was a private sector meltdown. it was - like the public secto played a part, i think because the private sector bought it. it's a private sector meltdown. b business people. i have two questions.

on nbc, former cbs. jobs increased by companies going to china from the u.s.. they pay them 20 cents an hour and they work 18 hour days and take ten per room and basically, we're looking at you know, 19th century um... you know 19th century conditions they work under and i'm wondering does the cb o have a way to factor in job projection. how many companies are going overseas for cheap labor? this is sve labor, actually. guest: forecasts do try to take into account the flows of goods and is services from this country to others. it's a difficult part, of course. to anticipate all of that. but weo try to take that io account in what we're doing.

host related to that. melissa says could mr. douglas elmendorf summarize the taxes he in the united states verses u.s. companies that produce overseas? guest: i don't think i can do that offhand. especially the tax rules as they effect international transactions are complicated and i'm not an expert, to be honest and i don't wt to lay out the amateur perspective on that. host: mans field, ohio. ken, republican line. your talking to the head of the congressional budget office this morning, ken. caller: yes. i have the good fortune of living quite a while and my - i'm a history buff. at the great depression, i know we had certain factors in place there. and i know that it's a lot different than today, of course,

after 70 something years, but we had a lower debt which meant that we would have less interest to pay that didn't have it around our neck. and we had - we had people that took care of themselves more individually than we do today. they didn't have to have all of the federal money and state money going to take care of them. we didn't have to have that load dragging on us and the people were - honest. - in a way that - at least i saw. the people who were unemployed i never heard of anything happening that was, in our area where anything was er taken. had hard any nothing in the newspapers about it - so i see that what happens if the interest rate - sir, wonder

what happened if the interest rate were to double or remember when 1980, it was up to 20%. what do we do when that happens? nearly 800 billion now in interest payment?.

he wi elmendo he wi he wi % guest: interest rates could rise more sharply as in other countries at different times in the past when vestors became worried about a government's fiscal discipline. we issued a brief last month that talked about the risk of a fiscal crisis, which is that sort of development. we don't think that is likely right now but it is a risk that increases over time as long as the government debt is rising

we work with the people to see if they are developing alternative policy proposals when they are tryinto develop proposals we work with them on a confidential basis. as soon as they release a proposal publicly we will release any analysis we have done of it. as for the fiscal commission. people at c.b.o. have made a number of presentatns to the commission on different aspects of the budget which i think are feeding into their deliberations. i can't speak beyond that. host: back to the social

security, of the major proposals being debated which include raising the beneficiary age which is now set to reach 67 in 20 2027, other cuts under consideration include means testing and trimming annual cost of living increases perhaps only for wealthier retirees and increase the share of earned income subject to social security taxes which is curreny income beyond $106,000 is ex-settle. when you -- exempt. which has the most impact on solvency. guest: if one raises the retirement age that could matter a great deal if it is a noticeable amount. if one expands the amount of income subject to the tax that can also change the financial outlook but only if one makes a

standing -- substantial change in the threshold. the precise numbers of what matter depends on how sharp a change is made. two of the areas, as we know many americans are living much longer than when the social security system was first set up and 65 was first chosen. that is why congress decided in the 1980's to raise the full retirement age in steps from 65 to 67. even at the age of 67 people will spend a much larger hair of their leaves in retirement collecting benefits than was the case when it was first set up. that is an important reason why the tax rate has gone up a good deal and the system is suffering long-term financial problems. in terminals of how much income is taxed for social security

that has moved up to the current level you mentned. but it hasn't moved up as fast as incomes have moved up. so a somewhat smaller share of income is subject to social security tax than was the case in the past. at is also motivating some to change that part of the program. how much difference you make depends on how large a change. host: the next question is fro meridianmississippi, jan, democrat line. caller: good morning. both me and my husband are age 59. i worked for a business that went out of business about two years ago and my husband about a year ago. he was let go from a business that appeared to be somewhat thriving but he wa let go after six weeks due to the fact he had cancer. how many over the age of 50, if there is any kind of stats particular at all, that are being let go and even those let go due to health problems?

guest: i don't know if those -- don't know the answer to your question, i'm afraid. i'm not sure if those nbers are available or not. but i don't know them myself. i'm sorry. host: a viewer has a question about how your office operates me. this is a local person from arlington, virginia, who wants to know what usually what happens when your draft report doesn't say what your committee chairman wishes that it says? guest: as your viewer understands we write reports that offer our best professional judgment, the implication of certain proposals without regard to the political consequences. i think that is what congress established us to do and that is what congress is paying us to do and we take that very seriously. inevitably reports that we issue will strike some members of

congress as not reflecting their views of the world, their best assessment of what would happen. sometimes they will make that poeupint on the floor of the ho or senate or they will make the point in a committee hearing. sometimes they will call me and make that point directly. we are always interested in hearing people's pspectives because we are trying to learn about different views of what affects policy. but we are not swayed by pressure. host: this is a good time to bring up the economic paradigm argument that joes stiglitz made. you are familiar he won the nobel prize in economics in 2001. university professor at columbia and served as bill clinton's chairman of the council of economic advisors. he writes this. the blame game continues over who is responsible for the worst recession since the great depression. the financiers who did such a

bad job or regulators. but he says the economics profession bears more than a little culpability. it provided the models that gave comfort to regulators that markets could be sever regulating and they could be ever and self-correcting. any reaction? guest: i think he is right that economic did not work out as well as many economists hoped and expect. those are mods of different aspects of the world. there were a number of financial models that gave people in financial institutions and regulators greater confidence in the robustness of certain strategies that turned out not to be very robust. there are also models of the economy as a whole that thought that if there were some problem to develop in certain parts of the mortgage market for example, that those problems would be fairly limited in their overall

scope and wouldn't have as large an effect on the economy as a whole as it turned out. think there is a lot of introspection and hard thinking going on among financial analysts and among economists about where we were mistaken in our judgments and what we can do better in the future. i think that is an appropriate int introspecti introspection. host: he argues for a new economic paradigm which he says the intellectual building blocks are there for it. there is an organization he promotes called the institution for new economic thinking providing a framerk for bringing a diverse group of scholars together to create the new paradigm. he says what is at stake is more than the credibility of economics profession or policy makers. it is the stability and prosperity of our economy. we will go back to your phone cas for doug elmendorf.

syracuse, new york, up next, this is tim on the republican line. caller: good morning. how are you doing? what i would like to know is, i'm disabled. they are not giving us a rse soon for social security. but what is the budget directing, what do they do about taking care of their own like the congress? are they thinking of making any cuts in what they gut -- what they get? guest: so, to the first point about the lack of cost ofiving adjustments right now in social security for older americans and in the disability inrance program, that is a function of inflation being extremely low and prices having declined over some period. and we project low inflation the

next few years and thus only small or no cost of living adjustments for a few years until the economy strengthens and we think inflation moves up a little bit again. then there will be renewed cost of living adjustments according to our forecast. in terms of what else is being done to save money in terms of what is spent right here to run the government, right now congress is in the process of settg appropriations for running the government over the coming fiscal year. i know from what our own agency went through we were asked a lot of hard questions about what we were doing with money we were getting and whether we could get by with less. i don't have any way now to speak to the overall impact of th

that. a lot of money is spent by the government in a lot of different ways and all aspects presumably need scrutiny but by far the largest part of it goes to a handful of very significant progra programs. for social security, medicines care, medicaid and other health purposes and for defense. those programs alone represent the lion's share of all federal outlays. and when one thinks about budget deficits and trying to reduce th them, particularly reducing them by trimming outlays, then one needs to recognize both the potential in smaller programs to save money but one needs to look at the larger programs where the large majority of federal outlays goes. >> this viewer treat the greatest threat is hyper inflation but the economy needs

and market wants deflation. guest: from our perspective, the riskf hyper inflation is extremely low. it is true that the fedal reserve has greatly increased the money supply, the supply of bank reserves, in the past few years. but that is not likely to lead to higher inflation until the economy strengthens and banks use the money to make more loans and when that occurs then the federal reserve can take a different policy tack. so, there is some rick of higher in-- some risk of higher inflation and it is not great and we don't see of risk of hyper inflation. there is a risk of lower inflation and deflion. that is not good news for the economy. we talk in our report about this. we say this is a serious possibility of deflation in the next few years. it is not our basic forecast. it is not likely but it is

possible. we talk in the report about the dangers of deflation. a falling price level encourages consumers to wait to spend money on the hope that prices will be lower and that waiting means a reduction in demand for goods and services. then it would mean less production and less employment. in addition, debts that you will have outstanding are often fixed in dollar terms like mortgages. it is hard tore meethe payments -- hard tore meet the level because wages would fall along with it. so deflation is a dangerous condition for an economy and it becomes harder for the federal reserve to take the right actions to spur economic activity. so that is not something that the economy or anybody in the economy is hoping for or should be hoping for. host: since the depression has the united states ever experienced a period of deflation? guest: we have not experienced any sustained periods of

deflation. there were short periods of time say oil falls sharply but not broad based declines in prices. host: is japan the largest model to look to about what a country experiences experiences during longer spaoerdz? guest: japan is a recent example. to the extent it is a model is debating. the are economists that are worried we are heading down that same path which has been a prolonged of very slow growth. some economists see substantial differences between the two economies. in particular the fact that our policy makers in terms of monetary policy from the federal reserve and government budget there have been much more aggressive reactions to the financial crisis and the recession than seen in the early stages of the japanese experience and that puts us on a

different path for many. host: for douglas elmendorf next a caller from columbus, ohio. independent line. caller: yes, my question is and i don't agree with him on deflation when he quoted the other guy with his comment about social security. my things we've got indicators of inflation with commodities, especially oil and energy, anded if. then othe other side of the coin we have deflation of jobs, wages and housing. so, basically we have both at the sa time. so i see mixed signals. now you have china who is unpinning themselves from the u.s. dollar and the euro overtaking the dollar. china selling off u.s. bt. it looks like we have indicators of a possible collapse in the dollar. what do we have to protect us from that?

guest: well, in the past few months, as worries have grown particularly in thepring about the condition of european financial institutions and about the budget situation of some european countries, money came into this country to strengthen the value of the dollar at the expense of the euro. so there tend to be ebbs and flows as investor sentiments change. it is possible that investors would become a much more worried group about the state of the u.s. economy and financial system and would pull money out of this country,s thereby push do the value ofhe dollar. that is one of the risks of fiscal crisis. but it is worth remembering during the recent financial crisis money came into this country for all of the problems in our own financial system, many invest worried about other

systems more. and u.s. markets and treasury securities in particular were viewed as a safe haven from those risks. so, we don't think it is likely the dollar will suffer a large drop. we think over the next decade there will be some gradual decline in the value of the dollar because of the large trade deficits we are running now. but we don't think it is very likely there would be a bstantial drop soon. host: i want to show one illustration that came with your augu report. for folks at home, the light blue line here are average outlace by the federal -- outlays and dark navy line is average revenues and y see 2010 they really reached their farthest dance from one another. what -- farthest distance from one another. at doe this graph tell us? guest: last year, just the left of that dashed line, was the largest deficit as a share of g.d.p. since the end of the

second world war at 9.9% of total u.s. output we think this year it will be a little smaller, 9.1%. but beyond that to the right what you see in terms of of light blue line, the line which shows federal outlays, you see a drop. that occurs because improvement in economic conditions that reduce payments for unemployment related insurance and effects of the erican recovery and reinvestment act. that spending wanes. so we see total spending fall a little but rise as the decade goes on as social security and medicare and other health paralysis continue to increase. dish other health programs continue to increase. the more striking line is revenue. they fell very much mostly because of the automatic features of the economy. we incomes fall tax revenues fall and fall more than proportionately. that provides a little buffer

against the decline in the economy. economists call this the automatic stabilizers because you have less income and pay less to the government, that leaves you with relatively more to spend on the things you want yourself. in terms of your private consumption. the next few years we see a very sharp increase in revenues relative to output. that occurs partly because the economy will strengthen slowly but will strengthen in our view. and, importantly, because of the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts scheduled for the end of this year. and because alternative minimum tax will effect many more peel. so, revenues rise and by the end of the decade in 2020 we expect revenue about 21% of g.d.p. well above the historical average showed by the lower dashed line, the horizon line. on average the past 40 years federal revenues have been 318%

of g.d.p. and they will rise well above that. host: mary in montana democrats line. caller: god bless you for taking the call. this is an unique opportunity. my name is infielder -- gerald greenstein. have you been presented any option of using g.s.e.'s inntory at reduced price to get growing home sales and a small requiredonstruction equity upgrade to create building trade jobs and thereby income taxes both creating jobs and reducing the fiscal deficit? the letter was sent to a lot of congress and originally to the secretary of treasury. i got a letter from bernanke's office of statistics and research and a letter from the

federal housing finance agency which he told me to connect with as well as a letter back from the department of interior both of which encourage me. this is a god blessed opportunity to tell you to take a look at your office staff is have them present it to you. it is something that will work and it has gotten a lot of traction. host: can you translate that for others listening? guest: let me first state to the caller i will look at that. i can't speak as to what options we may have been presented with by members of the congress. we work with people on a confidential basis as long as their thinking is confidential. we are doing work ourselves analyzing different ways of addressing the ongoing mortgage foreclosure problem and different ways of addressing what to do about fannie mae and freddie mac. i think the underlying issue that the caller is raising, as you mentioned earlier, a lot of

people are still losing their homes and can't afford to buy homes. and that is painful for them but also affects other people in the onomy because there isn't demand for new houses and we are not building many new houses. analysts and picy makers have been wrestling now for the last few years with different ways of trying to address the mortgage foreclosure problem and different ways of trying to spur demand for housing. some things have worked to some degree. nothing has worked to the extent of eliminating those problems. i think work on that is continuing at the c.b.o. and other places. host: the next call is from jacksonville, orida, robert, republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to find out your opinion on the fair tax amendment, h.r. 25. it is an elimination of basically the income tax and corporate tax. and iou like to find out what your opinion is on the effect of this house bill on the

future of the budget. guest: unfortunately i'm not familiar with that specific bill enough to want to talk about it on tv. in fact, c.b.o. doesn't do the revenue estimates for particular tax legislation. we do estimates of cost of changes in govnment outlays. we have a group that we work with for different projects but it is their responsibility to do the actual revenue estimates so they are more familiar with the specifics of revenue proposals. if one eliminates the income and corporate tax, then one nds to raise that revenue in some other means or make larger cutbacks in government spending. as you know the income and corporate tax together represent the bulk of total federal revenues so they need to revenue elsewhere and it would be substantial. but i can't speak as to how that

would do that or what the budgetary effect would be. host: cleveland, good morning to walter, democrat line. caller: good morning. my pleasure to be on c-span. i want toreface by saying thanks to all the small business owners and small company owners who employ so many, yet it is still my fear, you hear reports on the news now and then that there are companies that are making more of a profit with less employees and my fear is there are million who are unemployed where their stockholders, c.e.o.'s and owners could have made the profit, say, from last year or two years ago if want to make more and are not while the little guy is out on the street. is there any way that you have statistics that follow that? guest: yes rb, there is anothe part of the government that publishes national income

accounts. that tracks the flow of spending and income in the economy. in the past year the share of total income that has gone to profits has increased. it has rebounded from a very sharp decline at the beginning of the financial crisis and recession. we do talk in our reportbout implications of that going forward. another way to see that same effect is to look at the productivity statistics. productivi productivity, output per worker in the economy, surged at the end of last year and beginning of this year. that is not un commcommon at ths of recessions or early stages of recoveries. it ten not to persist and hasn't persisted it appears in had case. productivity didn't grow very rapidly the second quarter of this year, perhaps even declined. so that is a sort of hopeful sign we think for employment growth going forward is we have

had the surge of productivity, it looksike firms have perhaps now gotten as much output of their existing labor forces as they can. that mea if demand for goods and services picksp firms will be more likely to hire workers, additional workers to meet the demand. we don't think demand for goods and services will grow very rapidly so we don't expect employment to grow very rapidly. but we think they will grow more in tandem going forward because it looks like the surge of higher productivity and higher profits that go with it seem to have been an event that occurred but is now over. host: minneapolis, steve, independent line. you are on. caller:hi, doug. first i would like to thank you for coming on and sharing your knowledge and experse with the american people. just wondering if you could elaborate on a couple of points you made earlier. first with respect to interest rates and the assumptions in the

projections that we have been talking about this morning for increases in interest rates. could you talk about when those are scheduled to go up and how much those rates are projected to go up? secondly, if you could elaborate a little bit on the political pressure that you got with respect to the score on the obama healthcare program. i personally feel this will go down in history as the worst score that your agency has ever done. but notwithstanding that, could you give us some senseor how many cls you got from the senators' office and their staffers and pressur that was brought upon you even though i know that you try t avoid all of that stuff and ignore it. thank you. guest: on the first question, we think while the economy is moving ahead so slowly while unemployment is high and

inflation low we expect the federal resee will not act to tighten monetary policy and will not try to raise interest rates for a little while. we think that beginning in 2012 they will start to raise interest rates and will continue to do that as the economy strengthens after that in our forecast. that means that they would be moving up short-term interest rates and long-term rates would probably be rising as well. i don't remember the precise numbers. you can look them in the website. as for the other question, the truth is i didn't feel a great deal of political pressure as we analyzed the health legislation. we felt a lot of time pressure and we were very careful to resist that in the sense that we didn't rush out numbers that we were not satisfied with and we were often being pushed to move more rapidly.

we worked very hard but we insisted that we would do the analysis in a way we thought was right and we could stand behind and we did. there are many who were hoping for different outcomes of our analysis. there were people who thought that our anasis wasn't right. we received criticisms of that, the cost of the insurance expansions in the legislation would with be more expensive than we expected. we received criticism that the savings through reforms in medicare would be much larger than we expected. we think on both those issues andle others that our estimates were in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes. that is a very uncertain business and we said over and over again that people should not put too much stock i the point estimate, the precise number we wrote down, because we could never be that sure given

the nature of the changes that were being considered. but we think we were in the middle of the distribution of possibilities. and i think that one important point to emphasize is that what we produced an estimate of was the legislation as written. there are another set of concerns that the legislation won't be implemented over time in the way it is written down. people who think congress will make changes in the policies and we said ourselves in the cost estimates that we produced that a number of the changes in the legislation would be very difficult to sustain over a long period of time and we were not sure it was possible to sustain them. th is a different issue because it is our responsibility to estimate the effect of the legislation as written down and we can and should and did raise concerns about whether the legislation was sustainable in all of those ways. it is your job to estimate the legislation and people who think it will be changed later those

proposal will be estimated by the congressial budge office in terms of their effect and effect on health insurance. host: thank you for being here the day afterer your report cam out on the >> and you can see "washington journal" every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. secretary of state hillary clinton is expected to announce tralee that israeli and palestinian leaders have agreed to direct peace law -- is expected to announce a shortly that israeli and palestinian leaders have agreed to direct peace talks. we will have live coverage of that announcement coming up at the top of the hour at 11:00 a.m. eastern. while we wait, yesterday's state department briefing reporters

asked about the talks. >> the secretary before heading to new york did have calls today with the foreign minister of jordan, also, rep blair, as part of the ongoing consultations toward moving the parties toward direct negotiations. last evening she also had a call with prime minister fayed as part of our ongoing efforts to demonstrate support for the palestinian authority and to help ensure the resources are there for the palestinian authority to continue its efforts to continue -- to continue its efforts to build up its institutional authority and prepare for self-government. today, we made -- we were in touch with the parties and we believe we are close to entering

into direct negotiations. we think we are well-positioned to get there, to continue to work on the details of this process. i do not have anything at this point to announce. matt? >> you are well-positioned to get there -- will you explain what you think that means? >> we think we're very close by the decision -- to a decision by the parties to enter into a direct negotiation. there are details that are still being worked out. you could " cuyahoga ybarra -- beara, "isuote yogi not over until it's over." we are pleased with where we are, but it is ongoing. >> could you share with us these

details? what are they? could you share with us what you are making progress on, or what you are not making as much progress on so that we have a better idea? >> we will keep those details to ourselves. >> what can you say about the report today that the u.s. will issue a statement, essentially parameters for the negotiations does this mean -- for the negotiations? does this mean that the quartet is diminishing? >> no, it means that if we reach the point that we will arrive at, members of the quartet will demonstrate support for the process. we will demonstrate our support for the process and we will outline specifics for where we go from here. we are not there yet.

we will work out specifics. we're not going to do negotiations in public. we want to be sure that the parties have the right understanding of what their grain to -- what they are agreeing to. we will move this process for with the appropriate set of expectations. work is being done as we speak and i'm not here to forecast when we get to this point, although, we are confident that we are moving ever closer to getting the parties into direct negotiations. >> the details of how we move forward, with those details likely be a quartet movement, or something that the u.s. would unilaterally be talking about? >> those are not mutually exclusive. >> in responding to mr. netanyahu, we requested a statement. would you also get a statement from the quartet? how will you combine the two?

>> again, we have said in the last few days that as part of the quartet, we have -- we are prepared to demonstrate our support for the parties as they move toward this decision. but we, the united states, have always played a special role within this effort and we will be prepared to assist the parties going forward in moving toward a successful negotiation. we can do both. >> since you are so close to restarting the talks, have you chosen a venue? >> we are working -- again, i want to emphasize there is work being done today. i know there have been some -- that we comes some conjecture are very close, but there is still work being done. should the parties come to agreement, we are working art

how to enter into -- we're working out how to enter into negotiations, when and where they will happen. there are still things we are working for a period of -- working through. >> when the secretary of state speaks to tony blair and ban ki moon and so on, will she looked at other statements of the u.s. in in writing or launching the talks? >> what has been worked out over many months has been done directly with the parties, and also with partners in the region, including members of the quartet to make sure that the leaders know they have the international support to make this difficult decision.

additional calls to make -- we have additional calls to make today, but we want to make sure that the political support is there. when the leaders feel it is time to enter into direct negotiations. >> when she speaks to prime minister fiat and when she speaks to prime minister netanyahu, the gifford different -- prime minister fayed and when she speaks to prime minister netanyahu, they give her different -- >> our call is to move the parties into direct negotiations. she has regular conversations with prime minister fayed. per discussion with the minister yesterday is more with the ongoing efforts for institution building with the bosnian authorities making sure that the resources are there to continue this effort to improve security

forces on the ground to build an effective palestinian economy. obviously, the reality on the ground in the palestinian area does have a direct bearing on the confidence her conversation yesterday it was not about the conversations per se. >> was there an order to establish the support -- it will be under the department of state. >> i will take the question. >> how is it represented -- it is under the special representatives office. >> the visit to the u.n. director -- she will be asking

the international community and the u.n. secretary general ban- ki moon. many people feel that what they are saying is that giving the money to the countrymen who are in pakistan, the u.s. really must address the issue and give a clear message to the people here and in pakistan that corruption is a concern. who will be in charge of the millions and millions of dollars and the food and relief efforts? >> who is in charge of the relief effort? it is the government of pakistan. we are working closely with the national disaster authorities in pakistan. pakistan'slowing augus

lead. we will be guided by what pakistan feels is the most significant needs. who is responsible? it is the government of pakistan to support and respond to the needs of its people. they're here to help pakistan do that. >> have you learned from the blasts flood and earthquake -- still people are asking where is the money? what i'm asking, what they are asking, have you learned anything from the past? >> we are working as you heard yesterday. we have experience based on the earthquake. we're working with pakistani officials who themselves were involved in the earthquake.

that helps us with the kind of cooperation and seamless support that we are looking for. there is all kinds of assistance. some of it is direct support. through our military stocks directly to the pakistani people. in some cases, it is through the government. we will not tolerate corruption. the assistance we are providing is for the people of pakistan. we want to see the assistance get to the people of pakistan. >> the relief fund you have put together. can you give us an update on how much it has raised so far? >> the ongoing 50555 campaign will continue. that campaign is geared towards helping unacr, which will be one

element of the broad international relief element. we are setting up a new campaign. if people go to state.gov dial into -- dial the word "flood" to 27722, they can contribute. the swat campaign -- >> this briefing was yesterday. surely we will go live for an update on the gulf oil spill. secretary of state clinton is announcing middle east peace talks. >> the secretary will begin with a brief statement. george mitchell will stay behind to answer your questions. we're joined today by your

colleagues in the white house press corps. we will star with secretary -- we will start with secretary clinton. >> since the beginning of this administration, we have worked with the israelis and palestinians and our international partners to events because of a comprehensive peace in the middle east. this ensures security and dignity for israelis and palestinians. the president and i are encouraged by the leadership of president of bossed and -- andnt not to nnetanyahu presidents on abbas.

on behalf of the united states government, i have invited israeli prime minister netanyahu and abbas to meet to relaunch negotiations and to resolve all final status issues, which we believe can be completed within one year. president obama has invited president mubarak and king of of egypt to attend. the president will hold bilateral meetings with the four leaders fault but a dinner with them on september 1. the quartet representative tony blair has also been invited to the dinner to help palestinians build the institutions of their

future state, an effort which must continue during the negotiations. i have invited prime minister netanyahu and president of loabs to join me for a trilateral meeting to relaunch direct negotiations. as we move forward, it is important that actions by all sides help to advance our efforts, not hinder it. have been difficulties in the past. without a doubt, we will hit more obstacles. the enemies of peace will keep trying to derail peace talks. but i asked the parties to persevere, to keep moving forward even through difficult times, and to continue working to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region.

these negotiations should take place without preconditions and be characterized by good faith and a commitment to their success, which will bring a better future to all of the people of the region. george? thank you. >> madam secretary -- thank you. >> i will be pleased to respond to any of your questions. >> i want to ask about roger clemens. [laughter] >> can you tell us what was the turning point, what was it that got -- that overcame the final snag to get them to come back to top? >> we believe it was the recognition by the parties themselves, by their leaders --

prime minister netanyahu and the best oabbas, outcome is an agreement which results in two states living side by side in peace and security. the only way that can be achieved is through direct negotiations between the parties in which the united states will be impacted and a participant. with the full support of our many friends and allies around the world, including the court said. >> was it -- you have been trying to do this for months now. how is it that today you have gone to this point. three days ago, you were not at this point. >> it is a cumulative result of the efforts made over that time

and the recognition by the parties that this is the right time. we will be active participants and there is broad support, as you know, by members of the quartet and others around the world. these decisions will be made by the parties themselves. >> senator mitchell -- >> why don't i let pj. >> can you discuss the talks. >> all permanent status' issues will be on the table. it will be for the parties themselves to decide the manner by which they should be addressed. >> without doubt, there will be more obstacles.

what will these obstacles be? what are the main sticking points going forward? >> we are all well aware that there remains mistrust between the parties, a residue of hostility developed over many decades of conflict. many previous efforts that have been made to resolve the conflict have not succeeded. all of which takes a very heavy toll on both societies and their leaders. in addition, we all know that as with all societies, there are differences of opinion on both sides, on how best to succeed. as a result, this conflict has

remained unresolved over many decades and for many efforts. we don't expect all of those differences to disappear when talks begin. we expect that they will be presented, debated, discussed, and that differences are not going to be resolved immediately. but we do believe that peace in the middle east, a comprehensive peace, including but not limited to an end to the conflict between israelis and palestinians is very much in the interest of israelis and palestinians of all people in the regions. it is in the national security interest of the united states. therefore, we will continue to pursue that objective with patience and determination.

we know it will be difficult. we know there will be obstacles. we are going to proceed with patience and determination. >> the palestinians, the israelis, and the united states have been through this before. why should this prove that optimism and hope would be into its intended and, and what sense did you offer president assad to invite him to the talks? >> i do not want to repeat everything i said in response to the prior question. i believe it is in the interest of people in both societies that there would be an end to this conflict, enabling them to live in peace. i believe the leaders believe

and understand that, and therefore, we recognize the difficulties, this is the best course for them. on the question of past efforts in succeeding, i will return to my experience in northern ireland. i chaired three separate sets of discussions in northern ireland, spanning a time of over five years. the main negotiations lasted for 22 months. during that time, the effort was branded a failure. i was asked at least dozens, perhaps hundreds of times when i was leaving because the effort had failed. if the objective is to achieve a peace agreement, until you to achieve one, you have failed to do so. in a sense, we had about 700

days of failure and one day of success in northern ireland. we approach this task with the same determination to succeed, notwithstanding the difficulties and not withstanding the inability to get a final result so far, including past efforts. but past efforts at peace that did not succeed cannot deter us from trying again because the cause is noble and just and right for all concerned. >> the president went up to martha's vineyard. >> i wonder if you could give us a sense of this timeline. do you consider that a deadline? what makes this peace process any different from all of the peace process is?

>> we will only know the answer to your second question went is completed. i believe that the clauses are so important, so right, so just that our continued effort is the right thing to do. we are going to pursue it with determination. i believe that the two leaders themselves, president two and prime minister -- president assad and prime minister netanyahu believe it will be done, and we will do everything humanly possible to see that it is done. with respect to your first question, prime minister netanyahu said on its most recent visit to washington that he believed it could be done within a year. president assad has expressed

similar sentiments to me. i hold strongly to that belief now having been involved in some time in that region. we believe it can be done within a year. >> but it is not a deadline. >> one more. >> about nine months to get to the point where these guys sat down to talk to each other. at what point during this process is the u.s. willing to put its own ideas on the table to put this process forward? >> one of the subjects to be discussed in the meeting on september 1 and second and also in preparatory meetings that have been occurring on a regular basis and will continue will be the timing and location of

subsequent meetings. we expect some of those meetings to occur in the region. with respect to the timing and the nature, how long it took to get here, i do not think one is a necessary determinant of the other. i liken it to the first time i owned a house and had it painted. it took the painters seemingly forever to prime the building and the walls. i kept asking myself, when are they going to start painting? we are pained by the hour and we want some pride -- some progress. [laughter] they did this seemingly endless priming. but they painted it quickly. i do not want to suggest one year as quickly. i don't think events leading up

to the negotiations are decisive in terms of the negotiations themselves. we believe that the statements by the prime minister regarding within one year are credible and appropriate. we believe that's president abbas shares the same view and we agree. we will be active in sustained -- and sustained partners. we recognize this is a bilateral negotiation and we had indicated to both parties that as necessary and appropriate, we will offer bridging proposals. but this is a direct bilateral negotiations between the parties with our assistance and the assistance of our friends and allies. nobody has asked it, i do want to take a moment to acknowledge and recognize the enormous

support we have received from many of our friends and allies. egypt under president mubarak. delabdallah.e king of the lof ban-ki moon has been extremely helpful in this process. the european union with lady ashton as a foreign minister. and russia with the foreign minister. they have all been very helpful along with other european states. it is important to understand that while the united states is playing an important an active and sustained role, we do so with full participation, thoughtful input, full consultation, a full

discussion, and we hope full support from a wide variety of allies whose efforts have been important in getting us to this phase and will be important in reaching a conclusion. >> we will take two or three questions from the white house press corps. >> our first question comes from "washington today." >> of all of the united parties, the secretary mentioned references to -- i want to know your thoughts about the mosque at ground zero. >> i did not understand. >> we are not here to talk about that subject. we will take the next question. >> have the accepted the invitation? >> we have accepted that and it

will be there decision on whether to accept. >> the next question is from jonathan garner. >> to both parties have to ask for the u.s. to step down with its bridging proposals, or is it enough for one party to ask for that bridging proposal? >> we are getting a little bit ahead of things now, to be speculating on what may or may not occur well into the process. as i stated, this is a direct bilateral negotiations with the active support of the united states. we will make the printing p proposals at such time we deem

appropriate. i do not want anyone to get the idea we will supplant the roles of the parties themselves. we don't have any view other than that this must be an agreement by the parties themselves. >> we will take one more. >> thank you. >> when a technical question. then a real question. on september 2, are you launching direct talks from september 2? or are the leaders getting together to discuss the relaunch of direct talks? what role does hamas have in this process? >> the first question is yes, we are launching direct negotiations beginning on september 2.

the second question is none. >> is launching the negotiations -- does that mean we're launching the negotiations without references? >> only the parties can determine terms of reference and the basis for negotiations. they will do so when they meet and discuss these matters. as you know, both we and the quartet's have previously said that the negotiations should be without preconditions. >> thank you. can you tell us whether there will start from scratch? or will they build on what talks?er

is israel going to continue -- will the palestinians continue their boycott? >> the parties themselves will determine the basis on which they will proceed in the discussions in response to your first question. in response to the second, our position on settlements is well known and remains unchanged. we have always made clear that the parties should promote an environment that is conducive to negotiations. as the secretary said, it is important that actions by all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it. >> just to follow up, your position is well-known on settlements. the israelis have chosen to

ignore it and gone ahead with settlement construction. do you have any understanding from them that they will not do that this time? hamas having no role -- how do you get around the fact that you negotiate an agreement, how do you get around the fact that hamas is planning a huge role in gaza? theet's be clear that declaration of the moratorium itself last november was a significant action which has had a significant effect on new housing construction starts in the west bank. as i said, our position on settlements is well-known,

remains unchanged, and we expect both parties to promote and in farming that would be good for negotiations. with respect to hamas, let's be clear. hamas won a legislative election. they have a knowledge the continued executive authority of president abbas and his team. it is appropriate that we negotiate with the executive head of that government. when democrats regained control of the congress in 2006, that it did not end president bush's tenure as president. others negotiated with the legally elected and then-chief

of our executive branch of government. that is the situation here. >it is not for me to make decisions for others. >> we will take one more here. >> is it your understanding this will be something to take effect at a later date? or is this something that will take effect in a short period of time? >> that is subject to the results of the negotiations. we are not creating limitations or restraints upon what the parties may agree to. our hope is that there will be an agreement that will end the conflict for all time and will result in the establishment of a viable democratic and independent state of palestine

living side by side in peace and security with israel. >> we will take one or two more. >> next up is margaret. >> thank you. the palestinian -- the u.s. but the harshest pressure on the palestinians to get them to the talks. why did the u.s. feel it was the time to delete the palestinians into talking, considering the politics of the israeli administration right now. >> the the united states' position has been well known from the time that this administration entered office. we have and we do favor direct negotiation between the parties to resolve the conflict and to

produce an agreement the results two states living side by side in peace and security. we have encouraged the parties to enter into such negotiations and they have not agreed. we are -- we believe it is the right thing to do. we think that both of the leaders think is the right thing to do. we believe it is in the best interest of the people we represent. >> hello. you harkened back to the middle east peace process. the president played an intimate role earlier. considering many americans

themselves are even confused about president obama's religious affiliation, do you feel that the people of the middle east will see president obama as an honest broker and someone that they cannot reach out for in that same intimate fashion? >> yes, i do believe that they do and will continue to regard president obama in that fashion. i will say that from the outset, both he and the secretary of state has played an important and critical role in this effort. both are deeply involved on a regular basis and deeply personally committed to the cause of a comprehensive peace in the middle east.

i think that is not only widely recognized throughout the region and the world, but very much appreciated and in particular throughout the region. >> i was wondering how come these talks -- demand was never meant tt. >> we believe there is a basis for proceeding and we're going to pursue that. we do not take the position that if you do not get everything you want, the first time you asked for it, you pack your bags and go home. if that had been the standard applied in south africa, there never would have been peace there. northern island, there never would have been pieced there. bosnia, there never would have been peace there.

it takes persistence to go back again and again. to not take the 50th "no" or the 100th "no." we believe there is a basis for a peace agreement and that is what we're going to pursue the quest do you understand that palestine will accept these talks without preconditions? >> the united states and the quartet have said there should be direct talks without preconditions. we also have said many times that we think that these talks should be conducted in a positive atmosphere in which the parties refrain from taking any steps that are not conducive to making progress in the

all of thesethat's respects, we think that there is a basis for making progress. >> will it be made based on the quartet statement? >> the parties are the only ones who can determine what the basis of their discussions are. that is the case. >> so many palestinians and arabs believe it is impossible -- refugees, etc.. but setting this deadline, you probably will be raising expectations, disliked what happened after that. >> the reality is of course

that there are some in both societies who do not believe that the other side is serious, who do not trust the other side and do not wish to proceed with the other side. if we accept the premise that because some in one or both societies hold these views that we cannot proceed, then what we're doing is consigning all of those people to never ending conflict, never-ending difficulties. we do not believe that is a proper basis for any country and certainly not one with the united states to base their policy. we believe that the best course of action is direct negotiations that resulted in a peace agreement ending this conflict

and resulting two states living side by side in peace and security. the only way to establish that is to direct negotiations. if they are conducted in good faith, they can produce such an agreement within 12 months, and that is our objective. we recognize that there are many who do not believe that, many who do not want that, many who will act to prevent that. there contrary views and actions cannot serve to prevent us from trying to deal with this conflict. nor can it prevent the leaders of those countries who both recognize that the interest of their people, the future of their societies rest upon resolving this conflict and

achieving the kind of peace and stability and security from which they will all benefit. >> last question. >> this administration believes from the early days that the middle east strategy and the iran strategy were linked in the sense that if you could make progress in one, you might make progress in another. you now are moving into a period of less engagement and more confrontation with iran. i wonder if you think this is an added hurdle to a peace agreement or something that could help in the sense that the israelis may feel the u.s. is going to be tough on iran. >> that extends somewhat beyond the area of my involvement in this process, and so i would defer for a more full and

thoughtful answer to those who are directly engaged on to broader issues. i will simply say that if you look at the middle east and review its history over just the past half century, never mind several millennia, you will conclude that there is no really "right time" to do this, that's they're always have been and always will be issues external to the immediate parties that have an effect upon what is occurring. in my judgment, what is occurring throughout the region, not just in iran but in other

areas, all add compelling camilla's evidence to the need -- cumulative evidence to the need of this country. whether or not the circumstance use descry produces the result, it still remains a compelling argument that is very much in the interest of the nine states in terms of dealing with other conflicts. to assist, to do all we can with the help of our allies, to bring about a resolution of this conflict. it helps in so many ways. most importantly, it is the best thing for the palestinian people and for the people of israel, and it is in our national security interest and that of others. thank you all very much. it has been a pleasure to be with you.

>> state department middle east envoy george mitchell along with secretary of state clinton announcing peace talks between israeli and palestinians here in washington. and now live to the national press club for an update on the gulf of mexico oil spill. >> this will be important in the near term. we have -- ships have gone out and looked for plumes. they are difficult to locate. they moved around. we're trying to understand where they are. it is hard to do unless you uniform the effort. you asked about containment. just some thoughts about containment. when we realized we had a flow rate of about 53,000 barrels a day. the range was about 60,000.

we went to bp and said here is what we wanted to do. we said, you need to build a system that can accommodate 63,000 he barrels a day. you need to build a recovery system. we were somewhere around 25,000 barrels a day that we were getting around the systems we had. we wanted that capacity and we wanted redundancy in two ways. bp proposed a system that would have 60,000 to 80,000 barrels a day. there would be four vessels that would broaden and the oil would

be shuttled to shore. we could move to that rate of production. if one of those four was not operating -- their work mechanical breakdowns. we wanted want of those legs not to be working and still be able to produce that flow rate. they designed that and presented the plans for us. it was probably 2/3 of the way done. we had a weather window and we decided to put the cap on. we did it and it worked. then we did the static kill. if it did not work, it would have been the architecture for us to produce 60,000 80,000 barrels a day.

that is an excellent question. i have to describe in terms of how oil is produced now. we went from platforms in the water that have the law prevented and a pipe went down before it went into the ground, to being able to drill from hit the bottom of the sea. the control that with hydraulic systems. they went deep about the same time we implemented the pollution system. we will find that the oil pollution act probably should have been called the tanker pollution act. certificates of financial

responsibility for companies carrying oil and so forth. in the gulf of mexico, the drilling systems went to the bottom. almost all of that oil is recovered by pipelines and transported someplace else. if you have a problem in a well and you are trying to recover the oil, that system of production does not help you contain. what bp had to do to give us the redundancy and the capacity, they had to get pieces of production capability in different parts of the world. the reported floating production platforms and shuttle tankers. that is the way you produce oil in the north sea. they do that in scotland.

to do that, the tankers need the capability to be dynamically positioned it. instead of having a traditional engine room and the rudder, you .eed propulsion jets the computer tells the ship what to do. they only build certain tankers because they are so expensive. they did not have those in the gulf of mexico. they brought those production platform shuttle tankers. how do you get it to the surface? if we installed vertical riser pipes. these are not connected to the well. they have a flexible coupling that comes out of the well.

there is another flexible hose. that is the way they produce oil off the west coast of africa. the ultimate solution in an elevator line -- there are some significant implications in going forward. bp greeted a production system for will containment that could be the foundation to look at response systems for containment as part of a reassessment for response plans and how to mitigate risk in the future for oil production. i have exhausted all i know on that subject. >> i know you have mentioned numerous coast guard resources being deployed to the gulf of mexico. to help out. the naval district has sent some

skimmers and i wonder if you could tell us how much those skimmers or use. likem likeipped thtem mules. this is significant from a larger context. i had several conversations about this. large navy bases have significant pollution control capability, just like large petroleum operations do it. we ask the navy for any excess skimmers they have. there are a number of them down in virginia. we got all that were available. when we needed more, who went to naval bases. we also needed to go to

facilities outside the gulf. those skimmers are required and legally they are liable for not being able to respond to a spill if that equipment is not there. we had to go through an emergency rule making response. we had to lift the response requirement -- or loosen them so those ships could be sent to the gulf. the liability for naval bases for federer to respond if there was a spill while that equipment was not there. you will see a serious discussion about how we have to this in the future and liability concerns to be able to

move this equipment the equipment was put to very good use. some of the navy skimmers were very useful where there was shallow water. it was helpful to us. >> i have two questions for you. into a microphone. howyou please exassess corporate bp has been? as we approached the hurricane season peak, if a category five comes running through the gulf, how secure is what is in place? >> both good questions. i will expand your first question. the oil pollution act of 1990 law a termm-lin

called responsible party. it now exists in law and regulation. the doctrine we followed in spill response is indicted by that legislation and the plant which is a regulation issued by epa. .he coast guard follows it the basic premise would be the responsible party pace. they are designated in writing. bp and transocean are the designated liable parties. damage assessment and the mitigation, as well. they also made the decision that we create a private sector of contractors that would do

spill cleanup. the would-be response -- there would be identified in response plans. to address that spill, i have these resources. you can question whether or not the scenario was correct. we made a decision in this country that we would privatize response. we identified the response plans. that is exactly what happened in the spill. i believe there has been a social and a political nullification of the law. it is hard for the public to understand that the responsible party that is clearly responsible for the event

itself somehow be cooperative in the response to the spill. since 1990, that is the way we have conducted oil spill response in this country. if the responsible party is going to pay, somebody has to writie the checks. if you need more boom or more skeat skimmers, money has to order that and pay the contractors. the very notion of cooperating with bp in this response has met with universal disapproval. we in the coast guard -- i operated a response work we could manage that seeming paradox where there will be similar penalties coming down the line.

he create effort and you attack this bill. -- you attacked the spill. do you trust bp? have they lied to you? the goal should be unity of effort between the core nader and the peak and the state and .ocal governments we want the most effective cleanup we can. it is impossible to do that and not be able to collaborate with be pap. you can call a trust, cooperation. the current response model assumes the responsible party will work with the local state entities to achieve unity of effort in the spill response. it has been challenging at times

to create the unity of effort given what appears to be the rejection of the notion by the general public. that does not change the reality on scene that it will be through bp. there is a cap on the money the government can spend. bp has no cap. they also have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. they have to book liabilities on their balance sheets. they are not relieved of that. the intermixing of their responsibilities to their shareholders and their legal requirements as it responsible party creates a -- moving forward, we should vet of what

we expect them to do an upgrade the conduct of dissidents in the public so that we don't have to go through this again. we have to cooperate with these folks. >> if you -- have the done it with alacrity? >> i believe this happens at different levels. if i want something done, i call tony hayward sometimes in the middle of the night. i have given written and verbal orders and they are followed. where this starts to break down in the minds of the public -- bp is a large oil production company. when it comes to the petroleum industry, they are what i call the wholesale. their capabilities are aimed at exploration and production of oil and energy.

if you look at the things that need to be done and it is not at the wellhead -- they did an at therdinary speecfeat containment system. that should not be discounted. when he starts having to pay claims, which is their legal responsibility, and you hire a third-party contractor, is difficult to be outsourced and defeat and compassion. their ability to connect one on one with the public when you insert a third party in between -- if you do have corporate values, it gets attenuated. as i have told mr. dudley and everyone else, the lens is not necessarily the technology of the wellhead.

is the compassion shown towards the people who are affected towards this. it is difficult if you don't have that capacity to translate that into a third-party contract during the spill. i think we need to understand a couple of things. what is the role of the responsible party? what do we expect them to do? i think we have moved since the exxon valdez to an expectation that we will have a response that will include things like medical monitoring, things that are not presently allowed under the oil spill liability trust fund to spend money on. we have to define what the government's involvement is. we have redefined the social contract with the people. during hurricane katrina, we would find -- we would get

people of emergency housing. when there were more than 10 trawlers on a site, you needed case workers, compliance, it gets very complicated. i do not think we ever sat down and thought about the complete government response. when you talk about the oil spill response, i think we probably need more clarity moving forward. one of the reason we accelerated the installation of the -- we thought we would not have to go to the larger production system. that means we could leave the well and attended -- unatended if there was a hurricane.

we like it would have had to abandon a site during the hurricane. there was a window of opportunity that the meteorologist agreed. it was about an 11-day window. we could put the cap back on and we could stop the hydrocarbon flow. we took a pretty bold step. this was somewhere -- the original plan was given to us on the 21st of june. .e try to accelerate it sometimes things go right. we were able to get the cap on an early and stop the flow of hydrocarbons. we thought we could survive the hurricane. >>

>> if that is it for questions, thank you very much for joining us today. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> gulf oil spill incident commander thad allen wrapping up cleanup efforts in the gulf. he started at 11:00 a.m. you can see the entire briefing on line at our website c- span.org. several hearings are planned for next week on the bp oil spill in the gulf of mexico. in houston, federal investigators will look into the cause of the deep water rights in spill. trans ocean, who owns the world trade, and halliburton, who owns the equipment, as well as bp --

live coverage will begin at 9:00 a.m. eastern on our companion network c-span2. on wednesday, coverage of the national commission created by president obama live coverage from that hearing starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern. "book tv"in prime time concludes presidential writings. "book tv" in prime time tonight on c-span2. there are 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on "book tv." saturday, a debate over the size f -- size and role of government.

in the discussion of the defense american research foundation. for a complete listing of this weekend's programs and *, visit booktv.org. baseball siad -- baseball's cy young award winner roger clemens says he is going to clear his name for allegedly lying to congress about steroid use. he is facing six counts of obstruction of congress from 2008. we're going to assure you that hearing in just a couple of minutes. but first, look at the charges he is facing. >> a federal grand jury indicted former major league baseball pitcher roger clemens for statements he made in 2008 about steroids.

what are the charges? >> clemons faces six counts of obstruction of congress, perjury, and making false statements. it is a total of six counts that, in theory, could carry up to 30 years in prison. although, the sentencing guidelines call for more like 15 to 21 months. >> what happened during his appearance that led to those charges? >> clemons went to congress of his own accord. he was not subpoenaed. he said he was going to set the record straight after the mature report in which former senate majority leader george mitchell looked into baseball steroids claims and clemons was one of the dozen names mentioned in there. he insisted it was not true. he testified under oath to congress that he had never taken steroids or human growth hormone. >> 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 take that thing sort of this year -- that sort of thing very seriously. he said the government cannot function if witnesses are not held accountable for false statements made before congress. and the message, i think, is clear that roger clemens, they believe, brought -- lied to congress and they want to set the example for other witnesses when you come to congress, make sure you tell the truth. >> what about the other charges? >> clemons has not directly spoken, as far as i know, with anybody today. he did post something on his twitter page, apparently, in which he said, again, i never took ag -- hgh or steroids. and he said he did not lie to congress. it appears, at least initially,

that he is going to stick with his story, which of course, is directly countered by his former trainer, brian mcnamee, who also under oath to congress testified that he did inject clemens with steroids and hgh. clemons' lawyer held a news conference after the indictment was announced, saying that roger was looking forward to his day in court. we have known for some time that this was going to happen. i do not think they are surprised. given that this grand jury has been looking into these charges for more than a year. and the old statement that we have all heard about how easy it is to indict a ham sandwich. i do not think clemons is surprised by this development. we will see what happens going forward. >> how will this affect clemons' hall of fame chances?

>> there is some question how this will affect his legacy. we have already seen a player like mark mcgwire, who testified before congress in 2005 and said he did not want to talk about the past. five years later after that appearance, he did acknowledge that he used performance enhancing drugs during his playing career. even before that admission, mcgwire was receiving about 25% of the vote in the hall of fame tally and you need 75% to get in. it will be interesting to see what happens with clemons' chances. his numbers and accomplishments make him an easy choice for the hall of fame. he is a multiple times cy young winner, won multiple series, over 300 games. now he will come up for induction in 2013.

it will be worth watching to see what percentage of the vote he gets. >> congress held that series of hearings looking into steroid use in major league baseball. and then the league started testing players. the what effect has testing had on baseball? that argue there are other factors involved, but pitching has taken over from hitting. home runs have been down. there have been almost no- hitters -- almost no no hitters in two decades. there are those who believe that the home run totals and the scoring and things like that are down because of much stricter drug testing policy than they have had in the past. >> howard fendrich is a sports writer for the associated press.

thank you. >> the charges against roger clemens are related to 15 different statements he made at birth in february 2008, including denials that he had ever -- made under oath in february 2008, including denial's he had ever used steroids or hgh. he says he will fight to clear his name. that hearing now from 2008.

>> the committee will please

come to order. before we begin our hearing, the chairman wants to make some statement on behalf of all our colleagues. about the seed that is next to me that is vacant, that seat was occupied by representative tom lantos, who passed away this week. those of us who worked with tom lantos over the years know about his deep commitment and compassion, his integrity and his leadership, not only on behalf of his constituents but the people of this country and around the world. he was a champion for human rights. if he was a member of this committee, but also chairman of the foreign committee. i think is appropriate that as a longtime member of this committee and a very esteemed member of congress that we recognize him and have a moment of silence. but before i call for that moment of silence, i would like to recognize mr. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

having survived humanity, tom lantos gave the rest of his life giving voice to the ideals of freedom. his keen intellect and indomitable spirit left an indelible mark on all that he touched. i'm grateful to have known him. he will be missed, but not forgotten. and we take solace in the hebrew lessons, there are stars whose light only reach the earth long after their life has volunteered their people who give light to this world long after they have passed away. there are lights that shine on a dark road that we must follow. thank you. >> let's remember him in a moment of silence.

this is our second hearing on senator mitchell's report on the illegal use of steroids and other performance enhancing substances by players in major league baseball. this hearing is focused on the accuracy of an important section of that report, the section that is based on the information that strength and fitness coach brian mcnamee provided to senator mitchell. this committee has a special connection to the mitchell report. in 2005 when representative tom davis was our chairman, the two of us urged commissioner selig to investigate baseball's history with him for -- with performance enhancing substances. the commissioner agreed with our suggestion and appointed senator george mitchell to lead that effort. senator mitchell's record is impressive and credible. he concluded that the use of

performance enhancing substances was "pervasive for more than a decade and that everyone in baseball, the players, the unions, the owners and the commissioner were responsible for this scandal." senator mitchell released his report on december 13. that same day, this committee announced a hearing with senator mitchell, commissioner selig, baseball players' union leader don fear. we intended for that hearing to close the chapter on looking at baseball's past. on the same day the mitchell report was released, however, roger clemens threw his attorney, rusty hardin, a publicly challenged the accuracy of the section of the report that presented evidence of his use of steroids and human growth hormone. mr. harden and later told the committee that the mitchell report is a "a horrible,

disgraceful record." work the committee's past and our interest in the accurate record of the baseball-steroid era, we have investigated the evidence in senator mitchell's report that relates to mr. mcnamee and the players he identified. tom davis and i made this decision reluctantly. we have no interest in making baseball in central part of our committee's agenda. but if the mitchell report is to be the last word on baseball's past, we believe we have a responsibility to investigate a serious claim of inaccuracies. the committee's inquiry, and this hearing, are focused on the accuracy of the mid to report as it relates to information provided by brian mcnamee. mr. davis and i both believe this narrow focus is important. we have carefully limited our inquiry to the relevant facts

regarding mr. mcnamee's reactions -- interactions with three players he claims to have the supplied with these substances. in the course of this investigation, we have been able to probe more deeply than senator mitchell code. senator mitchell could only ask for information and had no power to subpoena documents or to insist that individuals talk to him. as the chief investigating committee in the house of representatives we have greater authority and have the ability to consider evidence that was not available to senator mitchell. we will now summarize the information our investigation has uncovered. based on the information that brian mcnamee provided senator mitchell, he reported that jet nablock used human growth hormone in 2001. according to the report, during spring training and a continuing

portion of the season, mcnamee injected him at least seven to nine times with human growth hormone. he met with the committee and said that mr. mcnamee was accurate when he said he injected him with human growth hormone. he also told us that he had administered hgh injections to himself in 2002. there is no mention of these injections in senator mitchell's report or any published account. in a moving part of his deposition, mr. nablock said, " my son was here today and i'm not trying to get emotional about this, but i'm trying to teach him a lesson that you do things in life that you need to

be willing to talk about openly and tell the truth." on behalf of the committee, i would like to thank him for his cooperation and his candor in greece -- in accepting responsibility for his actions. based on the information mr. mcnamee probiotic, senator mitchell also reported that anti- pettit -- andy padgetpettd to human growth hormone. according to the region report, mr. mcnamee recalled that he injected mr. pettit on two to four occasions in 2002. in the pettit also met with the commission for a sworn deposition in 2004 and indicated that the information mr. mcnamee provided to mr. mitchell was accurate. in addition, he told the committee about a second time he used human growth hormone. this was in 2004 when he

injected himself twice with hgh when he was recovering from an injury. mr. pettit had never told anyone outside his family about this incident, but he volunteered it during the deposition because he wanted to provide a complete record to the committee. mr. pettit also provided additional information of particular relevance to this during which i will describe later in this hearing. on behalf of the committee, i want to commend mr. pettit for his cooperation. he found himself in an extremely uncomfortable position, but did the right thing and told the truth. during his deposition, he was asked how he approached this difficult situation and he said, "i have to tell you the truth and one day i have to give an account of god and to nobody else about what i've done in my life, and that is why i said and share of the stuff that i would not like to share with you all."

consistent honesty makes him a role model on and off the field. and finally, based on the information that brian mcnamee provided, senator mitchell provided that roger clemens used human growth hormone and steroids. brian mcnamee told senator mitchell that on over 20 occasions he injected roger clemens with either a human growth hormone or steroids. all of us from time to time can have memory lapses. if any of us were asked to recall a specific incident or an event that occurred 10 years ago, we might get the substance right, but be off on some details. i think most of us can relate to that. it is rare, however, to have the situation the committee faces today. mr. clemons and mr. mcnamee have both cooperated fully with us and both have given us sworn statements. they both insist they are telling the truth, that there --

but their accounts could not be more different. they do not disagree on a phone call or one meeting. they disagree on whether over a four -- 8 time frame of four years -- whether over a time frame of for years mr. mcentee repeatedly injected mr. clemons with steroids and hgh. it is impossible to believe this is a simple misunderstanding. someone is not telling the truth. if mr. mcnamee is lying, then he has acted inexcusably and he has made mr. clemons an innocent victim. if mr. clemons is not telling the truth, then he has acted to shamefully and smeared mr. mcnamee. i do not think there is anything in between. after we have completed our depositions, my instinct was to cancel this hearing and issue a written report.

we have learned a lot about mr. mcnamee's allegations and mr. clemons' account and i thought a bipartisan report to mr. davis might be the most effective way to present the results of our investigation. but others have different views, and i was particularly influenced by the view of mr. clemons' attorneys who thought it would be unfair if the committee issued a report without giving mr. clemons the opportunity to testify in public. so, i decided to proceed with this hearing, which i will -- which i expect will be the last hearing and that this committee will have on baseball's past or on this report. the reports credibility will be bolstered by the testimony received by mr. nablock and mr. pettit.

mr. mcnamee named three players, mr. nablock, mr. clemons and mr. pettit. none of these three met with mr. mitchell. but now two of them have told congress that this is true. two things affect mr. clemons credibility. first, he said that he only face perjury. which meant that the only faced legal jeopardy if he complied. second, he had an economic interests against implicating the individual who supported his livelihood and was his most prominent clients. on the other hand, the committee learned that mr. mcnamee has twice failed to tell the government investigators the full truth. there was an incident in florida

in 2001 that is not related to the matter before us, but relates to mr. mcnamee's credibility. we are not going to make that incident part of today's hearing, but mr. davis and i have prepared a joint statement that would are -- will be part of today's record. we are sitting on the record that mr. mcnamee lied to police officers when they investigated -- we are stating on the record that mr. mcnamee lied to police officers when they investigated the matter. mr. mcnamee has not disputed that he lied, but said that he did it to protect others. he has not been charged in that case. it is clear from our deposition with mr. mcentee that he did not tell federal prosecutors everything -- mr. mcnamee that he did not tell 5 federal prosecutors everything he knew. until last month, he also withheld from prosecutors physical evidence that he says

implicates mr. clemons. mr. mcnamee says he did not tell the full truth because, "i was trying not to hurt the guy. i felt awful for being in this situation i put myself into. there was a feeling of betrayal. i should not have done it, but i did not want to work him as bad as i could." that is no excuse. it is a serious matter that mr. mcnamee did not tell the investigators the full truth. we need to keep this in mind in evaluating his credibility today. mr. clemons has visited with many committee members personally in the last few days. at one point, he -- one point he and his attorneys have made is that it would make no sense for yen -- for him to testify under oath if he actually did steroids. in judging his credibility, the risk to his credibility in testifying today needs to be taken into account.

it is also relevant that mr. clemons is a credible and convincing person. i am also aware of the tremendous amount of good mr. clemons has done through the roger clemens foundation and i thank you for helping so many children. but it is also true that as we move forward in our investigation, we found conflicts and inconsistencies in his account. during his deposition, he made statements that we know were untrue. and he made them with the same earnestness that many of the committee members observed in person when he visited your offices. in other areas, his statements are contradicted by other credible witnesses and are simply impossible. at the beginning of this sworn deposition, mr. clemons repeatedly told the committee that he never talked with brian mcnamee about human growth hormone. we know -- we know from his later testimony these statements were false. mr. clemons told the committee that mr. mcnamee injected him

with a dangerous medication, lidocain, in the public area of 18 training room. the team doctor and the -- of the team training room. the team doctor and the team trainer both cellist this account does not make any sense. during his interview with -- both tell us this account does not make any sense. during his interview with 60 minutes, he lambast of mr. mcnamee about sending him an e- mail about fishing equipment a week before the report. these statements were not accurate. eight days before the release of the mitchell report, mr. mcnamee called mr. clemons' representatives and told them about the report. mr. mcnamee also allowed mr. clemons' investigators to interview him at length about the evidence in the metra report before the release of the report. we know -- in the mitchell report before the release of the

report. we know these things happen because they were secretly injured -- secretly taped in the interview. during his deposition, mr. padgett told the committee that in 1999 or 2000, mr. clemons " told me he had taken hgh." during his deposition, mr. pettit was asked about whether he had any doubt about that recollection and he said, "i mean, no, he told me that." mr. clemons said this conversation never took place. mr. pettit also said he had a second conversation with mr. clemons about hgh in 2005. this conversation took place after the conversations hearings on baseball and mr. pettit as mr. clemons what he would say about the use of hgh if asked.

according to mr. pettit, mr. clemons said, i never told you that. i told you that daddy used hgh. debbie klum -- that debbie used hgh. debbie is mr. clemons wife. we are told that mr. mcnamee did inject mr. clemons wife with hgh. mr. clemons and mr. mcentee give completely different accounts of this injection. mr. clemons says that mr. mcnamee injected mr. -- mrs. clemons without his knowledge. mr. mack to meet says mr. clemons asked him to inject mrs. clemons. what they do agree on, however, is that these injections occurred in 2003. that makes it impossible for mr. clemons, when he spoke to mr. pettit in 1999 or 2000, could have been referring to the

injections of mrs. clemons. mr. clemons also told the committee that he talked about both of these conversations with his wife. because of the relevance of this evidence to the committee's investigation, the committee asked mr. pettit and his wife to submit affidavits to the committee. this is what mr. pettit road, "in 1999 or 2000, i had a conversation with roger clemens in which roger told me he had taken human growth hormone." this conversation occurred in texas -- human growth hormone. this conversation occurred in texas and he did not tell me where he got it, but he did tell me that his body -- it helped his body recovered. i told my wife, laura, about it soon after." in 2005 -- "in 2005 i had a conversation with roger in

kissimmee, fla.. i asked him what he would say if asked by reporters if he ever used performance enhancing drugs. when i asked -- when he asked me what i meant, i told him that he had told me he used hgh. roger responded by a telling me that i must have misunderstood him. he claimed it was his wife, debbie, who used hgh. i said, oh, ok, not because i agreed, but because i was not going to argue with him. shortly after that, i told my wife, laura, about the second conversation with roger about hgh and his comment about his wife." that is what mr. pettit told us in his affidavit. and this is what his wife, mrs. padgett, wrote. "in 1999 or 2000, andy told me

he had a conversation with roger clemens in which roger admitted using human growth hormone. of a few years later, i believe in 2005, anti- again told me of a conversation -- andy again told me agaiof a conversation wh roger about hgh. he said they spoke about his own use of hgh in 2002. he said he told roger clemens this and ask him what he would say if asked. andy told me that in this 2005 conversation, roger denied using hgh and told anti- that he was mistaken about their earlier conversation. according to roger, he said it was his wife, debbie, and you used hgh -- who used hgh." we will sort through all of this today. i suspect we will find inconsistencies in both mr. clemons' and mr. mcnamee's

accounts and each member will have to reach his or her own conclusions. these conclusions should not be based on whether we like or dislike mr. mcnamee or mr. clemons. our conclusions must be based on the facts. during the course of the investigation we have acquired a considerable amount of relevant evidence. we have taken the best position -- the depositions of mr. clemons, mr. pettit, mr. mcentee, and have transcribed interviews -- mr. mcnamee, and have transcribed interviews. we have received e-mails, communications, transcripts of tape recordings. we have also received affidavits and decorations from several witnesses. the ranking member davis and i have agreed to make this evidence part of the hearing record with appropriate actions to protect personal privacy. i know given the nature of this hearing that our witnesses have strong feelings, and i suspect

that some committee members may share these. i want to caution both the witnesses and the members. the chair will not tolerate any outbursts or inflammatory comments at this hearing. this is an unusual hearing, but we have tried to be as fair as we can throughout this investigation and i am determined that this hearing would also be conducted -- will also be conducted in the fairest way possible for everyone. i would like to now recognize tom davis for his opening statement. >> we may be interrupted frequently today with votes. i think there is some chaos on the floor, which is not uncommon. i am willing to sit through the hearing at, as you are, and adjourned for motions. >> members will use their own kretschman and guidance as to whether they will join us, but

the hearing will continue -- members will use their own judgment and guidance as to whether they will join us, but the hearing will continue. >> thank you. if it gives me no joy in to -- in joining yudof to have called this hearing. -- in joining you to have called this hearing. we have received criticism, that we are grandstanding, that we are acting like self-proclaimed prosecutors. in the end, we decided we had a duty to probe the challenge. we had to look at whether the report could and should still stand as proof positive that baseball's efforts to combat illegal drug use needs a fresh look. i'm here to remind you of the importance of our work. we learned those attempting to sell hgh are scanning consumers and breaking the law. we learned of the terrible remorse with unapproved use. we learned the danger is and

phone messages being sent to -- the dangerous and phone messages being sent to young athletes. while today's hearing maybe our court and joyless, we know why we are here. we are here to discredit the messages -- the grass messages aimed at our children. we cannot be lured into attaching credibility to different witnesses. we can only collect facts and present them as clearly and dispassionately as possible. coming into today's hearing we have before us to two very different stories. they're in many ways incompatible. someone is lying about the ultimate question. but we have not prejudged, nor should anyone to an intraday prejudge. -- turning in today prejudge. let's listen to the witnesses and remain fair and objective

and decide whether anything we learn leaves the middle report in a less glowing like ben thus far it has enjoyed -- the mitchell report in a less glowing light then it has thus far enjoyed. he had no subpoena power, little cooperation from players and only tepid enthusiasm from owners and players in the interest of protecting public health. today, we offered a stage before the primary vocal challenger. what better way to offered someone like roger clemens a chance to tell his story. mr. clemons, because of the scrutiny he has a receive, because he is -- because of his accomplishments and profile, because of the good work his foundation has done for many years deserves this opportunity. and so does his former trainer, brian mcnamee.

we learned from senator mitchell the players were required to consent to an interview before seeing the evidence against them and they could not simply appear, review the evidence and leave if they concluded there was nothing more to say. it is not hard to imagine why players like roger clemens might have decided to remain silent under the circumstances. today, we'll ask our witnesses about the open contradictions, opened threads that we have uncovered during interviews and document review. we will probably discover some lines of inquiry were red herrings. we will no doubt discover things that are new to us. but reaching consensus on whether the ritual -- whether the mitchell report is now sullied does not require questioning the veracity of our witnesses today. today's testimony and questioning may not be tidy.

our hearings may not end up wrapped in a neat package and may not fit the story line anticipated by many and '04 by some. that is okay. i think -- hoped for by some. that is okay. i think we will have concluded we have done the best with this than a german to conclusions. our focus is -- with senator mitchell's conclusions. our focus is to save lives, not ruin careers. why? because the young athletes lives across the currency are at stake and we will not hesitate -- across the country are at stake and we will not hesitate to come to their defense. >> we will proceed without objection and questioning after the witnesses have presented their testimony. 150-minute round -- a 15-minute

round controlled by the chairman and ranking member and a 15- minute round controlled by the majority leader. gentlemen, we welcome you to our hearing today. we appreciate your being here. is the practice of this committee that all witnesses that testified before us testify under oath. the chair would like to ask the three of you to please stand and raise your right hand. >> do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee will be the whole truth -- will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? the chair will note for the record that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

only two of you will be making opening statements. mr. schuler is here to answer questions. we will give each of the witnesses adequate time to make their presentation. we would like to start with you, mr. clemons. there is a button at the base of the microphone. be sure it is on and close enough to you to hear everything you have to say. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, i like to express my sympathy to the committee on the passing of senator lantos. he served this country with great distinction. my condolences go out to his family and all of you. thank you for allowing me to tell you a little bit about myself and how i have conducted my professional career over the past 25 years. i have always believed that hard work and determination were the only way is to be successful and

to reach goals. for the cuts were not an option. this was instilled -- shortcuts were not an option. this was instilled in me since i was a boy by my grandmother. i have had the opportunity to work with many traders, chiropractors, physical therapists and others professionals to try to educate myself and use whatever knowledge they have to keep my body in the best shape it can possibly be. i met brian mcnamee while working for the toronto blue jays in washington d.c. i trusted him, brought him around my family and treated him just like everyone else i have met in my life, like family. i am a positive person and i enjoy doing things for other people. i'm not just a ballplayer. if i am a human being. baseball is what i do. of it is not who i am. if i have devoted my love -- my life to it and have prided rock myself on my love for kids.

i've always tried to help anyone who crossed my path in need. to that end, here we are now, with meeting accused of steroids and cheating the game of baseball. if i am guilty of anything, it is being too guilty -- too trusting of everyone and wanting to believe in never won. if i am guilty of that, then so be it. -- and wanting to believe in everyone. if i'm guilty of? then i'm guilty of that, so be it. if i keep my emotions in check, accused of not caring. what i did speak out of mind accused of being guilty. what i did " -- when i did speak out, i am accused of being guilty. people who make false accusations should not be allowed to define another person's life. i have freely without question shared my talents god gave me with children, young and old, and i will continue to do so.

i have been blessed with a will and hard that carries me on in life. i have had thousands of calls, e-mails from friends, working partners, teammates, and fans can man who have held the highest office of our country telling me to stand strong. these words have been important in times that have been hard. do i think that performance enhancing drugs are acceptable? no. should there be more extensive testing? yes, there should be more involved. i have been accused of something i am not guilty of. how do you prove a negative? the matter what we are discussed -- with the matter was discussed here today, i will never have my reputation restored. but i have to set the record straight. however, in doing so by putting myself out there for all of you

and realizing that this is an attack on senator mitchell's report. i am not saying that senator mitchell's report is entirely wrong. i am saying that brian mcnamee's statements about me are wrong. let me be clear, i have never taken steroids or hgh. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. clemons. mr. mcnamee, be sure the button is pushed on the microphone and that it is pushed close enough to hear every word. >> thank you, chairman. my name is brian gerard mac and me and i've -- brian mcnamee and i was once the trainer for one of the greatest pitchers in baseball, roger clemens. during the times i've worked with roger clemens, who injected him on numerous occasions with human growth hormone. i also injected andy padgett and chaka nablock with hgh. pettitso injected in d. pettany

and chuck nablock with hgh. i also want to be clear that my conduct was wrong. i hope that my testimony today allows me to be in some small way a part of the solution. i am not proud of what i've done and i'm not proud to testify against a man i once admired. to those who suggest that i take some personal satisfaction in bringing down roger clemens, let me assure you nothing could be further from the truth. i take responsibility for my actions in hopes that others may learn from my mistakes. my father, who served for 24 years with the new york city police department, instill in me that people are human and made mistakes and i should always the step up and acknowledge my mistakes despite the consequences. so, here we are.

providing information to federal investigators has been very painful for me, and i did not seek them out. they sought me out. i did not want to cooperate because i knew that if i told the truth, i would be providing damaging information against people who i work for. in the end to my cooperated with federal investigators and with senator mitchell. -- in the end, i cooperated with federal investigators and with senator mitchell. make no mistake, when i told senator mitchell that i injected andy pettit with performance enhancing drugs i told the truth. andy pettit has since confirmed this. and made a mistake, when i told senator mitchell that i injected chuck nablock with performance enhancing drugs, i told the truth. he has confirmed this as well.

and make no mistake and when i told the senator that i injected roger clemens with performance enhancing drugs, i told the truth. i told the truth about steroids and human growth hormones. i injected those drugs into the body of roger clemens at his direction. let me be clear, despite larger clemons statements to the contrary, never injected roger clemens or anyone else with lidocain will be 12. -- or the 12th. i have no reason to lie. if i do like, i will be prosecuted. i was never promise any special consideration for fingering star players. i was never coerced for providing information against anyone. kalla was told to do was to tell the truth to the best of my ability -- all i was told to do was to tell the truth to the best of my ability and that is what i have done. i injected three people, two of

whom confirmed my count. the third is sitting at this table. when i provided information to federal investigators -- investigators from i have not spent much time going back over the facts. and i guess, maybe, i wanted to downplay the extent of their use because i felt i had betrayed the players. in the following weeks and months, i have had the opportunity to think about these events and consider the specific drug organs -- drug regimens that we used. as a result, i believe that the number of times that i injected roger clemens and chuck nablock was more than i initially stated. i recently told federal investigators that i have evidence, including evidence needles that i used to inject roger clemens.

the use of performance enhancing drugs was starting to pick up steam in baseball in 2000. i have the sense that if anything ever blew up and things got messy, roger would be looking out for number one. i saved the syringes to present as evidence to keep me from being the only fall guy. despite my misgivings about roger, i have always been loyal to a fault, a trait that has got me into trouble in the past. even though i saved this material, i never considered using it. when i met with federal investigators, i still did not want to destroy roger clemens. i was hoping this will just fade away. it did not fade away. roger clemens' record of a secret -- recorded a steger

conversation between me and roger about the state -- the medical condition of my son, which was played on national television. the ordeal has been a nightmare for my family. i have had to -- the whole ordeal has been a nightmare for my family. i have had to revisit the mistakes i've made in the news media. i lied to police officers to protect friends, ball players, coaches, and myself, with whom i worked. i was wrong and i deeply regret my actions. today, my livelihood is in ruins and it is painful beyond words to know that my name will forever be linked to a scandal in the sport i love. but the spotlight generated by senator mitchell's report can help clean up the drug use in his golf so that young people no longer see performance enhancing drugs -- used in baseball so that young people no longer see performance enhancing drugs as the way to excel.

hopefully, it will be for the greater good. >> mr. mcnamee, under the previous unanimous consent agreement, we will control 15 minutes in the first-round and mr. davis in the -- as mr. davis 15 minutes on his side. i replied to yield a full 50 minutes to mr. cummings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you gentlemen for being with us this morning. i was pleased to hear both of the witnesses talk about children, because that is what this is about. so many children try to emulate their sports stars. i'm going to ask you a question, mr. clemons. i first want to make sure that you are very clear that you understand you are under oath, correct? >> that is correct. >> and you understand what that means, correct?

>> correct. >> first of all, mr. pettit is one of the most respected players in the major leagues and commentator after commentator has said that he is one of the most honest people in baseball. it would you agree with that? >> i would agree with that, yes, sir. >> keep your voice up. >> i would agree with that, yes, sir. >> in fact, this is where your own lawyer, rusty hardin, said about mr. pettit in the "new york times" and i quote -- we have nothing to fear about what he is going to say. everybody knows that and he is honest. we have no reason to believe he will lie. would you agree with that statement? .> yes, your honor, i will > >> mr. pettit told us he had a

conversation with you in 1999 or 2000 in which you admitted using human growth hormones. is this true? >> it is not. >> you did not tell mr. pettit that you used human growth hormones? >> i did not. >> but the same time, you just said that he is an honest fellow. >> i believe he is. >> in his deposition, mr. pettit was honest and forthcoming with the committee. he told us things that were embarrassing that we had no way of knowing except through his own testimony. first, he confirmed that mr. mcnamee injected him with hgh in 2002, which is in the mitchell report. you understand that, right? >> i do. >> then he told us he injected himself again in 2004.

we did not know about the 2004 injection, but he volunteered that injection because he wanted the committee to know the entire truth. it was hard for mr. pettit to tell the committee about the 2004 injections. this autumn's dances in which -- the circumstances in which he described at length were personally embarrassing. but it was even harder for him to talk about you, mr. clemons. he is friends with both you and mr. mcnamee and he felt caught in the middle. during his deposition he was asked how he would resolve the conflict between two friends. here is what he said, "i have to tell you all the truth. and one day, i have to give an account to god and not to nobody else of what i've done in my

life and that is why i done and share this stuff with that i would not have liked to share with y'all." do you think that he was lying when he told the committee that you admitted using human growth hormones? rex mr. congressman, andy is my friend. he was my friend before this. he will be my friend after this. and again, i think andy has misheard. >> i'm sorry, i did not cure you? >> i believe in the house -- i did not hear you. >> i believe andy ms. heard my comments about hgh. -- misheard my comments about

hgh. we were at my house and i expressed comments about three older men using hgh and getting back the quality of life from that on television.

our friendship and closeness was such that first of all [no audio] when i found our he injected himself, i was shocked. i had no idea that he used hgh. my problem with what anti- says and while i think he misremembers is that if she misremembers is that if she knew that i had used hgh