in which roger told me he had taken him and growth hormones. he did not tell me where he got the hgh or from whom. he told me it helped the body recover. during his deposition, he told us that he tells his wife everything. we asked his wife to get us an affidavit about what she knew. this is under oath. let me read what his wife said in her affidavit. i do depots and state that in 1999 or 2000, and he told me he had a conversation with roger in which roger admit it using human

growth hormones. i remind you, you are under oath. you said your conversation never happened. if that was true, why would his wife remember and be telling her about the conversation? >> once again, i think he misremembers a conversation we had. our relationship was close enough that i would know he would have done -- i would have known he had hehgh. -- used hgh. he would have talked to me about it. >> now you know he knew it and he did not tell you. has your mind changed about his credibility? >> he is a fine gentleman. i think he misremembers. our relationship was close enough that if he knew that i

had tried hgh, he would have come to me and discussed the subject. >> in 1999, that conversation was not the only conversation he remembers having with you about hgh. he remembers a second conversation very clearly. this conversation occurs in 2005. let me read what he wrote about this conversation in his affidavit. "in 2005 around the time of the congressional hearings, i had a conversation with roger clemens. i asked him what he would say if asked by reporters if he had ever used performance enhancing drugs. when he asked what he meant, i remind him that he had told me he is hgh.

roger told me i must have misunderstood him. he claims that it was his wife who use hgh. i said ok or words to that effect. not because i agree with him but because i was not going to argue with him. this conversation happened three years ago. it is the kind of conversation most people would remember. " it is hard for me to imagine he made up this conversation. do you remember a conversation to this effect? >> i cannot remember a conversation in kissimmee, florida. i do not remember that conversation whatsoever. >> are you saying you do not remember or are you telling us you do not -- you did not have a? we are dealing with some serious matters. you wanted a fair chance to address this committee. are you telling us it did not

happen or that you do not remember? but i do not remember that. i will address any conversation about my wife using hgh. i know she read an article about that. i do not know the year. it could have been 2005 when the article came about. it was just general talk about hgh. laura also has a clear recollection of this conversation with her husband. "in 2005, and told me about a conversation with roger about hgh. he told me he had been thinking that is a reporter at him, he would tell them about his own use of hgh in took us into. he says he told roger this and ask him what he would say. and he told me in the 2005

compensation that roger denied using hgh and told and he that nd was mistaken about their earlier conversation. ." the time line is important. according to andy, his first conversation with you occurred in 1999 or 2000. you tell us your wife did not use hgh until 2003. that makes it impossible but you were referring to your wife's use in the 2003 compensation. andy told us that after his first conversation with you, he spoke with someone else. that me read you from that after day -- that affidavit.

"i asked roger about hgh and told him that rogers said he had used it. brian became angry. he told me that rogers should not have told me about his use of hgh because it was supposed to be confidential. mr. mcnamee, do you remember that conversation? >> yes, sir. >> did that happen? >> yes. >> your time has expired. but everybody understands the damage of steroids and hgh. mr. mcnamee, let me start with you. you mentioned in your earlier statement that number of times

you inducted players has risen every time you have testified. you alleged mr. clemens used with five other people. why has the number continue to change before coming clean each time? >> thank you for the question. the beginning of the investigation with the pro- government -- i did not know which questions they were going to ask me. i had no recollection of the amounts of time. it was not part of my regime ine. the players would tell me when and where i would do it. i downplay it because i did not want to hurt players even though i told the truth about their

injections and use. as i lifted this for the last few months, i realize the regimens. there were specific types of regimens. testosterone, the growth hormone. i started to think more about it. even though i cannot be accurate, these are ballpark numbers as i thought about the regiment over time. >> the ball park went from 7 to 9 time to 50 times. >> every time i talked with a congressional panel, i had more time to think about it. the regimen of growth hormone was four times per week. so i just did the math. >> so you did not keep any records? >> i was specifically living

this every single day. i did not think about it for years. >> did you inform the federal government about these changes? >> yes, i did. >> i am a point to ask questions about the january 4 call between you and mr.mcnamee. you sit him an e-mail. in the e-mail, you tell ms. mcnamee that there -- mr. mcnamee that there is nothing to talk about unless he confesses he is lying. he did get a response to your e- mail? >> after the fall call that was taped, i sent an e-mail back to them saying there is nothing to talk about unless he came clean. >> did you respond? >> no. >> during that call you had with

mr. clemens, mr. clements said, i just need you to come out and tell the truth. you did not respond. why did you just tell mr. clemens, i did tell the truth. i had to tell the truth. that is all you needed to say in this conversation. this is a conversation between the two of you. this would be the time that if this was a friend, you would have said, i had to tell the truth. why did you say that? >> because at this stage of that conversation, i realize it was being taped. i did not know if anyone was being listened -- if anyone was listening. if you know my job and, i did say that. but how in your jargon did you say that? >> i said it is what it is.

>> i would have thought this would have been a good opportunity to step forward. but you were afraid of hurting others. >> i was afraid of hurting roger. >> in your testimony in 2001, you added an additional substance to the list of steroids you injected into mr. clemens. you did not tell senator mccaskill about that. is that because you did not have about that.tchell is that because you did not have time to think about it? >> i do not know if that question was asked in relation to the steroids being injected. i thought about it and it came

to me that that was another steroid use by mr. clemens. >> you testified in your deposition that mr. clemens le bled through his designer pants and a player noticed it and that is when you brought -- bought bandaids. mike stanton notice it and made a comment. now the trouble with those band- aids b hisutt -- bandaids for his butt. stanton was asking him if he was taking steroids and growth hormones. do limit -- do you recall any

bleeding through your pants in 2001? >> i don't. i had no knowledge that michael stanton was using growth hormones. >> do you recall saying anything to mr. stanton about getting an edge? >> when i am on the mound, i want an edge. >> let me ask you, mr. mcnamee, can you explain that a little bit clearer? >> my best recollection was that i did not witness him bleeding through his pants. it was a comment that mr. clemens told me that that was why he bought band-aids. on a separate occasion if not the same location, i walked into

mr. stanton talking to roger about growth hormone. i was upset that mr. stan duped will add that i had told mr. stanton about his steroid use. i witnessed the conversation as roger turned around and said, i will do whatever it takes to get an edge. i also trained mike stanton on a one on one basis. >> did mr. stanton used steroids? >> i know that he used growth hormones. >> you tell the mitchell report that? >> i think so. >> this was toward the end of a road trip.

the blue jays had returned home to toronto. this was -- allegedly mr. clemens approach you and brought up the use of steroids. the bar-b-que is a key event in 1998 where your testimonies differ significantly. you describe the barbecue as the time and place where roger clemens comes into possession of steroids. you remember i clemens being at the barbecue. do you stand by that? >> yes, i do. >> jose canseco completed an affidavit. he said he remembers the barbecue as if it were yesterday. jose canseco says roger clemens was not there and being disappointed that i clemens was not there. -- he remembers having a high

school baseball coach at a barbecue and been disappointed that he could not introduce the coach by clemens. he says there was a barbecue at my house for my teammates and other blue jays members. it was an honor for me to host a luncheon for my team. there were a part 30 to 40 people present. i remember that because i was disappointed that he did not attend. according to news reports, the blue jays catcher does not remember seeing roger clemens there. the blue jays trainers do not remember roger clemens being at the barbecue. the blue jays traveling secretary specifically members roger clemens not being on the team and does not remember him being there. jose canseco's wife at the time has supplied an affidavit to the committee that she does not remember roger clemens being there.

audio from the television broadcast from two zero different games as the announcers talking about a barbecue - from two different games as the announcers talking about a barbecue and them saying that writer clemens was playing golf that day. -- roger clemens playing golf that day. how do you explain this discrepancy at this critical juncture? >> i do not it is critical in terms of roger clemens using steroids. i have two memories. what is that i was eating a sandwich next to jose canseco's pool. i noticed a child running toward the pool. there was a woman chasing after the young child. she was wearing a bikini with a green in it board shorts.

she grabbed the child. the child was about two years old at the time. i later found out that it was roger's nanny. i turned around to see roger clemens and daddy talking and going into the house. i know that roger showed up a little bit later. >> how you know he showed up late to? >> i saw him there at the house of jose canseco. we have had numerous conversations about how great that party would have been if it wasn't for the fact that we had a game that night. all we had was sandwiches and iced tea because jose canseco had a nice house. >> t golfee -- your golf tee

was time stamp at 8:58 p.m. do you remember what time you teed off? how long does it generally take you to play a round? how far is the golf course from jose canseco's house? >> about 20 minutes at best. >> did you eat lunch after you play golf? >> i do not remember. >> what would be your pattern of practice on a day after pitching? >> the day after i enjoy playing golf. i usually enjoy playing golf the day before i pitch and the day i can.er if

i do not hanging in the hotel room. >> the night before the bar-b- 4-3 in 17lue- is lost4-3 innings. >> obviously, i through that again. >> where your wife and children in miami for this series? >> yes. >> do you think you would have gone to the barbecue after golf? >> i do not remember his party. >> is it possible that your wife and kids could have done without you? >> i believe my wife was at the golf course. the kids could have been. i do not remember that they were. >> but you do not remember being there at all. >> i do not. but this was brought up -- >> this was brought up and you are starting to ask these

questions thereafter. we have spoken to a number of medical professionals inside and outside baseball. this is a about up by demand -0- shots.min b-12 most say that this item is not necessary -- vitamin is not necessary unless you have a need for it. what is your relationship withb- 12? >> my mother encourage me to take it. tapesvitamins every other day. i take a multi biedermann. -- i take a multivitamin. if your energy belt rundown or so on and so forth. i do not know the technical

benefit for it. i have always assumed it was a good thing to have. but it you inject yourself or didmr. -- mr. mcnamee? \ >> i have never injected myself. mr. mcnamee gave me shots. >> i have never give an roger clemens b-12. >> thank you, mr. davis. the chair recognizes mr. tierney for 2 minutes.

>> you told committee investigators that you provided the police with statements that were not truthful. mr. mcnamee, were you truthful to investigators in 2001? >> no, sir. >> you did not give prosecutors the whole truth about the number of infections that you gave mr. clements. you now say there were more and deductions that you previously admitted to. -- injections you previously admitted to. were you truthful to federal investigators last year? >> no, sir. >> why did you mislead investigators? >> the part about the injections where part recollections and part withholding to try not to

hurt these players. about the evidence, once again, i felt that with the situation i was in. i felt bad about being confronted with a veteran investigators and senator mitchell. everything i told them about their use was true. >> you have admitted credibility problems in the past. mr. clemens, let me turn to you. we know that some of the things you told us in great and earnestness and appear not to be accurate. this raises questions about your own credibility. that to me read you from your deposition. you were asked, did you ever saw m to misscnamee about -- speak to mr mcnamee about human

growth hormones? you said, i have not. you said you cite article or a show about some elderly man and later in the show, he was able to play golf. when you get those answers in your deposition, you seemed artist and you seemed credible. were your answers to the? >> yes, they were. >> with respect to you, we know that you did not give the committee to for answers later in your deposition. you were asked if any members of your family had takenhgh. you told the committee staff about to come as haitians you had had with mr. mcnamee about

hgh. you and your wife told the committee about this in your deposition. you get different account of what actually happened. according to your account, mr. mcnamee injected your wife in your bedroom without your knowledge. you said, i found out later in the evening. she told me something was going on with her circulation and disconcerting. you also said, the next day, she was not feeling comfortable. something about her circulation. you told the committee you had a strong reaction. you were so concerned about what happened that you searched the luggage looking for evidence of drugs. do i have that right so far? >> that is correct. you then told us about two the

messages you had a with your wife about hgh. let me read that part of the transcripts to you. you said, we had a heated discussion about it. i do not know enough about it and we do not know enough about it. you told the committee, i called him the next day because she was not feeling comfortable. i was not happy about it. i said, we do not know anything about it. she said, it is legal. there is no law against it. you told the committee you had no conversation is with mr. mcnamee about hgh. your testimony shows that you had three specific stations abouthgh. why didn't you tell the committee about those conversations? >> prior to him injecting my

wife, we had no conversations about hgh in any detail whatsoever. i am going to read a statement from my wife in just a minute. we never discussed hgh in detail. if i was a par of using hgh, brian was a told me thatndy -- was a part of this. >> in the early part of your deposition, you are asked three times. the second time you said you had never asked him. when you added it gets the with mr. mcnamee abouthgh -- about

hgh, you said never. >> i never had any detailed discussions with brian about hgh. >> didn't you call him on the call after your wife had told him she had taken hgh? >> that was a detailed conversation. >> yes, it is. >> how can you say that you did not speak with him about it and then say that you had a heated conversation about it? the questions were had you ever. you can see where that leads you to some credibility problems.

only when someone presses you on a specific incident, do you have recollection of a specific conversation. >> we had no details discussion about hgh. during my testimony with the committee, i believe the committee ran down front office people, other employees. and that is where they said family in the questions. >> i am reading from you from the transcript. what you are refering to happen later. there were three questions where you were asked if you specifically spoke to mr. mcnamee about hgh.

that me go on. that is not the only area where we have some questions. it is on page 67. you were at it you did any research on your own about human growth hormone. you answered, north i have not. i have never research it. this seems a little hard to believe. your wife was injected by mr. mcnamee of without your knowledge with hgh. you felt so strongly about what he had done that you searched his luggage. what did your doctor say about this? >> i talked to my wife about calling our doctor. she said she was dealing uncomfortable and wigged out about it. he would always leave luggage behind and have us mailed his luggage. that was no different from when i spoke to him about bring

alcohol on my property. i have young children. that is the conversation. i was comfortable with my wife's reaction. >> she said she had circulation problems. >but you never called the doctor. wife had circulation problems and she was ejected by a fitness trainer, it seems like you would call the doctor. but i talked to her about calling the doctor. what steps did you take after you had learned that your wife had taken the injection? >> i did not take a lot of steps. in the last two months since this has been going on, i have learned a more about hgh than i ever thought.

i have seen things on television about how these guys say it has helped them. i do not know anything about it. >> i guess that is where the question comes in. you want us to believe that mr. mcnamee injected your wife without your knowledge. that you were upset enough to call mr. mcnamee and searched his luggage. despite all that, you never made an inquiry of a doctor. >> she said she was having issuing -- having itching. time hasentleman's expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the tapes of the toronto blue jays florida game has several

comments about roger clemens not been at jose canseco's party. jose canseco provided a sworn affidavit about roger clemens not being at that party. you indicated he came at the party late. how do you square that about what was on television and the radio? there is some inconsistency there. >> by recollection is not inconsistent with what they said. they said they do not recall roger clemens being at the party. >> why did you keep the needles and the cause -- the gauze pads? >> like i said in my opening statement -- >> i want to read to you what you said. you worked for lauder clemens up until, -- you worked with roger

clemens up until 2006? so you stayed with him for five years. i want to read this statement. i kept them because it was there in the back of my mind that i distrusted him to a degree. i just felt that there were bits and pieces coming out in the paper. why would you work for someone who you felt was on ethical? why would you keep this information for five years if he was your friend and he thought he was to be distrusted? but he was my employer. >> do you keep these things for five years and keep working for them? >> it was not something i thought about. it was in the basement. as i thought about it, more

things came up. as you saw in 2000, i wrote an article in "the new york times" about steroid use in baseball. i never felt good about what i was doing and the fact that it was illegal. i think it that because i had done things fo beforer -- the kings before -- done things before for other people and i got hurt for them. >> were there other people that you kept kingsport? >> one other person. >> why did you tell the authorities immediately? >> i was afraid that i would get into trouble. >> you kept the needles or five years and went on to keep

working for him because he was your employer. then you said you felt bad about giving these to the committee when you first started talking to them? >> yes. >> are you kidding me? >> no, sir. >> my goodness. as i understand from my colleagues, you told the new york times that you had no direct evidence at the beginning of all of this. >> i did not talk to "the new york times." i told the committee that i had no direct evidence. >> so you did not tell the truth initially to them. >> no, sir.

lied.u l jose canseco says he was not there. yet you still maintain that he did come there. now you admit you lied about this. are you lying about anything else? >> i am not lying about jose canseco's house. >> so you just lie when it is convenient for you? >> no, sir. >> can you pull the microphone closer please. according to mcnamee, he made his allegations after being threatened with criminal prosecution if he did not implicate you. that is an allegation of course in. why do you consider mcnamee

trustworthy on this point? why you allege that he might have been coerced? >> what i have heard on different occasions about what he said and about what he has not said, there was a tape that i heard. the timeline would have banned -- have been 4 or 5 days before it came out. that is where i heard the allegations being said by bryan batt me about myself. that is the first time that i heard andy saying that i had used hgh./

i was shocked. >> i am going to read a series of prior statements attributed to you. "they never asked me for steroids. the only thing they had to eat or wear -- were vitamins. " that was from 20006. is that a lie? >> yes. know anything about that. the transcript from billy. >> can you repeat that? >> i said, you have to talk to them. i do not know anything about

that. that is a transcript from an interview. december 12, 2007. is that correct? >> what am i saying i do not know anything about? >> lead pass on that. -- let's pass on that. this is a quote that you told the investigators. i am going to be a series of involving your use of steroids. that is a airlineright,? >> partial.

>> you say i have no involvement in getting it or selling it. is that a lie? >> yes. >> i am not going to read any more of this. this is disgusting. you are here as a sworn witness. you are here to tell the truth. we have lie after lie where you have told this committee and the people of this country that roger clemens did things. i do not know what to believe. i know one thing i do not believe and that is you. i want to say one thing about this investigation. the secretary of labor, was found innocent in about 20 minutes. he came out and said, how do i

get my reputation back? unless it is proven that roger clemens used steroids, he is a baseball titan. with all these lies, if they are not true, they are destroying him and his reputation. how does he get his reputation that if they are not true. how do we believe you if you have lied and lied? we have this thing in this country about trial by media. the media has the right to come to these things and get all the information that they can. until a man is proven guilty, he is innocent. this kind of circus really bothers me. if he has done something wrong, he ought to be indicted. i do not see any evidence of that so far. with that, i will stop.

>> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you. since the testimony is so contradictory in this case, i would like to refer to some of the physical evidence we have before the committee. earlier in the investigation, he provided the committee with a transcript of a secretly taped interview conducted by to up your investigators. the interview was with mr. mcnamee. it took place at mr. mcnamee's home in 2007. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> during the interview, you told the investigators that you had injected mr. clemens with a

steroid in 1998. your exact testimony is that he probably developed an abscess on his but talks -- buttocks as a result of the injections. you said it was probably your fault because you are not t supposed to inject that steroid slowly -- in debt that steroid quickly. that is how an abscessed forms. it was probably your fault, he said. being under oath today, is that correct as far as your testimony goes regarding that incident? >> yes, sir. >> in pursuit of further information about this, we asked

for medical records during this time. . the medical records were provided by the toronto blue jays that said there was a palpable mass on the right buttock of mr. clements. there was also a similar mass on the left buttock. the record says that he received a similar injection. a doctor is said he gave a b-12 shot to mr. clemens, but he could not remember when. it says -- you also told us

that the probable mass could have had other causes. you said that a muscle strain, a which you called a strained glut, could have led to the problem. mr. clemens was a sin to have a -- was sent to have an mri. the committee -- it was not easy for the committee to obtain the mri. repeated requests were made for this mri only be seen to be -- we only receive the mri a few days ago. it provide important information about the a palpable mass on his

buttocks. according to the report, the injury was likely related to the patient's intramuscular injections. to get more insight into the senate the end of this -- to get more insight into the significance of this mri, which provided them to a doctor who is one of the country's leading experts on mri. we ask him to review the records and give his opinion. he issued a report. >> without objection. this is a quote from dr. murphy.

>> this is likely related to the patient's prior a chance at -- prior attempts at intramuscular injections. he concluded the injury was not a strained muscle. net, he gave his opinion as to whether the injury was caused by b-12 or steroids, as mr. mcnamee claims. the doctor said he could not be definitive without seeing the films. he said it was not a true abscess. but he did say this. it is my opinion that the history in the m r imaging is more compatible with an injection.

>> mr. chairman, i know it is highly irregular. may i address the point of the congress met for one moment? >> the rules of the committee provide counsel may advise their clients but not speak directly to the committee. >> you are taking my time. >> the rules do not provide it. please talk to your client to enter any questions that are outstanding. >> reclaiming my time, if i may. during our investigation, we asked dr. taylor whether he thought shot he gave mr. clemens could cause the shots on his buttocks. he said he had never seen a complication like the one presented by mr. clements. -- mr. clemens.

the head trainer said he had never seen a side effect from may -- from a b-12 shot like the one on mr. clemens. it also appeared in a tip that a mass was not caused by a stray glut or other muscle strain. we have testimony that on numerous occasions, he had conversations with mr. clemens regarding stacking of steroids. given the physical testimony -- the physical evidence we have had, that seems to be consistent with much of what mr. mcnamee is saying. how am i supposed to receive

this testimony as someone who is looking for the truth? i am looking to be supported by the physical evidence. this is not supported of your claim. much of this is a portent of mr. mapping -- mr. mcnamee's assertions. i want you to explain to me the import of this evidence. how can this all be wrong? >> he has inserted into the record a report by dr. murphy. we ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a report by a professor and chair of molecular and cellular biology. it comes to a much different conclusion. >> we will take whatever you want into the record. >> congressman, from what i

understand, we have provided everything we could possibly apply to the staff. we have cooperated with everything that was asked of us. by looking at the medical records, i know that i got a b- 12 shot. it obviously gave me some discomfort. i would hate to get on dr. taylor. if he gave me a bad shot, he gave me a bad shot. anytime i have needed an mmri -- i don't have any idea. i do not know who the gentleman is who is expressing this today. all i can tell you is what i know by my medical report. we have had everything reviewed and he concludes there were no steroids. i am doing every due diligence thing i can think of and giving

us that everything i can think of to look wherever they need to look. i have not heard that we have not cooperated in giving you everything you need to look at this in any way, shape, or form. >> some of the information came over quite readily. it was difficult to obtain others, especially this mri report. >> you will have to conclude. your time has expired. >> this is not a report of some unknown physician. this is the report of dr. taylor. this is a report of the trainer and others who have said that in -- these are people who are

familiar with this. this is probably 60 years of experience in the giving b-12 shots. >> your time is expired. the committee will look at the same mri records. this will be admitted into the record. >> was this given to you by mr. clemens? >> yes, it was. >> i have been asking mr. clemens to answer a medical question like this. this was just made available to our side this morning. i would also note that the doctor had ordered the mri and the only doctor that reviewed

a. clemens' into repaid deposition and he came to a different conclusion. he did not even see an abscess. the only reason he ordered an mri is because this is the star player. there is no evidence or suspicion that drugs or anything that caused this. that deposition will be released this afternoon. this is a new definition of linking with a last question that came in asking mr. clemens a technical medical question like this on a report he had not had a chance to see before. >> evidently, his lawyers had the chance to get a report to you. >> out of respect, i believe the committee got the report also. >> this has been part of your

submissions. there are no surprises here. you did not give us this specially. none of these doctors is the book at you. they are looking at and mri. they came to a different conclusion. people can judge what they want. what is there is there on this. mr. mcnamee, let me return to you since the other side seem to be focused on mr. clements. -- mr. clemens. at your deposition, he testified that one of your inductions went wrong. >> it did not go wrong. it is possible that i did it too fast. >> it was at the tampa bay club house. the battering a -- does that ring a bell?

he said that when you inject it too quickly, one of the result is an abscess. you felt that mr. clemens developed an abscess. >> i was told by the head trainer that he developed an abscess. >> you said mr. clemens came to you and said get rid of this stuff. >> yes, sir. a little bit after his treatment he came to me and said that. >> and you interpreted that as meaning he did not want to use that drug. >> he came to my locker and said it rid of this stuff. so, yes. >> you said there was a good part of the season where he stopped using that the drug. >> that was my understanding. >> the team was in tampa in the

middle of june and toward the end of september. he testified that this injection occurred at the end of july or at the beginning of august. can you reconcile this if you look back at the schedule? >> the botched injection was something that i felt bad about. i am not sure it was something i did. >> yeah said the only times the were in tampa were the middle of june and the end of september. it was at the end of july or the beginning of august. is your memory faulty on this? >> it could be. >> the head trainer recalls nothing about any abscess. is it unusual tommy craig would

fail to recollect an injury like this at this time? >> tommy craig was a trainer for a very long time, and we are talking about 10 years ago. >> you seem to have a vivid memory of it and no one else does. >> that is why in my deposition i felt bad. i had assumed it was my fault. >> if craig viewed an injury to clemens' buttocks, is in the summer and he would recall? >> you would have to ask tommy craig. >> he was not the only member of the medical team that failed to recall the energy. the team doctor, ron taylor, did not remember it. the team orthopedist, who opened the mri, -- who ordered the mri, did not remember it. he came to a different conclusion than the people who just looked at the mri. if roger clemens, the most

famous pitcher in baseball enfranchise entertainment on the picture side developed and entreat known to be the type associated with steroids, -- developed an injury known to be the type associated with steroids, don't you think someone would recollect? >> none of those people were injecting roger clemens with illegal steroids in the butt. >> whether you did or not i think remains an open question. we are talking about an injury to him that was a result of that. they did see an injury, and ordered an mri as a result of that. but none of the alarms went off. the medical tests showed some type of injury to his buttocks. there was no question about that. according to the mri, it was not an abscess. it was simply a mass. my concern is it could have been a bruise. are you certain tommy gregg told you clemens had an abscess?

-- tommy craig showed you clemens had an abscess? >> yes, sir. >> he and dr. taylor told us the mri was ordered because they thought the bruise might have been caused by a [unintelligible] it was ordered because the star pitcher was injured. tommy gregg, scott chairman, and craig,tors -- commtommy scott, and the doctors say it was not an abscess. >> this is not an allegation. he was being treated by the head trainer for ultrasound right over the area where i injected roger clemens with winstrol. >> dr. taylor says he gave two be 12 shots, and one was to roger clemens at the time of the injury. the records also say clemens

started complaining of sore buttocks after receiving this injection. how can you be so sure this injury was not the result of the b-12 shot? tempo was going to be in june or september. how do you reconcile that? >> i am not sure i follow your question. >> the only time the were in tampa, where you testified this took place, was in june and september. this injury took place in july or august. we know he received a shot for b-12 during that time. an abscess would have to be will the b-12. >> you misunderstood the deposition. i assumed, not knowing when the template trip was, because that

was a hurried instance when we were in the closet, and that was when the injection took place. i was unaware of the dates. >> you were aware of the dates. >> i was not aware of the dates. >> that is right. you were not. now that you are, it is inconsistent. this took place when there were not in tampa. let me ask you this, mr. mcnamee. why did you inject professional players with something you knew was illegal? why did you keep doing it? >> i am ashamed, and that is why i am here today. i have not since 2002. >> why did you for too many years? >> i accepted it as the norm. it was part of the culture of baseball. >> how prevalent was it? >> excuse me? >> how prevalent was it? >> with the players, it was.

i am not sure with the other string pitchers and their involvement. >> i will yield. >> just listening to your testimony, you said you believe you have not injected anyone with any illegal drugs since 2002. what does the word believe mean? did you or didn't you? >> about ballplayers, i have not. instructed debbie clemens in 2003. >> did you tell anyone you were planning on suing -- litigation against the l.a. times, related to jason? >> i did. >> your time is expired. for the record, as i understand it, there was an injury. this was in the team records.

in the records, it said the injury was related to an injection. do any of you disagree with those three statements? >> no. >> it was an objection -- there was an injection of b-12. the other contention is it is an objection of something else. those three points, for the record, are accurate. >> in an attempt not to have mr. scheeler appear not to be a potted plant, i am going to talk to you. you were instrumental in preparing the initial report. is that correct? >> i did with senator mitchell. yes, congressman. >> when you get to be my age, you lose about 20% of your hearing. i do not want to embarrass the other younger citizens in the audience.

let me preface my remarks. i have the highest regard for senator mitchell. at one time, he was my proposed candidate for president. i have known him for more than a quarter of this century. if any of the remarks i make to you -- that are not intended to impugn his credibility or his reliability. but having been involved in washington for a few years, and knowing the mitchell report was extensive -- 400 pages -- is that correct? i know george mitchell was a very dedicated person, but i do not expect that he wrote every one of those pages. is that reasonable to assume? >> he did not do the first draft of every word. he did not do the first draft of every word, but i will tell you that he reviewed every sentence, everett, -- every comma, every

semicolon. >> he stands by every act fact set down in that report? >> everything that we said in the report was, at the time we wrote the report, we have a good-faith belief for it. we had a good faith belief for it and we believed it to be true. >> have you changed that opinion? >> no. >> you believe every fact set forth in the report is true as set forth? >> at this moment, i cannot think of a single fact that we would recant. >> so the subversive meeting that occurred at conseco's house. you reviewed that and he has told a lie, and the people that reported the ball game told a lie? is that correct? or did that meeting not occur?

that is the question. >> i would say at this point we are not -- it is not our role to judge what the subsequent facts are if they took place. >> you mean to tommy if i committed perjury, and in doing that you placed me at a particular location, and then it turns that you could not have been there and were not there -- that is not material to your report? >> let me try to put the canseco lunch into perspective. he told senator mitchell he had been there for lunch. this, i would add, is one of the reasons why we would have liked to have talked to the current players, because we could have gotten additional facts. >> we would like to talk to god to find out, but you did not.

did he speak with mr. clement at a location where other reliable parties have submitted affidavits that she could not have been there? the writer of that report -- i will assume you are the writer of that report. which of those facts should the people of the united states accept? did this meeting occurs, or did it not? >> let me take issue with the premise of your question. it is important to understand that at that meeting we do not right that any conversations about steroids took place at the jose canseco luncheon. if i could complete my statement. >> i only have five minutes. i do not want you to filibuster. we're used to the senate doing that, but we do not do that in the house. i want you to respond as quickly as you care. >> i will do my best. >> are you contending that the fact that that meeting occurred

and whether or not mr. clemens was there is not important, is meaningless, and should not have been in the record? or was it placed there for some purpose, to show there could have been a semi conspiracy occurring, with discussions being had, and this was another element of that evidence? >> this was placed in the report in large part because of the fact that we also interviewed jose canseco. mr. canseco advised us that he had had repeated conversations -- did he advise you that that meeting did not occur, under oath? >> you was not under oath when we spoke to him. we did not have the ability to place people under oath. >> are you concluding -- did he tell you that meeting did not occur? >> he did not answer that question because we did not ask it. at the time we interviewed mr. canseco, that was july 11, 2006.

at that time, we did not know of this issue of the canseco lunch. >> your time has expired. >> please go ahead if no one objects. >> did that meeting occurred? >> i think you can draw your own judgments. i have heard since the report came out evidence suggesting that mr. clemens was at the lunch, evidence suggesting mr. clemens was not at the lunch. one point i would like to make about that lunch is that senator mitchell did not state in the report that there was other performance enhancing substance used discussed, nor were any performance enhancing substances exchanged during the course of that one. "gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. chairman, mr. mcnamee,

you have come up with so-called physical evidence of possible steroid use that i believe you turned over to investigators. yes, sir. as i understand it, there is cause. -- as i understand it, there is gause and a syringe. >> yes, sir. >> is that the extent of the physical evidence? >> there are empty, broken samples that were used with those syringes. there is some unused ampules, seven or eight of them. there are also 30 or so too inch needle heads, along with a

bottle of white pills, along with the evidence. >> because i saw looked like it had bloodstains on it. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> if that blood was dna tested, do you think it would be mr. clemens'? >> yes, sir. >> you could have had goes with his blood stains on that because you had done several injection procedures on him, and also treated him. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> mr. clemens claims he was treated with vitamin b-12. did you do some of those injections? >> i cannot hear you, sir. >> mr. clemens has said that you

treated him with injections of vitamins. is that correct? >> -. >> you never used any of vitamins? >> no, sir. >> and you claim you gave him a steroid or a compound. what was it you claim you gave him the injections of? >> throughout the course of the years, it was winstrol, also known as stanzonol. hgh, humans also growth hormone. >> what did they look like? >> stanzonol was a milky white liquid, water based.

the testosterone was clear, oily, almost a honey color. the h g h would become clear. >> basically a clear to honeyed tone. you claim -- you did admit that you were injected with vitamin b-12, and also you admitted to lidocane. what color is the vitamin shot? you told me you had quite a few shots. >> brian mcnamee give me shots on four to six occasions of b- 12. it is red or pink in color. i do not know the color of lidocaine. he gave me one shot of lidocaine in my lower back. that happened in toronto. i have no idea.

>> he could have caused with your blood sample on it. is that correct? -- he could have gauze with your blood sample on it. >> that is correct. >> you have said the only injected substances -- was it mr. mcnamee that injected those substances? >> that is correct. >> you also said you knew distinctively the color of the b-12. that is a fairly distinctive color. >> that is correct. it was red or pink. >> what color was what he injected you when you thought it was b-12? what color was it when he injected you? >> it was red and pink. b-12 is red and pink.

i do not remember the color of the lidocaine. he said it would give me some farina's in my back. >> we may never know. you say he would have gauze with your blood dna sample on it. that would be correct? "sure could have. >> but we do not know what he injected. he just testified that the substance was a different color then, in fact, you recognized. in fact, you told me on a prior occasion the color of the substance you were injected with. is that correct? >> i am sorry? >> you told me the color of the substance you were injected with. >> that is correct. >> the time has expired. >> he has never given the growth hormone or steroids.

>> do you want to take your five minutes? >> yes, thank you. first of all, mr. clements, as in new yorker, we are very proud of your professional achievements. thank you for your many efforts to help children through your foundation. you are an important role model to many young people. i am concerned about these allegations against you and your conflicting response to many of them. first of all, the mitchell report was released in december 2007. after it was issued, you began speaking out against these allegations. one question i have is why did you refuse to talk to senator mitchell when he reached out to you before the report was released. on page 175 of his report, it says, "in order to provide him

about information and to give him an opportunity to respond, i asked him to meet with me, and he declined." you went on "60 minutes." in an interview, he asked why you did not speak to the investigators. in response, you stated you listen to your counsel. a lot of players did not go down and talk to him as well. do you remember saying that to mike wallace? >> yes. >> in your deposition with our committee, you gave a very different explanation. you did not tell us your lawyers told you not to speak before mr. mitchell. you repeatedly told us you had no idea mr. mitchell wanted to talk to you. let me give you some examples from the transcript. from page 112 of your deposition, you were asked -- were you aware senator mitchell

was seeking to interview you? your answer -- i was not. later, mitchell sent a letter to the players' union requesting an interview. you testified that you were not aware of this request. you said -- i was not aware of it. you said that when your agent heard about the invitation, did he communicate with you you were invited to talk? you is absurd that he did not even communicate this request to you. on page 115 in the july time frame, your agent never said to you, "by the way, senator mitchell wants to talk to you"? your answer, "that is correct." in october, the players' union

was provided with the evidence senator mitchell had. did you know of this in that time? your answer was you did not. then you made this statement. "i had no idea senator mitchell wanted to talk to me. if it was about baseball, and steroids in general, i would have wanted to see him. and if i knew what brian mcnamee was saying about me in this report, i would have been there." there were six times you told our committee under oath that you had no idea mitchell wanted to talk to you, yet you said on national television that you refused to talk to senator mitchell on the advice of your attorneys. i have two questions about this. first, why did you give one explanation on 60 minutes for what you failed to talk to senator mitchell, and a different explanation in the depositions before this committee? >> the fact of the matter was i

was never told by my baseball agent/attorney that we were asked to come down and see senator mitchell. like you said, if i knew the lies brian mcnamee was talking about me, i would have been down in a new york minute, if you will. i was never told about this. the players association, from my understanding, reached out to a lot of the players. i do not believe any player went down other than, from what i understand, jason. it was related to mr. hendricks. the stated his name in my earlier testimony. it was never brought to me. from talking to randy hendricks, i believe the players association -- in my situation, i had to answer allegations back in 2006 about an l.a. times report.

>> would you say that your agent did you a terrible disservice by not bringing misinformation to you, that you had an opportunity to talk before the report came out? >> i would say so. >> can i ask what actions you took after you learned that your agents kept from you senator mitchell's inquiries? i would say that if the ethics committee in the house sent me a letter about possible illegal action and my staff kept this information from me, i would have fired by staff. my question to you -- have you hired -- can be fired these agents that did not inform you? what action have you taken with this breach of trust? >> i have not. with all respect, senator mitchell, from what i understand, was asked by members of the players association what

do you have to talk about with these players. would you tell us what it is? >> they said they would not respond to that. >> my time is expired. >> thank you. >> this has been very frustrating. i am sure it has been frustrating to those who are watching. in testimony in front of this committee is better not to talk about the past and to lie about the past. someone is not telling the truth today. i am disappointed that the other witnesses are not here. i understand from the chairman we plan to release those depositions. i hope the public understands that what we are having today is a very short form. i went through most of these depositions last night. when this is released, your board to get a more comprehensive view. what is interesting today is the interaction. i would argue those depositions are fairly devastating. mr. mcnamee, something caught my

attention. it was a side comment fairly into your testimony. you alleged that david cohen, player representative for the toronto blue jays, said, "the owners went to the union and said we do not want to test, but you have to give us some of valid excuse to go to the media." do you have more knowledge of that? is that accurate? that is an incredible allegation. the union is being blamed for not testing. there has not been an investigation of the owners thus far. what you are saying is a player representative went to who and said that? did you hear this second hand? >> the player representative came to me. that is what was told to me. >> why did he come to you?

>> because of my background. he wanted to know. he was talking to me on the back of the plane about the current state, which reverts back to -- it was 2000. it was just a conversation. he thought maybe i had some knowledge that might have led me to believe that steroid use did enhance hand-eye coordination, which is baseball ability. >> i am not advocating another hearing, but the mitchell report was not targeted toward the ownership. that is one thing we have not investigated. this is a third hand type of revelation. but i think the staff needs to look at this. this comes to the question of the legislation you, i, and others introduced about whether

we can trust baseball to do testing on themselves. if it is true that the owners wanted to, in effect, cover up and not have testing, this is a very serious allegation. >> thank the gentleman for his comments. >> also, mr. mcnamee, when he held the press conference and played the tape live to the stadium, that appears to have really ticked off. >> yes, sir. >> you made a reference in your deposition that that is when you produced the physical evidence. >> yes. >> do you believe that physical evidence -- mr. clements said the blood could be from a number of things. do you believe that physical evidence will tied directly to an illegal drug? >> i do. >> the believe it can be debated? in other words, will it be on

the needle or something that takes the dna to that? have you ever handled physical evidence when you were a policeman? >> physical evidence? >> how to track it, how to protect it? are you speculating at this point, or do you know the dna will be traced? >> i am speculating. >> the dna, if it is clear, will help settle the debate. but if there is a dispute whether it was b-12, that could be confusing. i think it is important for the record. i chaired the narcotics committee, and i cannot tell you how much these depositions look like any kind of narcotics debate we have. it looks like cocaine or methamphetamines. when you talked about lying in the early stages, we often see witnesses who are caught, who go to the federal government and initially cough up just enough

where they think that are not going to go to jail, but they do not turn over their major clients. then something ticks them off and they go a step further. that could be another explanation. but it may be if it does not show the track that it is going to be very difficult to resolve. otherwise, i think it is important to our committed to releasing the positions. in fact, mr. ross brian mcnamee has been verified as accurate. another man under federal investigation verifies that. it would've been great to have him here today. it was a sad testimony he had about his life experiences and how we wanted to come clean for his family. i urge people to read that. i am incredibly disappointed with the players and the pressure put on not to talk.

if families in america do not talk about the drug abuse in their neighborhoods -- if you do not talk about that drug abuse -- there was a family in baltimore, and their house was firebombed. all of them were killed because they talked. yet baseball players somehow think that are above it, that there is some kind of a snitch or a thing wrong if you talk about other players. we cannot get control of drug abuse among to turn over other people and cooperate. this wall of silence coming out of baseball has been disgusting. it took the federal government to get anything out of this, to get the mitchell report. now we have questions coming off of that. people saying there should not be an independent test -- i do not see how they think could be anything but. >> thank you. mr. clemens, at our previous

hearing in 20051 witness clearly misled this committee. another temporarily lost his ability to speak and understand the english language. the third witness decided that he did not want to talk about the past. you have four sons. you understand how young athletes and minor players of your caliber. could i look at my two children with a straight face and tell them that you, roger clemens, have always played the game with honesty and integrity? >> yes, sir. >> there would be no doubt that is true? >> without a question. i took the short cuts. i can tell you about my upbringing. -- i took no short cuts. i can tell you about my upbringing. i have heard about forever

athletes. i take a little offense to that. my father passed away when i was 9 years old. i was raised by strong women -- my mother, my grandfather. they give me my will, my determination. i have had my work ethic, which is come into question here by a man at this table, that he made me who i was. i did not meet him until 1998. in 1997, i won the triple crown in pitching. i had over 200 wins. he said he coached me. if you do the math, i would have more awards according to his mouth. i do not. i have seven. my career did not happen by accident. i worked extremely hard. i have had a great work ethic since i was in high school. i ran home.

my condominium was about 2 miles from my house. my sister reminded me that the only way i was going to further my education -- my mother did not have the means to send me to college. she worked three jobs. it came to the game of baseball, which we love. so it is very hurtful to me and my family, and to the children that look up to us. the congressman earlier -- i guess he stepped out. my innocence sister in law was brutally murdered because of drugs. it hurt our family. my mother told my other athletic brother, my middle brother, my next older brother -- i have two brothers and three sisters -- out of college because of an incident that happened on campus involving marijuana. pulled him out of canvas. i tip my hat to my brother. he went on to finish school and get his degree.

these are the values we have. the values i have. i will continue to have them. in this room, they are not going to break my spirit. i am going to continue to do the things i love to do and try to be honest and genuine to every person i can be. it is the way i was brought up. it is what i know. you can tell your boys i did it the right way. i worked my butt off to do it. >> thank you for that response. it is a compelling story about your life and career. a colleague of mine from massachusetts wants to know what uniform you will wear to the hall of fame. [laughter] >> i did not hear that question. >> that is fine. >> let me ask mr. mcnamee.

when you first spoke to the government about this matter, did you deny roger clemens ever used steroids or h g h? >> and no, sir. >> you never denied it to federal authorities? >> no, sir. >> i recognize how intense the pressure can be with federal prosecutors. did their intimidation tactics influence you to give conflicting testimony? >> no, sir. "sure about that? >> pretty sure. >> were you granted five years probation in exchange for testimony? >> no, sir. >> to do not have a deal with federal prosecutors? >> no, sir. >> you have come before this committee to say what you said. you do not have a deal at all? >> no deals. >> were you simply telling the prosecutors what they wanted to

hear in order to secure a deal for yourself? >> no sir. >> have you answered truthfully to all my questions? >> yes sir. >> thank you so much. >> your time has expired. i am puzzled about something that happened last week. i am curious why. you said you find it hard to prove the negative. but your attorneys have provided documentation to but the passage in the mitchell report about a party of jose canseco's house. i do not believe this passage is anything central to the issue before us, but it is important that we know if it is true. your attorneys and you have been forceful in telling us the report was wrong. you were not at jose canseco's

house when the toronto blue james -- blue jays were played in miami. you were asked whether you could have been at his house during this timeframe. you answered no. is that correct? >> on the date? >> you answered no to the question "were a dozen canseco's party. >> repeater question, please. -- repeat your question, please. >> during your deposition, you were asked whether you could have been at his house during this time period. you answered no. on supporting materials, the provided affidavits from jose canseco that said you were not at his house during the team party on june 9. you provided logs which show that at least that morning you were purchasing merchandise at the golf course next to

canseco's house. you provided excerpts from a baseball broadcast that reported you were not at the team party. this came up when other members ask you about it. it is very helpful. mr. mcnamee had a different recollection. he had a clear memory of you there. we received conflicting evidence. i am not surprised that recollections of a party 10 years ago would conflict. that was of no special significance. but mr. canseco believes you were not at the party. his ex-wife believes you were there. one key witness would know. it is your former nanny.

the committee staff ask your attorneys for her name. last friday, we tried to contact her. we made additional requests for contact information over the weekend. around 5:00 p.m. on sunday, staff made another request and asked your attorneys to refrain from contacting the nanny before the committee staff to speak with her. it was not until monday that your attorneys provided the nanny's name and phone number to the committee. it was not until yesterday the committee spoke with the nanny. are you aware of all this? are you aware of the time when about the nanny? >> i am not sure of the time frame. >> with the nanny said to us when we finally contacted her yesterday was important in several respects. first, she said she was at mr. canseco's home during the relevant time period. she said she, mrs. clemens, and

the children stayed overnight. second, she told us she did not remember any team party as described in the mitchell report. third, she said she did remember that you were at that home during the relative -- during the relevant time, although she did not know how long you stayed or whether you spend the night with your family. the third point directly contradicted your deposition testimony, where you said you were not at the home at any point. but it is understandable to me. it was 10 years ago. here's what puzzles me about your actions. we have a transcript of the interview with the nanny, whose name i am not going to release because of privacy. in this transcript, she says that on this last sunday you called her and asked her to come to your home. she had not seen you in person since 2001. after you called, she went to

your home on sunday afternoon. "when you said you did not remember a party, what did he say? he says the reason you do not remember the party is if he wasn't there. i know he was playing with jose. did you remember a party and then not remember a party? that is right. " she also told committee staff you told her she should tell the committee the truth. afterward, an investigator working with you ask her a series of additional questions. your meeting took place two days after the committee staff made a simple request for her name. it took 24 hours after your meeting for your attorneys to provide her name to the republican and democratic staff. that is why i am puzzled about this.

why was it -- was your idea to meet with her before forwarding her address? >> i believe that just like to this hold hearings i was doing you a favor by finding a nanny. >> you might have been trying to do as a favor, but why should you invite your to your house when you have not seen her in all these years? >> that is unfair. >> i accept that. please be seated. was it your idea? >> it was my idea to investigate what the witnesses knew. that is what every lawyer in the free world does. >> do you think it was a good idea to invite her to your home on sunday after not seeing her for seven years? >> i am sorry? >> did you think it was a good idea to invite her to your home

after you have not seen her for seven years? >> i was told on friday night that we could locate the nanny. i do not think she needs any publicity. i was told on friday night that you guys may want to talk to her. >> you felt you should talk to her first. >> mr. chairman, i have not talked to her in years. i did everything i could to locate her if you guys have any questions for her. i just told her to answer truthfully. i am not sure. >> i do not know if there is anything improper in this. i know there is an appearance of impropriety. the right way to handle this would have been to give the committee information immediately and not have your people interview the man before we did, and certainly not to personally talk to her about the interview, as you did. one option was for you to have given the committee the contact

information and have no contact with her. another could have been to give her a heads up that the committee would be calling her. you chose, i think, the worst approach. you invited to your harm, had a specific conversation about whether you were at mr. canseco's house, and did this before you give the committee her contact information. >> with all due respect, this is nothing but innuendo. the committee asked on friday evening for this information. we have done everything to give you that information in a fast and throw matter. the innuendo is terrible. i spoke to your own staff members. i suspect this is calculated to do nothing but innuendo against this man. we've cooperated fully. >> as i indicated, the rules do not allow for lawyers to speak. this action means there is

always good to be a question surrounding any of her testimony. >> i was doing you a favor. as far as i was concerned, i have not seen this lady in a long time. she is a sweet lady. i wanted to get her to you as quick as possible if you have any questions for her. again, i am hurt by the statements that i would get in the way of finding anything you guys were looking for. i am hurt by that statement. >> the gentleman is not going to be recognized. my time is up. ms. norton is here. i want to recognize her for five minutes to ask for a question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think both mr. mcnamee and mr. clemens for having the guts to show up without having been subpoenaed. mr. clemens, much of what we are about here turns on concrete

evidence, but much of it on credibility. my question's really go to your longstanding relationships with mr. mcnamee. almost 10 years of relationship from 1998 with the blue jays until 2007. there is evidence about the closeness of that relationship. you train with him in kentucky. you got him bruce springsteen tickets. i would call that love. you lend him fishing gear. to "your statement, "i trusted him, put my faith in him. i treated him like i have done others i met in my life, like

family." is it fair to say you were on quite good terms with mr. mcnamee until you found out what he told senator mitchell? >> congresswoman, i did not get him bruce springsteen tickets. >> let us correct the record. [laughter] >> yes. i trusted brian mcnamee like a trusted any other trainer. >> but i ask you. those statements show that you were on good terms with him until you find out what he told senator mitchell. >> i would say of was on good terms with him. obviously, what i have learned now -- we are not talking about now. now is after the mature report.

of course, you and your legal team are raising very serious questions about incidents in mr. mcnamee's past. some were public. some were not. but i think it would cause reasonable people to lose trust and confidence in mr. mcnamee. for example, he gave you without your knowledge where you later came to believe was cabal amphetamines. the describe the confrontation, your words, that you had with him about this particular incident? you told us that he falsely claimed that your own workout was his, and how you did your left as you watch to do this. you even say that a company associated with mr. mcnamee used

your image in an advertisement without your consent. finally, perhaps most personally, that mr. mcnamee injected your wife with a change in your master bedroom without your knowledge, described here in prior testimony today, in discussions she had from that objection -- that injection. if you were well aware of all of these concerns before the mature report was released, i have to ask you. is mr. mcnamee -- if he did all of these things, and they appear not to be in doubt, including injecting your wife with a g h without your knowledge, why did you continue to employ him? >> congresswoman, the incident that he told me from the

situation that he got let go from the yankees -- i was told a different story. i was told he save a woman's life, that he took a hit for five other guys on that situation. >> what about what he did to you? what about the incidents i have said and how seriously the affected you? why did you continue to employ him, given what he had done to you? >> that is correct. the point i was getting to -- i believe there was a work stoppage for two or three months. i believe i continued to play. i was still trying to make up my mind. i am not great at retirement. i have tried retiring three times. it is not working. there was a work stop up there. there was a work stoppage with him until after the incident

with my wife, which earlier he said -- >> excuse me. a work stoppage? >> i did not hire him as a traitor. i had a different trainer for two months. >> the reason for that was? >> i was going in a different direction. >> then you had him as your trainer again. >> i am sorry? >> you had him as a trainer again. why did you keep the man? it is very simple. why did you keep the man? he did some pretty horrendous things which are on the record, as you yourself said. what'd you keep him? why only after the mitchell report did your relationship with him and? >> again, we had a heated discussion. he apologized to me on the situation with my wife. >> how about the other things?

>> i am for giving person. like i said, i do not -- when he told me that he was a doctor, that he had a ph.d., i have no reason to look behind that. he was employed by major league baseball. he ran an ad. i let him have that. i told him he could not do that kind of stuff. that is when he said he was going to sue my baseball attorney. quite often that happens in my life. the other day, i had a gentleman come and talk to me about that there were excited they just bought a lot down from my house in this area there were playing golf. i let them know that i hate to burst your bubble but i do not have a lot of that house. it happens quite often. ms. congresswoman, i learned, like i said -- i had no reason to believe he was not a doctor.

obviously the lies another he has told me. >> and all the stuff he did to you? all i can say to you is i am sure you are going to have an. -- you're going heaven. >> we are going to take a 15 minute break. we will reconvene and continue the questions. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> our coverage of the 2008 congressional hearing on steroid use in baseball will continue in just a moment. we are showing you this because cy young award winning pitcher roger clemens was indicted yesterday of six counts for allegedly obstructing a congressional inquiry with 15 different statements made under oath in the hearing of been showing you. a little background from a reporter who has been following this issue. >> a federal grand jury indicted former major league baseball pitcher roger clemens for his testimony to congress in 2008

about steroids. what are the charges? >> clemens faces six counts of obstruction of congress, perjury, and making false statements. the total is six counts. it could carry up to 30 years in prison, all the sentencing guidelines call for more than 21 months. >> what happened during his appearance that led to those charges? >> clemens went to congress of his own accord. he was not subpoenaed. he said he was going to set the record straight after the mitchell report, in which former senate majority leader john mitchell link him to baseball steroids. clemens was among dozens of players mentioned. his name appeared a lot. he insisted it was not true. he testified under oath to congress he had never taken steroids or human growth

hormone -- human growth hormone. >> what did the u.s. attorney say about making false statements to congress? >> he said the department of justice takes that sort of thing very seriously. he said, "our government cannot function if witnesses are not held accountable for false statements made before congress ." i think the message is clear that they believe roger clemens lied to congress. they want to set this as an example that other witnesses who come before congress must tell the truth. >> what has roger clemens said about the charges? >> clemens 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, "i never took hgh or steroids, and i did not lie to congress."

he has stuck with his story throughout. it appears at least initially he is going to stick with his story, which of course is directly countered by his former trainer, brian mcnamee, who before congress testified he did inject clemens with steroids and hgh. rusty hardin held a news conference after this was i do not think they are surprised by the indictment, given that the grand jury has been looking into these charges for more than a year. you can indict a ham sandwich, so i do not think roger clemens people were surprised by this. >> how will this affect his hall

of fame chances? >> and that is a question, as well as how it will affect his legacy. we have already seen mark mcgwire, who testified before congress back in 2005 and said he did not want to talk about the past. well now, he has the knowledge to that used performance enhancing drugs, and even before that admission, he was receiving about 25% of the the vote in the hall of fame tally. you need a 75% to get in. it will be interesting to see what happens to roger clemens' chances. set aside the steroids, and his numbers and accomplishments make him an easy choice. he is a cy young award winner. he has won a world series and many many games.

he comes up for induction in 2013, and we will be watching to see what sort of percentage of votes he gets. >> congress started looking into steroid use in major league baseball and then the league started testing players. what effect has testing had on baseball? >> there will be those that argue that there are other factors involved. pitching has taken over from hitting. home runs have been down. there have been the most no- hitters in this year in baseball in a nearly two decades. generally recognized is the value of pitching in now. there are those who believed that home run scoring is down because of the much stricter drug testing policies than they have had in the past. >> howard is a sports writer for the associated press. thank you.

>> and thank you for having me. >> 7 time cy young award winner as roger clemens denied using the substances he is accused of using. he has been accused of lying during a congressional hearing in 2008. we will continue showing that hearing in just a moment. >> after nixon lost the 1962 california governor's race, the owners offered the former vice president of the job as commissioner of baseball. nixon was flattered. he declined. he told the owners, "do not tell pat. she would kill me for turning you down. ." whether it is baseball and the presidency or the cia and the caribbean or, find america's history online anytime at the c- span library. it is washington your way. what would you want when you

want. >> c-span into this week is showing to the british inquiry into it -- c-span2 this week is showing the british inquiry into the iraq war. that begins at 5:30 p.m. eastern. book tv in prime-time concludes presidents' week this week with a look at presidential writing. a historian talks about editing ronald reagan's diary, and another speaks about abraham lincoln's writings and how they define him as president. the book tv is tonight in primetime on c-span2. cy young award winner roger clemens says he is going to clear his name after a federal grand jury indicted him for lying to congress about his steroid use. they're questioning 16

statements made under oath during a hearing in 2008. we will show you the last portion of that hearing now. >> the meeting of the committee will come back to order it -- . >> this has to do with the critical issue that the two of you do not seem to agree on. we have an affidavit from jose canseco and his wife saying that you were not there. we have extemporaneous a sportscaster reports saying that you are not there. we have your boss saying that you could not have been there, although it may have been possible. we have a number of people who were interviewed saying that they do not remember you there.

when they talked to your nanny, they understandably were trying to find out what she knew about it. this committee had no way to reach her except through you. is that right? >> right. >> we never could have interviewed her if you had not intervened and founder, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> are english is not that good. is that correct? >> it is not bad debt. >> she had probably never testified before -- >> it is not that good. >> she had probably never testified before congress before, is that correct? >> and that is correct. >> can you tell us what we should do to put this into an

appropriate perspective? >> i was told on a friday that our nanny or baby sitter at that time, that they wanted to talk to her. i reached out to her and made a phone call. that was a bit. i have not talked to her in i don't know how many years. we had not talked to her sense. i know when she came to the house, it was great to see her. we had not seen her for a long time, and that was basically the conversation. i said, we are all trying to remember some kind of party at jose canseco's house. i know that i golf at that house. we had a golf game. i am not totally positive that i would have taken back my wife and dropped her off at the house. i believe that the nanny was there with my kids.

they sure could have been. they could have gone over there in the afternoon after the party, but i was focused on what i was asked about attending a party. >> a barbecue in particular, right? >> a barbecue, a luncheon or something of that nature. could i have gone by the house later that afternoon and dropped my wife or her brother-in-law off? sure. i could have. but the kind of -- the time of day it was expressed to be, i would have been at the ballpark. i know that i was not meeting up with someone trying to do a drug deal. i know that for sure. >> this was eight years ago, nine years ago? >> yes. >> thank you. did you ever use roger clemens likeness without his position?

>> no. >> have you obtained a doctorate degree? >> yes. i obtained it when i was in toronto at the end of 1998. it was a situation where, at the time i was living in toronto, so i was looking for something i could do correspondents-wise. i applied to several different colleges and i got accepted to columbus university in maryland, louisiana, and started to take courses on nutritional counseling to achieve a phd. >> some a courses did you take? >> 11 courses and on completion of a dissertation. i took every course. they would marry the course work. i would take it. write a thesis -- they would mail me the course work. i would take it and write a

thesis paper at the end of each course. >> did you finish? >> yes i did. >> did you write a dissertation? >> yes i did. >> what was the subject of your dissertation? >> it was about improving the miles per hour of fastballs for pitchers. >> i it would be interested in reading that. what is a doctorate in? >> behavioral sciences with and nutritional focus. >> so, you became a doctor. >> ph.d.. >> does the university have a campus? >> and no, as i found out later, it does not. >> on the checks he wrote, you list yourself as a doctor. would you will yourself out in

good faith as a doctor? >> i am not sure that i follow. >> on checks he wrote, you printed in the appendix, you list in that the checks that you are a doctor. this was in good faith? you still hold yourself out as a doctor, right? >> i am sure that was under my business account and that it was a business check. >> ok. my time is up. did you ask roger clemens if you had his permission to use his pictures in one of your advertisements which promotes you for your work with many star athletes? >> no, i did not ask his permission. >> thank you.

>> mr. clements, it was a pleasure to meet with you last week. -- roger clemens, it was a pleasure to meet with you last week. you asked about the meeting with the nanny. i like to ask our former federal prosecutor, is it usual core a plan to meet with a potential witness? >-- for a client due may with a potential witness? >> that is not typical. -- to meet with a potential witness? >> that is not typical. that could create the impression that the witnesses are trying to get their stories together.

i would say by far the most customary practice in a situation like this, you have a lawyer or the lawyers investigator reach out to the potential witness and try to get the information that witness has and try to understand it as best you can. >> on december 12th, 2007, private investigators who were working for you had a meeting with your doctor to discuss the upcoming report. although they denied recording the meeting, we now know that they did recorded. you used portions of this recording when you filed a defamation lawsuit against mr. mcnamee, but your selective about which portions you made public, and you never released to the entire recording. now that we have the entire recording of that meeting, i want to ask you about it.

without knowing he was being recorded, mr. mcnamee told your investigators one, that he injected you with the steroid in 1998, two, that he injected it with human growth hormones in the 2003, and three, the injected with you -- injected you with steroids on multiple occasions in 2000 and 2001. mr. mcnamee confirmed virtually all of the facts about your allegedly steroid use that were reported to this commission. what mr. mcnamee told the investigators in private concerns the basic facts that he told senator mitchell. my question is, do you think the fact that mr. mcnamee gave your investigators, in private, the

same account as senator mitchell, that that could be viewed as corroboration of his account? >> i am not sure what all exactly he did tell investigators. i heard -- what i can recollect is a taped recording from conversations he had with jim when i returned home from vacation. >> there is another part of this secret recording that you did not make public. when i read the transcript of the secret recording, i was struck by the fact that your private investigators seemed to be fishing for every nation of the whatever it is that mr.

mcnamee has against you. for example, they asked him, was there any kind of paper trail documentation on any of this stuff. they asked him also, was anybody ever there when this was done besides you and roger? why did they ask these questions? >> i have no idea. i did not talk to my investigators. they went out and did the investigating. i do not -- >> i have one final question about this transcript. one of your investigators asked mr. mcnamee this question. hypothetically, if roger clemens said that is absolutely b.s. none of that ever happened. is there any doubt in your mind that what you told us today is the absolute truth?

mr. mcnamee answered, i have told you more truth than i told a the federal government. question, why did your investigators ask this question, and what do you make of the answer? >> congressmen, again, i have no idea. the investigators were doing that with the lawyers. this man has never given me hgh or growth hormones or steroids or of any kind. >> so you really just do not know and you are not instructing them as they did their investigation? >> that is correct. i was not a part of that investigation. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman was a time has expired. time has expired. >> i think almost everything has

been asked and said they could have been asked at this point, so i will not try to belabor this or delay it much longer. but i do want to say that i think congress has much more important things to deal with. we all work on important issues all of the time, but a lot of them are not as glamorous or high-profile as this, so we do not have some of the crowds we have, but we are working on major issues too. because of that, i was very interested when i read this, and this past sunday in "parade" magazine. they said, "federal scrutiny has lead to positive changes. after the 2005 hearings sports authorities launched an extensive probe. this has led to independent

drug-testing and better player education." i think some good things have come out of these hearings. i think they have served as a wake-up call to many parents and young athletes around the country because there heard reports of people committing suicide or having legs amputated having to get psychiatric treatment because of use of steroids. i think there has been some good in this. i did see a report yesterday in which a legal experts said that the case against roger clemens was very, very weak. those were his words. i spent seven and a half years as a criminal court judge trying federal -- trying felony criminal cases before i came to congress. i would have to agree. there are all sorts of change of evidence problems. i do not think the evidence would be admissible in almost any chord in the country. monday night and not -- any

court in at the country. one thing i am not clear on, mr. clemens, did you refuse to meet with a the mitchell commission? >> i believe he asked the players association. the way the process worked, the players association then contacted agents. i do not believe, from what i've understand, maybe one person did go down and talk to the grand jury, but no sir. i was never told by my baseball agent or the players association that mr. mitchell requested to see me. those letters or phone calls never came to mean -- came to

me, but once again, if finalized this man was telling, i would've been down there to -- if i knew what lies of this man was telling, i would have been down there to see him in a heartbeat. i did get emotional in my testimony with the staff. in a public person. i am easy to find. when the commissioner asked me to get myself together and the league asked me to put usa on my chest and represent my team, my country. , i did everything i could do to get ready. i told them i could shake hands, self flags -- waved flags and sell tickets. i went up there and did the very best i could possibly do, and i was proud to have usa on my chest. when a player went down in the all-star game in chicago, i was with my youngest son at a house

in houston. they found me and asked if i would come pitched an inning in this game. i told them let me talk to my family. but they found me. the former president of the united states found me in south texas and expressed his concern that this was unbelievable and to hold my head up high. these people found me. all the respect to mr. mitchell, i am on the same page with him and with respect to steroids and baseball. but bud selig could have found me. if he knew that what was said was going to destroy my name, he could have found me. i am an easy person to find. in an easy person to find in the public. >> let me just say, i appreciate

everything you have just said. what they have ended up with is a report that, based on statements by a man who unfortunately has admitted here several times today that he has lied to law enforcement people and many others, and based on information from a man who i understand has pled guilty in court and received a five-year sentence this past friday, it seems to me that there may have been some people a little too anxious to get this report upon -- get this report out and get the resulting publicity. i hate to say this. i grew up in minor league baseball, and there was a bond between the bad boys and the trainers. i hate to year when i have heard today. i think it is a sad thing.

-- i hate to hear what i have heard today. i think it is a sad thing. >> roger clemens, did you not year before the report came out what the report was going to say? >> i heard a tape. >> said you did know before the report came out that it was going to talk about you. >> up ask unanimous consent to submit -- i would ask unanimous consent to submit as part of the record a policy on the abuse of anabolic steroids. >> without objection we will receive it for the record. mcnamee, i was pleased

to hear you say that you were ashamed of your involvement in this whole affair. this report includes a survey data that middle school and high-school students have been using anabolic steroids since the mid-1970s. in national surveys indicate that the use is increasing among high school students, particularly among females. i find that very disturbing. i got a text message from my 16- year-old son during this hearing because he is tom sick and he is watching this on television like many young people. p example that you have given by working with highly paid athletes and encouraging them to engage in illegal behavior for the purpose of enhancing their performance is shameful and something everyone should be condemning. i hope you'll take the rest of your life to go out and educate young people about the dangers of steroid usage. mr. clemens, i know we have

talked at length about the issue of whether you ever taken steroids or hgh, and i am not going to talk about that. i will say that i am concerned about your use of the 12 injections' and lidocaine. -- of b-12 injections and lidocaine. you testified that you did not know if the person who gave you the injections was even authorized to do so. >> that is correct. >> have you ever been diagnosed with anemia? >> i have not. >> have you ever been diagnosed with senile dementia or alzheimer's? >> i have not. >> have you ever been a vegetarian? >> i have not. >> have you ever been of begin -- been a vegan?

>> i do not know what that is. [laughter] >> i ask because the scientific literature is very clear that b- 12 is indicated in an injection form only for people who are suffering severe iron deficiency, anemia, alzheimer's or dementia. you have clearly never been diagnosed with a deficiency, so the question for you is, why were you taking it? >> my mother, in 1988, suggested that i take it. on a professional level, my body has been put through the paces. i always assumed it is a good thing, not a bad thing. i think it is fairly widely

used. i take it in pill form. i look at it is something that is healthy. >> you also testified that mr. mcnamee gave you chiropractic adjustments. >> i did. >> you are aware that he is not a chiropractor. >> i've had my back adjusted at different points in my career. i've had chiropractors that have given me what i would expand -- what i would put this way. one guy jumped on me like he was trying to start a harley- davidson. i explained this to brian mcnamee and he said i should be

doing this for you. i had no reason not to address them -- not to trust him. >> you also testified he gave you lidocaine injection in your lower back when you're having lower back problems. >> that is correct. >> did he ever administered the test does it before he gave you a full dosage? >> the amount he gave me did give me comfort. >> did e. hook you up to an e k g machine when he gave you that injection? >> no, he did not. >> of the problem is, you're getting medical treatment from someone who is not licensed to give you medical care or chiropractic adjustments. i am wondering why you would risk your health and body, which

puts food on your table and provides money for your family, to someone who does not have a medical license? >> i trusted him. in a trusting person. -- i am @ trusting person. i would trust him not to harm my body. >> following up on that, it seems like ph.d. must stand for pile is higher and deeper. shame on professional baseball with their tens of millions of dollars in experts for providing this doctor for you. yesterday i told the committee in front of a hearing about my mother getting shots from our

family physician. she was a little anemic, she thought. the scientist who was the foremost expert we could find on b12 told us that there is not a test for a small deficiency, and said that taking it could not heard you and might help you. that was yesterday's hearing. now we are at today. i would like to thank the chairman and ranking members for the work they have done. in looking at the mitchell report, did that during the 1980's we had a rampant problem with cocaine and other drugs being used and little or no ramifications for it. in 2002 there was a major contract negotiation and there was an agreement with no teeth in it.

due to the ranking members work in 2005, i believe we can all say the baseball has begun cleaning up with real testing and real enforcement. for that, i am thrilled. last, i am thrilled to the chairman has announced that this will be the last hearing on baseball for the time being, and i think that is appropriate. i think we have done our job. but since we have the mitchell report in front of us and we are focused on a portion of the, i would like to draw us back to the mitchell report. do you believe that as far as the allegations against you, you say they are false, but as far as you know, do you believe the rest of the report is accurate? >> i have not read the entire report. along the lines that you are speaking, i do believe that baseball is going in the right direction. i believe that testing is dead. it is intrusive. i wish i could remember -- i

believe that testing is good. it is interested. -- intrusive. i wish i could remember, there was a study about players getting ritalin because it is the type of speed. but i do think baseball is going in the right direction. >> sheila, you have read the report, obviously. do you stand by your report and believe that it is good work? >> we stand by your report with respect to the entirety of it? >> even though jose canseco says there are material flaws in it and he has presented information? you stand by if despite allegations by third parties that there are flaws?

you do not see that as at least opening the door for some doubt on a small portions of this report? >> we stand by the report. >> that is fine. roger clemens things for the most part you did good work. i realize that you are both the principal and a participant. do you think this report is good, leaving aside one area of controversy? >> i believe that the report is good. >> do you believe the allies you have told repeatedly have -- and the lies you have told repeatedly have called into question the portion we are aspects --ttoday today?

>> no, i do not. >> do you believe that the endless series of e-mails you sent asking for an endless series of freebies on behalf of a roger clemens, things like under armor in all sizes, or one in which you said you're contemplating suing, or what you sent to the l.a. times in it 2007, you do not believe that those are the reason that we are in a situation today in which we would like to close this report without your testimony and without believing you because you do not seem to be believable? you do not think that is remotely possible? >> no, i do not.

>> well, shame on you. >> let me start off by saying that it years ago, this committee held hearings on this issue and i supported that because we have jurisdiction over the nation's drug policy. but i think we have to be very careful about how we exercise that jurisdiction. i think this hearing is a shift away from the question about widespread usage of steroids in baseball and instead focuses on alleged wrongdoing by individuals. i certainly hope that in the future we will be careful about how we approach situations like this one, because if we called everybody in sports that has ever been accused of doing steroids before this committee, then we would shut this place down and hold nothing but hearings with athletes who have been accused of using performance enhancing drugs. that is not our role in this process, and i certainly hope that this show trial will teach

us that very valuable lesson. we are in oversight and reform committee, and i certainly think there are more important things regarding the oversight and reform of this government. mr. mcnamee, in your opening statement, you indicated that your decision to release the evidence of bloody gauze, pat and syringes, supposedly of roger clemens, was because you believed that he betrayed your trust any recorded a phone conversation that the two of you had on january 6th of 2007. you said just this morning that would enter the most that the recording of that conversation was that -- that what angered you the most about that conversation was that the entire country heard about your son's medical condition. and yet, when you were asked why you repeatedly said, what do you

want me to do every time that mr. clemens told you he wanted the truth, you told congressmen davis it was because you knew the conversation was being taped. if you knew at the conversation was being taped, then why would you talk about the private medical condition of your son? >> it was not that i knew it was being taped, i did not know who was listening. i did not think it would air on national television. >> would that not have been the perfect opportunity to tell mr. clemens and that you did tell the truth instead of saying repeatedly, what do you want me to do? you could have said, i told them the truth. is this not a conversation you're having about what the truth really was? >> the conversation was for him only. i did not need to speak to him. i asked him to call my son.

he asked me to call his office. i called his office with the hopes that he would call my son. >> but during that conversation, you did ask him what did he want you to say, and did he not say that you wanted you to tell the truth? >> as i said you and your original statement, i did in my own way, as i see it. if you knew me, you know what i meant by the answer to that question. it is what it is. what i said was the truth. >> but you never told roger clemens that what you said was the truth. why did you not just say in plain english so that everyone could understand you? >> if i had known it was going to eric on national television, i would have said that i did tell the truth. but as far as him taping the conversation and releasing personal information about the sun, -- about my son, i would

not have said that if i knew it was going to err on national television. but as far as what i said, it is the true spirit quests i guess that depends on what your definition of is -- it is the truth. >> i guess that depends on what your definition of is is. [laughter] >> when you first spoke to the governor about this case -- the government about this case, did they pressure you into saying that roger clemens used steroids or human growth hormones? >> not soever. >> mr. clemens, you have said publicly that baseball should have given you more of a chance to address these allegations. i just heard more of that a

little while ago. there have been allegations made against you for the use of performance enhancing substances between 1998 and 2001. number one, i think you have explained why you did not respond, because they did not try to get in touch with you. but is there something more that baseball should have done to respond to this and to inform the players that were mentioned in the book that this was going to come out? >> it is my understanding that they, the middle people made a phone call to mr. mcnamee to go back down the list of everything he said again. might stance is, i believe baseball is doing the right thing. i think with testing and everything, we're going with the right direction. i was not made aware that mitscher mr. l -- that mr. mitchell wanted to speak to me.

>> is it fair to say that people from the baseball commission would have known how to get in touch with you? >> yes, i alluded to that earlier. i believe that, being one of the more visible players in the past few years, that courtesy would of been extended to me. >> we have given mr. mcnamee and mr. clemens an opportunity to discuss some inconsistencies. in a defamation suit filed by roger clemens, he criticized your investigative practices. he alleged that in the interview was conducted like a cold war interrogation. he said that a federal representative read mr. mcnamee's statements, but the credibility was not questioned.

it is our understanding that the prosecutors here and made the deal asked the questions in front of mr. mitchell. he was on a short lease -- short leash with those who could take away his liberty. we have no reason to believe that senator mitchell's people asked questions in a setting that was really conducive for mcnamee to lay out what really happened. what is your response to that? >> that account is absolutely incorrect. we interviewed brian back to me three times. the first was in july 2007 -- brian three times. the first was in july 2007. counsel was present as well as federal law enforcement officials. at the outset of the interview, mr. mcnamee was informed that he

faced criminal jeopardy only if he failed to tell the truth. senator mitchell could not have been more clear in following up on that statement. all senator mitchell wanted was the truth and the complete truth. after that introduction, senator mitchell asked the lion's share of the questions, and the interview proceeded much as mentee of the other 700 + interviews did. we were seeking to find the truth. i occasionally asked questions. federal law-enforcement officials occasionally asked questions. for the most part, senator mitchell did the questioning, and he made it clear that he wanted the truth. there was then a second interview in october 2007.

again, these same warnings were provided, and again we went over the information. finally, there was the third interview in november, 2007. at that time i read to him the statement in the draft report that we had attributed to him to make sure it that they were 100% accurate. we told him that this was what we understood he had told us before and if there were any corrections we wanted him to correct it, because we wanted it to be 100% accurate. he wanted to make a couple of minor corrections, immaterial to these proceedings, and we went forward from there. >> so just so we are all clear, senator mitchell was not just reading questions in the first interview from something that had already transpired. he actually created his own questions and asked those. >> that is absolutely correct. >> obviously, this is a hearing

to try to assess the efficacy of that report. i have tried to come here with an open mind to provide everybody the opportunity to address what seem to be apparent inconsistencies in a lot of the testimony. we have heard questions about those inconsistencies. some of the troubling things are about to confirm the statements. i just think there are a lot of open questions about mr. mcnamee's credibility as well. we are going to have to go back and look at all of the transcript on this thing to make a decision. i hope that the hearing that has transpired has satisfied all of the witnesses that they have had their opportunity to

address these inconsistencies and uncertainties. >> both mr. burton and mr. westmoreland and much of the national public, when they heard the taped conversation live on national team -- national television, i heard the expression it is what it is. none of us are pretty typical new yorkers. i asked a new yorker about it, and he said that is a typical new york expression. it is a phrase that has been a nationally debated. >> we will hold the record open if you want to submit some documentation about. >> i have said to the chairman

myself, personally, that i am very concerned with the direction this committee has gone in the last year or so, because i think we have been playing gotcha games, and i do not agree with that. i think there are billions of dollars being wasted every minute by the federal government, and what this committee ought to be doing is government oversight, and we're not doing that. i am not a fan of holding these hearings on issues we have no business dealing with. however, since we are here, i think it is important to try to get some questions answered, but i really wish we would get back to what our job is which is government oversight and accountability. i would like to ask you, mr. mcnamee, a couple of questions. are you planning on trying to make money off of this

situation? >> i am not. >> are you writing a book or do you plan to write a book? >> i am not. >> you do not have a deal in the works with book publishers at all? >> i do not. >> ok. we will see. mr. clemens, i am sorry. i apologize to all three of the witnesses the we've been pulled up to go vote and have not been here for all of the testimony, the thank you all for spending your time here. let me go back. i want to ask mr. mcnamee one more question. you say the roger clemens used hgh in 2000 but that he did not want to use it again because he did not like it. if that is the case, why would you possibly want to have his wife injected with it, which is what you have alleged?

>> he instructed me to instructor had to do it. she continued to use it on her own. you're asking the wrong person. >> congresswomen, if i may. my wife has come into question here. can i read a statement from my wife, please? if i may? this is from my wife who is here in the room with me. "i am not sure of the dates, but i read the news article about the benefits of growth hormones. during that same week, mr. mcnamee approached me to tell me about the article. he said it was not illegal and could be used for youthfulness. the next morning he said he had some and would be able to give me a test shot. he gave me one shot. he later left his house on the way to the airport. during that time, roger was not at home and i did not have the

opportunity to tell him about that later that evening when he arrived home. when i told him about it, i was having circulation problems and was dizzy. it happened to the following not, but not as bad. uncomfortable trying it, but it was a harmless act on my part. rogers said back off of this. we need to know more about it. she agreed. she did not need it. she has been broken up about this for a long time, and she has said to me that now she feels like a pawn in this game. i would never have instructed brian mcnamee to give my wife this shot. i would suggest that kids of all ages, athletics, i do not know enough about it. it does not help you. but i have also heard, again,

different news articles about people whose quality of life has used this product. i've learned more about it in the last month than i have ever known. i am offended again, the less instructed -- that he says that i instructed my wife to be inspected with human growth hormone. -- be injected with human growth hormone. >> this photograph was taken in 19951996. this one is from 2000-2002. this one as sometime between 2004-2006. mr. clemens, i am not an expert in any of these issues, but you

appear to me to be about the same size in all of these quotas. these are taken before the accusations that you took hgh, during and after. again, it does not appear to me that your size has changed much in these four photographs. perhaps you would like to talk a little bit about your regime of conditioning that you go through. i know that you take it very seriously. maybe you would like to say something about how hard you work at keeping yourself in shape and how that would result in the stamina and the body building that you have. >> congresswoman, yes. when all of these false allegations came out about me, i told them to go talk to the trainers and the people around me that know me the best.

my body did not change. i did not start growing larger. the fact of the matter is, i started looking better as a pitcher. i think i have gotten a lot of mileage out of it. a general manager in boston, whose name we will leave out, made what i felt was a smart alec remarks that i was in the twilight of my career. in the 1996 season, when i was in the twilight of my career, my own single season record of 20 strikeouts. -- i tried my own single season record of 20 strikeouts. if i was in the twilight of my career, i doubt that the toronto blue jay ownership would have made me the highest paid pitcher in the game of baseball the following year. the following year, 1997, and won the triple crown award of

baseball which is wins, he'll raise and a strikeout. that was before i met -- wins, strikeouts. that was before i met brian mcnamee. >> the question you're asked was do you have a good regimen for physical exercise. do you? >> i do. >> you have been very successful as a baseball player. you keep yourself in good shape. >> without question. i did a lot of pride in it. >> i see that. >> thank you to all three of you for insisting years elzevir this long period of time. -- for sustaining yourselves over this long period of time.

it is clear that someone is not telling the truth here, and i do not think i can create or invent anything to try to get out that answer. i want to speak a little bit about where we move forward from here. we had some discussion earlier about the notice that was given to roger clemens and the people that work for him. there seems to be some degree of confusion about the new, why that information did not get to him -- who knew, why that information did not get him. can you just address this issue of why there was not potentially a more aggressive effort made to get roger clemens to come in and address some of this before his name was included along with the information in the report? >> certainly. from the very first day of the investigation, senator mitchell made it clear that he would give

any person about whom allegations were made an opportunity to respond before anything was printed. as a practical matter, we were informed by major league baseball that all communications with current players, such as roger clemens, had to go through the players association. those were the union rolls and we played by the rules. so, in the summer of two dozen 7, we sent a letter to the major-league baseball -- 2007, we sent a letter to the major league baseball association in which we stated that we had evidence that roger clemens had used performance enhancing substances. we received a letter back on august 8th, 2007, in which they stated that the following players had asked to decline an

interview. the list included roger clemens and others. we did not stop there. in october, a 2007, senator mitchell, myself and others had a meeting with the players association. they said they were not clear on at senator mitchell's invitation and that any player who came in would be provided beenvidence, which had stated against them, shown any corroborating evidence, and then be given a full and complete opportunity to respond. we had that meeting with them in october, and then we sent another letter on october 22nd, in which senator mitchell stated, to be clear, i have been and remain willing to meet with any player about whom allegations of performance enhancing substance use have been made in order to provide

those players an opportunity to respond to those allegations. during the course of any such inform thei will player of the evidence of his views and provide him the opportunity to examine this evidence and respond. five weeks later, senator mitchell received another letter from the players association indicating that the players had been reconstructed -- had been re-contacted. they reported that the players continued to respectfully decline the request. uighur required by the collective bargaining agreement to do our -- we were required by the collective bargaining agreement to do our communications through the players association. i would also add that senator

mitchell sent a letter to all players, including roger clemens, which we will provide, asking anyone who wanted to come in and provide any affirmation about steroids to come in. >> a way to turn this over to mr. clemens notice. there seems to be another instance of which other people are doubting the tactics of the players' union. listening to the testimony that they gave before this committee several weeks ago, in which they made a claim, is essentially, the sole reason for the existence of the players' union was to relegate the employment, not to represent the best interest of baseball. let me get the best interest of how the players union and the

active has represented themselves and the willingness of the players to sit down at the table. it will be their ability to move from these hearings, to sit down at the table and saw all this, that will be the legacy of these hearings of this issue going forward. >> thank you. i never received any of those letters on that topic. again, i believe that baseball, the players' association, the committee, everybody is working in the right direction to clean up our sport, baseball, and sports in general. i think it is very important that we send no message to the young kids about that. i believe the players association is well aware of that. i believe it is going in the right direction. >> you do not think that the players' association might have had a responsibility to make sure that you were notified that you were being offered a chance to talk to the mitchell commission? it seems to me, it is the

highest profile player should get a notice that to just people who works for you. if i were you, i would be pretty angry at the players association as well. >> i've understand. from my and standing, i asked mr. mitchell and his staff would was concerning and they said to come down. >> i have a parliamentary inquiry, too. i have -- i want to make sure that we have exactly what you're saying. you said that senator mitchell spent -- this is how i rooted down -- we had evidence that mr. clemens had used performance

enhancing drugs or something. but the key word here is "evidence." you did not say that we had allegations that he had used it. i do not know, technically, at evidence allegations, but it seems that you all made up your mind before you ever talked to mr. clemens. is that a technical term? would it not have been appropriate to use allegations? >> is a great question. just so there's no messenger -- just so there's no misunderstanding, let me show you what the letter said. the letter and to the general counsel of the players' association, we listed the number of players. roger clemens' we stated, we have received information that this player allegedly used

performing enhancement substances sometime between 1998 and 2001 while a member of the toronto blue jays and the new york yankees. there are a number of players ventured as well. -- players mentioned as well. >> you have had your five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i want to say that this is part of the problem. [gavel] >> i am sorry, i don't mean to be rude. other people have to have around. >> mr. clemens, i want to come back. i have to tell you that, of all the testimony and things that i have read, if i were to walk in here and it was even stevens between you and mr. mcnamee, i must tell you that the person that i believe most is mr. pettit.

you admit yourself that he is a good guy, a truthful died. and there has been -- a truthful guy. and there have been things that have made his testimony and his affidavit swearing the balance over to mr. mcnamee. part of it comes from your own words. let me go back. this is about a conversation not , but steroids. he spoke about a conversation in his home in 2003-2004. "he had gone steroids for roger." let me read to you from the transcript with mr. pettit. "did you have any reason that mr. mcnamee was not being truthful? no. were you surprised?

yes. that was the first time i ever heard him say anything about steroids. mr. clemens, you have stated that mr. mcnamee is lying about the use of steroids. if he is lying now, why would he have told pettitte in 2003-2004 about your use of steroids? >> congressman, i have no idea. mr. mcnamee ever told me -- mr. mcnamee never told me about mr. pettit using hgh. every time something came up, a conversation with jim merry, brian mcnamee said, i am trying to warn you, but do not tell roger. i have no idea. all i am telling you is that andy pettitte thought that i'd had usedhgh. -- i had used hgh. our relationship was such that -- >> i understand that.

i am trying d.c. where to strike the balance. -- i am trying to find where to strike the balance. i am trying to figure out which side to believe. i have to tell you, one of the most interesting things -- and mr. mcnamee said it and it has been borne out in the depositions -- is that, when mcnamee gave testimony about notbloc and pettitte, those allegations bore out to be true. for some reason, your guy, who you admire, who you think is one of the greatest guys and honest guys and everybody says he is a religious guy when it comes to you, it is a whole other thing. do you see what i'm saying? you say that mr. mcnamee lied about you, but he did not lie about the other two. how do you explain that?

>> again, congressman. i am certain that, when andy pettitte used hgh, why did he not tell me that he used it? i had not learned about any of this. andy and i are close friends. we were airplane travel mates. if he missed-heard me on a subject that i was talking about -- if he ms. heard me -- if he misheard me on a subject that i was talking about, then he misunderstood that. he should have had no doubt in his mind, when he came into the locker room, when the mitchell report or the "los angeles times" report was released. he sat down and looked at me. >> my time is running out.

>> again, he looked at me, wringing his hands, white as a guest, and ask me,?"tell them -- and asked me, "what are you going to tell them?" "i am going to tell them the truth." >> i can tailgate -- identical letter word. andy pettitte is a good guy -- i can take you back to your word. andy pettitte is a good guy. the committee gave him time after time to clear up his testimony and consistently said the same thing. not only that, his wife -- he goes and tells his wife everything. suddenly, he misunderstood you. all i am saying thais that it is hard to believe. you're one of my heroes, but it

is hard to believe. >> thank you for beginning these hearings i felt that the initiation of these hearings were spectacular in the sense that we finally got major league baseball to wake up and the other sports as well. they originally refused to come in in 2005 and they said we have there are rules and requirements, but they're not in writing. we found out they were in writing. then they said it was only a draft. we found out it was not a draft. they said the standards were tough. we look at it and either you were suspended or fined and it was 10 strikes and you work out. major improvements have happened since then. i think the value of the mitchell report was that it said things were pervasive. but this was not a document or

the place had been tested, is that correct? you had no test results of any players that they had any performance enhancing drugs. >> it is correct that we did not have any test results prior to 2005. in 2005, test results became public. >> most of these players, it is accusations and slips and so on. i am not suggesting that where there's smoke, there is not fire. but these allegations can send people to jail. the mitchell report said that we had a problem and we need to clean it up. then we start to go back and see who you prosecute and so on. i think his judgment is that he would be going down in the wrong direction. now we have one player here. there were 89 players. one player is here. he is here because everyone in this audience knows he is the

icon in baseball. he is what brings all these cameras and all those people out there, in my judgment, who are lining up like you are going to a roman circus, seeing the gladiators fight it out. my view of this hearing is that at.s is not where it is tha for you mr. clemens, it is where it is out because it is your life. for you mr. mcnamee, i view u.s. a police officer who is a drug dealer. when i read your comments, to put it in context, the issue of steroids and performance enhancement drugs in baseball started to take up steam in 2000. while i liked and admired roger clemens, i don't think that i ever really trusted him. maybe my years as a new york city police officer made me wary.

what a strange comment. i read that comment and i think that may be a police officer would have made and not be a drug dealer. instead, it made to be wary of him. if this ever blew up and things got messy -- and they are pretty messy -- roger would be looking out for number one. i view the syringes and the evidence that would prevent me from being the only fall guy. congratulations. you are not the only fall guy. yourll understand concerns. but as far as your comment about a drug dealer, i only did what players asked and it was wrong. >> mr. mcnamee, you are a drug dealer. >> that is your opinion. >> that is not my opinion. you were dealing in drugs. you were dealing in illegal drugs. as the police officer how that is not a drug dealer. >> that is your opinion. >> that is not my opinion. tell me how it is legal to do

illegal things and you not call it what you were? you were dealing in drugs, were you not? >> dealing in them, yes. >> were the legal drugs? >> no, they were not. >> thank you. >> i think you would agree that the players who asked him for drugs were also doing with an illegal -- >> i would. if you had 89 players here, i would feel better about this hearing, but we only have 1. >> if just one more question for you, mr. mcnamee. is it not true that, a few were injecting people with illegal drugs and it made them perform better, that would enhance your career as a performance enhancing trainer? would it not be true that if you cannot do it without drugs, in fact what you're doing is putting drugs into people to benefit your career? your use usede me to be a cop answer.

>> i just did what they asked pierre >> that is exactly what every drug pusher says. earlier, i talked about pilot hiring deeper. i was not talking about those to get a ph.d. through the front door. i'm talking about one like you who does it for the purpose of tracking and deceiving people. >> mr. mcnamee, did you deceive anybody when you give them a whator did they kneow they're doing? >> they knew what i was doing. >> he deceived me. >> that is your opinion. >> all the witnesses have had a break. this has been -- this has been going on a long time. i have listened to the questions. i listened to the responses. i really do not know where this hearing is going.

but i do hope that there will be something learned with the hours that we have spent listening. i do hope that there are messages that will come out of this for those who look on, our athletes and celebrities and so on, as their heroes and heroines. since you have been the subject of the question for the most part, number one, what do you think about the mitchell report as a document that represented some research, whether it was in death or substantive or not? what did you think about what you read? >> i always agree with the mitchell report. i have disagreements with the claims of this man has made in that report about me.

i have lived my life knowing that, if i had their intended to change -- to chase my dreams and make it to the major league, that i would be an example for kids, not only mine, but the other children. i want to know that there are no shortcuts, that you have to work hard. when i give these talks to young kids, too high school kids, to college kids, to the man who was present with me at the university of kentucky about these college kids, but taking care of your body, your body is your temple, understand that you're a student athlete, not a athlete student. i also put this man out there to say this message to them. i want the kids to know that, that with hard work, you can achieve your goals.

yes, you are going to fail. you will fall down. you will stumble. this is the message i tried to preach to these kids. but you have to pick yourself up and go. on the kids out there listening to understand that, that there are no shortcuts, that steroids are bad for your body. everything that we heard for your body -- everything we have heard about steroids is bad for your body. it is a self-inflicted penalty. i want the children to know that. >> mr. mcnamee, what did you think about the mitchell report? >> i think it was a document that needed to be done. it is really not up to me. all i know is i told the truth in that document. >> as you know, all of you were sworn in. that is what happens in this committee. if you do not speak the truth

and there is evidence that showed that you are not telling the truth, you can be found guilty of perjury. so what would you like to say to the public? this is all on c-span. there has been at least 100 press people out there, if not more. this is going out across the nation, and probably abroad as well. what would you like to say, not in your own defense, but about that report and about baseball to young people? >> are you addressing the question to me? >> yes. >> i think there reporters may be the first chapter in a bigger document that would have to disclose more information on how much this drug use in baseball was really involved. as far as young people, we really need to address that, deeper in the roots of the

younger people's coaching staffs and the parents. we need to educate parents on what to look for. we need to educate high school coaches and college courcoaches. major league players, they are adults. it will make adult decisions. you have to get to the root of the problem. the mitchell report scratched the surface of a bigger problem, but this is chapter 1. it is up to you guys. we're sitting here now. let's go back to the grassroots of where baseball started. thes educate the trainers, fathers, the mothers, the babysitters, let's educate everybody about the signs and what to look for and what is one to be encouraging to these people as alternatives. >> let me ask you this. there were some pretty harsh things said about you. what would you say about your own involvement in all of this as a trainer?

how would you describe your involvement? >> as i mentioned in my opening statement, i am not proud of it and i wish i was not here, but i am. so there has to be something good that comes out of this and hopefully it will start happening after this meeting. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> that concludes our questioning and their testimony. i want to recognize mr. davis for concluding remarks. >> i want to thank the witnesses. it has been a long day. let me just say that the underlying report by senator mitchell remains largely intact. there is this point of contention on this particular item. i think we have tried to give it some focus today. it does not, in any way shape or form, take away from the

underlying recommendations that the report has made. as far as this goes today, this has been a robust discussion. there are a lot of questions at issue. i guess history will judge that. mr. waxman and i will talk about how we will handle it from here. i want to thank those witnesses for being here. i have my own opinion on it. our goal, when we started this, was to send out the message that steroid use was dangerous, wrong, and illegal, yet when million kids take it. major league baseball has changed their policy and hopefully they will again. we are glad to hear that the one thing you agree on is that underlying recommendation. i want to thank you both for coming here today. >> thank you very much. we worked together on this whole issue from the very beginning in 2005. this is not anything that separates us and democrats and

republicans. we all care about this issue. each member and hopefully everyone in the audience will reach their own conclusion. this is what i think we have learned. they confirmed what brian mcnamee told senator mitchell. andy pettitte believed that he told mr. clemens about hgh. yet mr. clemens believes that they would share information with each other. mr. pettit did not believe what mr. clemens said in that 2005 conversation. >> it does not mean he was not mistaken, sir. >> excuse me. this is not your time to argue with me. evidently, he did not believe it in your second conversation because he went ahead and issued a statement, too, as did his wife. mr. mcnamee, you have taken a lot of hits today.

in my view, some were fair and some were really unwarranted. there are some members will focus on your inconsistencies. but that may not be unusual in these types of situations. i appreciate your cooperation with our investigation and i want to apologize to you for some of the comments that were made. the rules do not allow list to [unintelligible] a member can say whatever he or she wants in that five minutes or 10 minutes. i think that people who look at this whole question will not just look at the conflict in testimony between the two of you, but others who expressed views on this matter as well. let me end by saying that we started this investigation in baseball to try to break that link of professional sports and the use of these drugs.

we do not want to look at the past any longer in baseball. we did not even want this hearing today. we want, in the future, to look at making sure that we do not have steroids, human growth hormone, and other dangerous drugs used by professional sports who are role models to our kids because we are seeing the culture of the clubhouse become the culture of the high school gym. that concludes our hearing today. we stand adjourned. [gavel]

>> cy young award winner roger clemens was indicted yesterday. he reiterated his denial in the use of steroids. book tv and prime time concludes presence week tonight with a look at presidential writings. douglas brinkley on editing ronald reagan's white house diary.

and fred kaplan on abraham lincoln's writings and how they define him as president. but tv on primetime. >> several hearings are planned next week for the bp oil spill in the gulf of mexico. in houston, federal investigators are looking into the cause of the deep water horizons bill. trans ocean who owns the oil rig and halliburton who provides the equipment -- we will have live coverage of that hearing next monday through friday, starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. coming up wednesday, we will have live coverage on c-span as the national commission created by president obama looks in to federal regulation of offshore realldrilling and whether the rs need to be reviewed. that is at 10:00 p.m. eastern. secretary of state hillary

clinton today said that direct talks between israelis and palestinians will begin on september 2 here in washington. leaders from both sides will attend a white house dinner the day before with president obama. the state department has set a one-year time limit for the talks. we hear first from secretary clinton, followed by a special middle east envoy, george mitchell. >> good morning and welcome to the department of state. we have secretary of state hillary clinton here along with their special on boy george mitchell. they are here to tell you about the most recent development in our pursuit of middle east peace. we will start with secretary

clinton. >> [unintelligible] [laughter] >> i will appoint a negotiator to deal with that. since the beginning of this administration, we have worked with the israelis and palestinians and our international partners to a divans caracols of comprehensive peace in the middle east, including a two-state solution, which ensures security and dignity for israelis and palestinians. the president and i are encouraged by the leadership of prime minister and tin and yahoo! and president a mosque -- prime minister netanyahu and bbas.dent ofa i have invited them to meet on

september 2 in washington, d.c. to relaunch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues which we believe can be completed within one year. president obama has invited president mubarak of egypt and king abdullah of jordan to attend in view of their critical role in this effort. their continued leadership and commitment to peace will be our key to success. the president will hold bilateral meetings with the four leaders, followed by ina dinner with them on september 1. tony blair has also been invited to the dinner and in view of his work to help palestinians build the institutions of their future state, and effort that must continue during the negotiations. i have invited prime minister abbas tou and present a bos

join me for a trilateral meeting to renegotiate. as we move for, it is important that action by all sides hope to events our efforts, not hinder it. there have been difficulties in the past. there will be difficulties ahead. without a doubt, we will get more obstacles. the enemies of peace will keep trying to defeat us and to derail the talks. but i asked the parties to persevere. they must keep moving floor, even through difficult times and to continue to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region. as we have said before, these negotiations should take place without preconditions and be characterized by good faith and

commitment to their success, which will bring a better future to all of the people in the region. george. thank you, all. >> [unintelligible] >> thank you. i will be pleased to respond to any of your questions. >> 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 direct talks? >> we believe that the recognition by the parties themselves, by their leaders, prime minister netanyahu and president abbas, that the best

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 an active and sustained participant and with the full support of our many friends around the world, including, of course, specifically, the quartet. >> you have been tried to do this for months. why is it that, today, you have gone to this point, whereas, three days ago, you or not? >> i think it is a cumulative report of the efforts made during that time and the recognition by the party is 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. in the end, the decisions will be made by the parties themselves. >> could you talk about the sequencing of the talks in? will they discuss territory, refugees, or jerusalem first? >> 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. >> you mentioned that, without a doubt, there will be more obstacles. what will those obstacles be? what are the main sticking points?

>> 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 that 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 proceed. as a result, this conflict has remained unresolved over many decades and to many efforts. we do not expect all those differences to disappear when

talks begin. indeed, we expect that they will be presented, debated, discussed, and the differences will not be resolved immediately. but we do believe that peace in the middle east, 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 region. it is in the national security interest to the united states. therefore, we're going to continue to pursue that objective with patience, perseverance, and a determination. we know it will be difficult. as the secretary said, we know there will be obstacles. but we will proceed, as i said,

with patience, perseverance, and a determination. >> -- and determination. >> they have been down that road before. what is your opinion now that would engender hope and optimism? what did you offer president abbas to entice them into the talks? >> i do not want to repeat everything i said it in response to the prior question. i believe that it is very much in the interest of people in both societies that there be an end to this conflict, enabling them both to live in peace and security. i believe that their leaders believe and understand that. notwithstanding the many difficulties that they face, we recognize those difficulties. this is the best course for

them. on the question of past efforts and failures in succeeding, i will talk about my experience in northern ireland. i've shared three debt -- three separate sets of discussions in northern ireland, spanning over five years. the main negotiations lasted for 22 months. during that time, the effort was repeatedly branded a failure. i was asked hundreds of times when i was leaving because the effort had failed. of course, if the objective is to achieve a peace agreement, until you do achieve one, you have failed to do so. in a sense, in northern ireland, we had about 700 days of failure and one day of success. we approached this past with the

same determination to succeed, notwithstanding the difficulty is and not -- the difficulties and not withstanding past efforts. that can not deter us from trying again. because it is noble and a just and right for all concerned. >> thank you. >> i wanted to get it in in terms of this timeline. the 12 months, do you see that as a deadline or is it looser than that? what makes this peace process any different from all other ?eace process ies >> we will only know the answer to your second question when it is completed. i believe, as i said in response

to the previous question, that the cause is so important, so right, so just, that our continued effort is the right thing to do. we're going to pursue it with determination. i believe that the two leaders themselves are sincere and serious and believe that it can be done and we will do everything humanly possible to help them see that it is done. with respect to your first question, prime minister netanyahu said in a public appearance in this country on his most recent visit to washington that he believed it could be done within a year. president abbas has expressed similar sentiments to me. i hold strongly to that believe now having been involved for some time in the region.

we believe it can be done within a year and that is our objective. >> so it is not a deadline then? >> it took about nine months to where they would sit down and talk to each other. what makes you think that you can get them to agree to peace in one year? at what point during this process is the u.s. willing to put their own ideas on the table to help move forward? after the initial set of talks, where you expect the talks to take place? >> i will take your questions in reverse order. one of the subjects to be discussed in the meeting on september 1 and september 2 and in preparatory meetings that have been occurring on a regular basis and will continue between now and then will be the timing and location of subsequent meetings. we certainly 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 and how long it will take to get in, i do not think one is necessarily a determinant of the other. i liken it to the first time i own a house and had it painted. it took the painters seemingly forever to prime the building and the walls. i kept asking myself, when i they going to start painting? i was paying by the hour and you want some progress. [laughter] after this seemingly endless priming, the painted it very quickly. i do not want to suggest that one year is quickly, but i do not think that the events leading up to the negotiations are themselves decisive it in terms of the negotiations themselves. we believe that the statements

by the prime minister regarding within one year are credible inappropriate. we believe that president abbas shares a similar view, as do we and that is what we're going to pursue. >> what about the ideas on the table in this process? >> we will be active and sustained partners although we realize that this is a bilateral negotiation. we have indicated to both parties that, as necessary and appropriate, we will offer bridging proposals. but, i repeat, this is a direct bilateral negotiations between the parties with our assistance and with the assistance of our friends and allies. although nobody has asked it, i do want to take a moment to acknowledge and recognize the enormous support and assistance we have received from many of our friends and allies.

egypt under president, jordan, many of the arab states, the s, the european union, and russia have all been active and helpful, along with other european states. it is important to understand that, while the united states is playing an important and active sustained role, we do have full power dissipation, full input, full consultation, and withhold full support from a wide variety of allies whose efforts have been extremely important getting

us to this stage and will be extremely important in reaching a completion. >> we will take to questions or three questions from the white house press club. >> our first question comes from philip hardly. please ask one question. >> good morning. of all the invited parties expected to weigh in next month , i wanted to know what your thoughts are of the mosque on the ground zero site? >> we're not here to talk about that subject. >> what was the first question? >> have they accepted the invitation. >> we have been in contact with both. we expect to hear from them shortly. it will be their decision whether to accept.

>> our next question is from jonathan border. >> do both parties have to ask for the u.s. to step in with the bridging proposals or is it enough for one party to ask for that bridging proposal? >> we are getting a little bit a head of the gametime to speculate on what may or may not happen well into the process. as i stated earlier, this is a direct bilateral negotiation. we will make bridging proposals at such time as we deem necessary and appropriate. but i do not want anyone to have the impression that we are somehow going to supplant or displace the rules of the

parties themselves nor do we have any view other than that this must, in the end, be in agreement by the parties themselves. >> 1 technical question and then a real question -- on september 2, are you actually launching direct talks or of the leaders getting together with the secretary to discuss direct talks? >> the first question is yes. we are launching direct negotiations beginning on september 2. on the second question, none.

>> israel launching the negotiations without preconditions -- is relauncing = hing the negotiants without preconditions -- >> only the parties can determine the terms of reference and the basis of the negotiations. they will do so when they meet and discuss these matters. as you know, both we and the quartet had previously said that the negotiations should be without preconditions. >> can you tell us whether they are going to start from scratch or will they build on what they have done before? is israel expected to continue

the freeze? will the palestinians continue their boycott of goods and? >> the parties themselves will determine the basis on which they will proceed in the discussions in response to your first question. in response to your second question, the opposition 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 hope to advance those efforts, not hinder them. >> just to follow up on that and the previous question, your position is well-known on settlements, but, the israelis, they have chosen to ignore it and have settlement construction as they have seen fit to do. do you have any and extending

from them that they will lead to that this time? -- do you have any understanding from them that they will not do that this time? even in the best of all circumstances, how do you get around the fact that home loss -- that hamas is playing 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 and remains unchanged and we expect both parties to promote an environment conducive to negotiations.

with respect to hamas, let's be clear. hamas won a legislative election. they acknowledge a continued executive party of president abbas and his team. it is entirely appropriate that we negotiate with the executive had of that coverage -- the thattive haead of government. >> is hamas expected to except

the negotiations made by the president here? >> it is not for me to say. >> is it your understanding that this will take effect in a very short time after the agreement? >> that is obviously 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 they will be in 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 more,

operator. >> thank you for taking your questions. the palestinian press has reported that the u.s. put pressure on the palestinians amidst the talks. [unintelligible] >> the united states position has been well-known from the time of this administration. we have and we do favor direct negotiation between the parties to resolve the conflict and to produce an agreement that results in two states living side by side in peace and security.

we have encouraged the two parties to enter into such negotiations. they have now agreed. we believe it is the right thing to do. we think that both of the leaders believe it is the right thing to do. we believe it is in the best interest of the people they represent. >> we will take one more, operator. >> you harkened back to the ireland peace process. i certainly recall the president and then played an intimate role in that. -- the president then played an

intimate role in that. do you feel the people of the middle east will see president obama as an honest broker and someone they can reach out to 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 have played an important, indeed, and critical. they're both deeply a bald on a regular basis and are personally committed to the cost 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, in particular,

throughout the region. >> total settlement freeze never happened. the house [unintelligible] when that -- how can [unintelligible] when that demand was never met? >> we do not take the position that, if you do not get everything you want the first time you ask for it, you pack up your bags and go home. if that had been the standard applied in south africa, there would never have been peace there, in northern ireland, there never would have been peace there, in bosnia, there never would have been peace there. it takes persistence and willingness to go back again and again, to not take the first know as a final note, to not take the 50th know as the final

no. we have patience and perseverance and we're determined. we believe there is a basis for concluding a peace agreement in the region and that is what we're going to do. >> do you understand that you expect to bring these talks without preconditions? >> both the united states and the quartet had said that we believe there should be direct talks without preconditions. we have also said, many times, that we think 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 discussions, that the negotiate -- that they negotiate seriously and in good faith. in all of these respects, we

think there's a basis for making progress. >> of the quartet statement of march 19? >> 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 that peace with the the actual is really garment is practically impossible -- actual israeli government is practically impossible. >> the reality is that there are some in both societies who do not believe that the other side

is serious, who do not trust the other side, who do not wish to proceed with the other side. if we except the promise that, because one or both societies hold these views, we cannot perceive, then, of course, what we're doing is consigning hold those people to never-ending conflict, to never ending difficulties. we simply do not believe that is the proper basis for any country, certainly not ours, the united states, on which to base its policies. we believe that the best course of action is direct negotiations that result in a peace agreement, ending this conflict , and resulting in two states living side-by-side in peace and security.

we believe the only way to do that is through direct negotiations. we believe that, if those negotiations are conducted seriously and in good faith, they can produce such an agreement in 12 months. we do recognize and knowledge that there are many who do not believe that, many who do not want that, many who will act to prevent the act. -- to prevent that. but there contrary views and contrary actions cannot serve future of their society rests upon resolving this conflict and achieving the kind of peace and stability and security from which they will all benefit.

>> this administration the leak from the early days that its middle east strategy and is iran strategy were linked in the sense that if you could make progress in one you could make progress in the other and vice versa. you are now moving into an era of less engagement and more confrontation with iran. i am wondering if you think that can help in the sense that the israelis may feel that the u.s. is going to be tough on iran and it allays their fears someone in that regard. >> that extends somewhat beyond the area of my involvement in this process. i would be far for a more full and thoughtful answer to those who are directly engaged on the

broader issues. i will simply say that if you look at the middle east and view its history over just the past half century, never mind several millennia, you will conclude that there is no "right t ime" to do this. there have always been and there will always be issues external to the immediate parties. in my judgment, what is occurring throughout the region, not just in iran, but in other areas, all at compelling him to give evidence to the need to act with respect to this conflict.

that is to say that whether or not the circumstances you describe produces a result you describe, it still remains a compelling argument that it is a very much in the national security interests in the united states in terms of dealing with other conflicts. to do all we can with the help and support of our allies, to bring about a resolution of this conflict. it helps in many ways. most importantly, it is the best thing for the palestinian people and for the people of israel. it is in our national security interests and that of others. thank you all very much. it has been a pleasure to be with you. >> book tv in prime time

conclude presidents weak tonight. carolyn yoder on george washington's writings and journals. book tv in primetime tonight on c-span 2. >> the gulf oil spill incident commander that alan -- thad allen may an announcement today at the national press club here in washington. >> here we go. good morning, everybody. welcome to the national press club. i am and. -- a reporter for "usa today."

before we began, let me remind you to silence your cellphone. when the question and answer portion begins, please wait for the microphone to come to you. over there in the back will be our microphone handler so everyone can hear your question. please identify yourself and your news affiliation so we know who is asking the question. our guest today has ended -- has an interesting take on retiring. he became the 23rd commandants of the coast guard. he retired in june 30 and continued to work 20 hour days as the federal incident commander of overseeing the containment and clean-up of the bp oil spill in the gulf of mexico. admiral allen is here today to

discuss the most recent developments in the containment of the oil spill, including the directive he issued yesterday on the placement of the blowout preventer and to brief us on what lies ahead. please with us in welcoming to the national press club admiral thad allen. >> thank you. what i thought i would do this morning is give you an update on what is going on at the well head. as we get closer to removing the blowout preventer and shifting to plug and abandonment, a lot of other equities need to be considered, including an investigation into the event on the oil well itself. if i could give you the status of where we are this morning and

tell you where we are going in the future. right now, we are about halfway through what we are calling and ambient pressure test. we have done a lot of tests on the block preventer. what we are trying to understand is that when the well is filled with sea water that is the same density as the water on the outside, is there any change in pressure, are there any hydrocarbons leaking? 5,000 feet of cement was put into the well. do we have a problem with well integrity? following the ambient pressure test, i have asked bp to give me a procedure that will allow us to put a drill pipe into the well with a camera on it.

we are calling it an experiment. we are looking for any pieces of the drill pipe that might remain in a blowout preventer. we were concerned that there might be a pipe in their or two pipes. we know there is a pipe in there someplace, potentially two pieces of pipe. before we we place the blowout preventer, and we intend to do that, we want to be sure that if what is theke theire location. the second task will be to ascertain the location and if there is a single pipe or two.

i will get a report from bp, which i will leave you. it is consistent with upper -- with the guy is, we will move on. many have been involved with the developer procedures that have been conducted. we have also been in touch with the department of justice and the fbi because we want to preserve evidence. following that, we will be looking at a salvage plan for the deepwater horizon blowout preventer. this will become material for the investigation team, but also for any potential action by the department of justice. that is being coordinated with the department of justice in new orleans and the department of justice here in washington, d.c.

as we stand this morning, the ambient pressure in the well is 289 pounds per square inch. that has not carried since the test started. that tells me we have integrity in the well and there are no resultant pressure changes. they will be prepared to lift the block preventer when we decide to move forward on that. they have put a plug into the well, we call it eight rotational packer set. they are placing their riser see water right now. that is in anticipation of pulling out the blowout

preventer. drilling the primary relief well is currently at 1,700 feet below sea level. they are standing by. there are approximately 300 feet horas donnelly -- horizontal lead from the model well -- macondo well. the reason we are replacing the blowout preventer is that we want to minimize their risk when we intercept the well and all of the drilling mud start filling and the pressure rises up. if it moves through the current blow up preventer, it might exceed the pressure limitations, which will result in a discharge of hydrocarbons in the environment.

that is critical to the decision to replace a blowout preventer before we finished killing the well. what we intercepted the annulist and mud is pumped into cement, thatby will result in killing the well. this is based on the outcome of what once that is before we proceed to the neck. if the sequence of steps are followed, we should be in a position some time in the week after labor day to execute the bottom killed. i cannot give you any more of a definitive time line until we know what the condition of the pipe is in the current law prevented. we continue daily to check what i would call the vital signs of the well. we have been since we put the capping staff on.

we do temperature checks. we checked vibrations, which would indicate potential movement. south measurements on a well itself. we do a visual checks to make sure there are no visual anomalies. we are doing seismic runs and acoustic runs with vessels across the area that continue to take slices of the formation. if you can imagine mri slices of the rock formation around the oil well. this will allow us to compare the baseline formation around the well. this will tell us if there is something wrong with the integrity of the well where it there is some kind of change. so far, those bioscience have been constant. there are no indications upper -- of anomalies. i appreciate the patience of the

media as we work through this. there has been some frustration with the inability to give heart dates. we're down to be in of this process. we are moving cautiously. we do not want to make a mistake in the last several days of this operation. we want a stake in the heart of this well and we do not want any threat of a further discharge into the environment. i want to thank secretary chu and the science team. they have reached academia and other institutions around the country. they have reached out to competitors of bp. i think we have had a lot of cognitive the adversity that had been - has been brought to bear on this problem. today marks for months into the

event. no one has be clear mission complete. we still have tarballs that are impacting the area's beaches. we still have oil to be dealt with. we have been able to control the hydrocarbons since the 15th of july. the gulf has been set for that long without any oil being spilled into it. looking at the long-term recovery process of the marshes, we are actively negotiating with the paris president of louisiana and the state of parish president of louisiana and the state of louisiana to determine how clean is clean.

we are going to create a check list with the local authorities. bp will not be about in that. we will collectively decide how clean is clean know when that if the beaches or marshes are re- oiled by a storm, we will send a team back and start the process all over again. that is our commitment to make sure this process is carried out until the end. as we are moving forward, the secretary has been taksed with creating 18 to create a report. as far as my own personal position in all this, the exit criteria for me include that that report has been submitted, that there is an organization that has been identified and a leader for that organization has been identified. there will be a transition plan

that i will submit to secretary the paula taino -- secretary napolitano. a couple of thoughts as we stand here on the 20th of august, four months into this event. this is the largest oil spill in u.s. history. it has been problematic from the start in terms of its scope and the problems we have faced. there has never been a large monolithic spell. each day when the oil came to the surface, it was under different wind and current conditions. some of it went ease, some of it went north and south. that required us to establish a resource scheme that stretched hundreds of miles. it required us to increase our skimming and booming

capabilities over this amount of time. earlier in this response, we could rely on about 200 skimmers available in the area that were available for use. this morning, we have 835 on the water. there has been a significant mobilization of natural resources, including emergency mobilization allowed us to move resources from other parts of the country. i do not think we should discount the fact that this is the largest public participation in a national incident in the history of this country. an unprecedented number of volunteers have been involved. looking forward, we need to understand that we will never do a large-scale response in this country that does not include large scale public participation.

one thing we needed to do was accept the bustles of opportunity that were given employment by bp and put them to use where they could be effected. if you can imagine, and looking militia. that is what we got. it came with passion, resources, and commitment. i equated it with the militias before the revolution. they showed up with compassion and resources. some of them had a musket and some of them had a knife. getting those into some kind of task force operation was a challenge. but we got that done. one of the key aspects of being able to improve our effectiveness on the water was to take control of the airspace of the gulf and come up with an air plan. we did that. i did that after discussions with the chief of staff of the

air force and the u.s. northern command and discussions with admiral mike mullen. they set up a command center right next to the command center that does the defense of north america for norad. we brought a lot of sophisticated resources from the department of technology. i cannot overstate the importance of the national geospatial authority and being able to put out information in a classified environment. while this response took awhile to build up steam, i know there were concerns about the quality and magnitude of the response, i can tell you that there were things done in this response that have never been done before in this country. it will inform how we do

response planning in the future. it would be adding a crime to a crime if we did not learn from this and take these lessons and roll them back into future response planning. with that, i would be glad to take any questions you have for me. >> raise your hands and jeff will get to you. >> thank you for coming to the press club today. you talk about the decision to replace the current low of preventer to preserve it for investigations. you and others refer to it as the metaphorical black box in this case. so much material has gone up through the prevented during the plot itself and was pumped down into the presenter during ducat junk kill and the top kill

operations. i am wondering what is left for investigators to look at. is it damaged beyond the point that it is valuable for evidence? >> i do not want to presume the private lives of the investigators' expertise. anything about that plotkin -- blog presenter that can be looked at will be useful. the reason we were removing it first is that a blowout preventer and the connection between it -- did not think it could withstand the pressure. it would have to be removed any way under the direction of the subpoena issued by the joint investigations team and the department of justice. we are complying with all those. it is just been done earlier in

the process. >> can you please state your name and affiliation before you ask your question? >> thank you, admiral. i am julian from bootstrap. some of the scientists involved have been speaking to oil masses suspended within the water column. there are varying assessments of these. i wonder if you could please address this and elaborate on it a bit further. how you think it might turn out? >> that me start with what i feel is my role in all of this. there are a lot of members in the scientific community looking at the impact of oil. we need everybody's eyes on

this to solve this problem and to paint a clear and robust picture of the gulf of mexico. let me tell you how we got to the oil but it works -- budget from where i sit as the national incident commander. early on, there were some rough estimates stated by different people in different organizations. 1,000 barrels per day, by thousand barrels per day. at that point, i empaneled a team under the national incident command. it was headed by the head of the u.s. geological survey. when separated in the estimates of the slow rate from bp. we about government scientists. we as academics around the world. i remember being on a call from a professor in spain talking about this. we went through a series of estimates that let us to

conclude that we believe it probably started out a little over 60. as a reservoir depleted, it dropped down to 53 barrels per day. we needed to know that for the purpose of knowing how much skimming equipment, what oil was going to be on the water. tactically, we needed to know how much it will -- how much oil was on the water. so we believe that is now 4.9 million barrels over the life of the event. that is plus or minus 10%. this was generated by a group and people from noaa looking at this. as i had told the press on several occasions, if we do not have a number, that is a problem. if we had any number, it is a credibility problem.

so let's talk about numbers. let's talk about assumptions. i am a simple sailor, so i will keep this the way i understand it. if we have 4.9 million gallons estimated to be discharged -- barrels, i am sorry. we know we took about 827,000 barrels a out of that well and took it up to tankers and sent it ashore. that is a matter of record and we can measure that. we did burning, skimming, and we applied dispersants. this can measure how much oil came out of the water as a result of that. in the case of dispersants, how much was dispersed into the water. when you disperse oil, it does not go away. it is dispersed into smaller particles to biodegrade quicker. there are a lot of people who have been working on this for a long time to find out how his

presence -- how oil naturally while degrade into the water. burning and scheming, which we can measure, and you get the measurements of the effectiveness of evaporation. you can make sp -- as immense -- estimates. if you add all that up and use all or x, you get 26%. based on the set of assumptions, that is what we arrived at. we need to learn as much as we can and be prepared to refine our estimates as we moved away. if you come up with a different set of assumptions, then you get a different set of answers. none of them are wrong. they are all consequential and

all need to be considered. as a simple sailor, i would say let's calm down and look at the data. out of the oil budget, once you account for what we can measure or estimate, what is left is 26% of the 4.9 billion -- million barrels. it is based on the estimates as defined in the oil budget. the bass lines -- baselines are used to get a better measurement going forward. >> he mentioned that it was more difficult because you have had more than one oil spill. >> i have turned it as hundreds of thousands of patches of oil. >> isn't that the result of this

person. wouldn't it have been easier if you had just had one stream of oil coming up and you had skimming frighters -- freighters scooping it up. >> that is a legitimate question. skimming and burning actually removed the oil. dispersants accelerate the by a degradation of the oil on the water. - biodegredation of the oil on the water. if we can look at a way to trade all these ways and methods of doing things, i think that is a legitimate question.

i can gain a conference call with this the jackson -- lisa ? and and i said there are some implications about how we are trading off burning kept ability and dispersants as relates to the overall state of the oil. our field commanders have never been faced with a spill of this magnitude and making those choices. we now have a record of those interventions and the facts of those interventions. it is a completely the ligament -- legitimate line of inquiry. it allows them to say, if i have these three choices, i get the best effect out of this one. the problem is they all operate differently in different environments. there are times when the water will not allow you to skim or

burn . they are more affected if you can mix them into the oil with the water rather than put them on top when it is calm. there are circumstances that need to be taken into account. dealing with 100,000 patches of oil that had a localized effect that you can deal with purses a monolithic slick the size of the exxon valdez, that is a tough choice to make. what we have our 100 miles of coastline that have been -- hundreds of miles of coastline that had been affected. in the long run, we are probably going to find out that we were able to minimize the effect on the coastline by having hundreds of patches than going somewhere with a monolithic spill and

wiping it out. i am speaking rhetorically and analytically. -- anecdotally. >> we heard about it is a man that said there were dispersants use by a demand -- dispersants use by a fisherman. is that true? >> no. the 19th of july was the last we used dispersants. we will get you back gate. >> could you make a comment on the discovery about the deepsea

plume and how it will be taking care of? >> are you talking about the sighting that was reported in june? i talked on the thought about it last night. this is based on my understanding, ok? what they thought was an underwater mist of fine particles. a report was released about how they did that for the scientific and minty. we knew at the time that they had located that. we dispatched boats looking for hydrocarbons in the water column. we found, with the testing we have done, the further you get from a well head, darker background traces of oil. while we understand there are differences in densities and anomalies that can be thought out there, locating these things in perpetuity and tracking them is a

[unintelligible] task. i am not questioning their measurements or their data or anything else. our real challenge is trying to measure for hydrocarbons and track them and trying to understand what is going on. last week, i signed a directive to take the effort that noaa had already generated as far as testing for hydrocarbons and try to unify that around a golf and to bring in research institutions to come up with a large collective way to try to better understand the ball to abrogate the affirmation we have. gulf and aggregate the information we have. >> moving forward, what is your most difficult task left in the

containment and clean-up in trying to wrap up the entire oil spill response? >> making sure we do not have a source of hydrocarbons? . we still have areas that have significant oil that we need to be concerned with. there is the western end of mississippi sound and some areas of alabama and moving over to the areas around there. some of these areas are marshy areas. one of the things you may not want to do is go in and try to clean it up mechanically because you may do more harm to the marshes by creating a way to get their mechanically.

this leads us to eighth base -- a phased approach that takes us out of a response and into recovery. something is being negotiated by the paris president. -- parish presidents. that will be a significant undertaking. the trustees are starting to engage with the state and local governments for an assessment of what natural resources were impacted and what should be done to replace those. bp is liable for all that moving " or. that will be a multi your activity. was that response and?

>> i was just wondering. you see a lot of images coming out of bp and some of the aircraft they are using. one of them is a dc-3 built in the 1940's. why haven't we heard about unmanned air vehicles? why not for tracking oil? >> we have used all manner of aircraft and surveillance systems. we have literally had everything out there on civil air patrol. we had a canadian and an icelandic pair of dash 8's. we have used some pretty sophisticated nasa sensors. i hope i am getting the acronym

right. it is a measure of reflectivity on top of the water. apparently, water reflects differently than oil does. we actually kill a couple of predator missions with the homeland security predators. there are some issues with the altitude access and control in the air space there. the air space was a significant problem before we took control of the. we had eight near misses before we took control of the airspace. we did not exclude anything that could be brought to the site. >> i want to return to this 26% of the oil that is remaining. you are aware of the georgia study that came out earlier this week that said you cannot count

dispersed oil as gone. for that matter, the oil that evaporated is in the atmosphere. as they said, we do not know what kind of impact that will have. can you respond to that? >> if you create a different set of assumptions, the results are different. it is all important. >> even allowing for that, the dispersed oil is still in the water in the tiny droplets. you say you cannot count that as so you cannot count that as being removed. >> there was no one saying it was not out there somewhere. if you are taking a set of assumptions, it take you to a certain number. the question is, what are we

trying to understand about this. we all know dispersed oil will be degraded. but it will degrade quicker than if it was not disbursed. >> i have two questions. what is with respect to looking forward. in terms of looking back at assessment with us bill and the potential damage, there has been a lot of [unintelligible] about if there were or were not plume. do you go with industry advice or do you go with independent evidence that is not from the government. and what would have been most helpful to know before this incident and how will that

affect future plans? but those are good questions. let me separate the response operations from a long-term recovery. we are talking with the parish presidents about when we move cleanup we-- remove cleanup equipment. what do we need really to come back and respond its oil comes ashore six months or one year from now? if they come across some buried oil on memorial day, what do they want to do about that. this allows us to say when we start demobilizing and equipment. what should remain? we are negotiating that in great detail without -- with the parish presidents the louisiana.

that tells us that the oil spots -- or response is finished. we moved from the near term response to the long-term assessment and recovery. that is done under the national resource assessment model from the 1990's. that is where the long-term implications of hydrocarbons in the gulf -- what we get to a certain point, it is not a clean-up issue. it is about a long-term damage to the environment. what mitigating measures you would use to assess that and how does bp, said the people in the gulf to do that. i would separate this into two operations. how clean is clean is a tactical decision.

when do you say we are going to pull back. this section of the beach is done until we have an indication that we need to come back. is that clear. >> having that on hand response is helpful. i was just wondering what qualifies as a measurable effect that would require a response. if la. want one day and someone else was another, what is the scientific formula -- >> to the extent that we need a parish level decision to do that, we will do that. we will take that into account. those of variations for local

conditions will be taken into account in the transition plans. it there is no oil coming ashore in x amount of days and all the oil being recovered can be and we cannot add any more value if we go into the marshes, we are point to stand back and do surveillance for a certain amount of time. we slowly changed our readiness posture. we are saying there is no more intervention. that is when you say it is clean for now always subject to bringing the equipment that if additional oil shows up. ok? >> i understand you have been helped by a warm water's ability to break down the oil.

cold water is a different thing. how worrisome would it be if it is true that this huge plume under the cold water is not breaking down? >> your question is how fast does it break down. the temperature of the water is an indicator. what we need to do is find out if there is oil out there and we're it is. that goes back to the order i signed last friday that is trying to unify all the monitoring efforts that are going on right now with noaa and all elements of the federal government and reeking -- reaching out to academic institutions. we want to do a metaphorical mri on the gulf. we are trying to bring that together in almost a task force. this has to do with monitoring

the ball. we have set - sent ships out to locate the plume. we are point to try to locate it and understand where it is and what the implications of that are. i did not enter your second question. you asked about containment. some thoughts on containment. when we finally realized we had a low rate that was somewhere around 63,000 barrels a day, before that we had a range of 34,000 to 50,000. we went to bp and we said, here is what we want you to do. we said, you need to build a system that can accommodate 53,000 barrels a day with no hydrocarbons going into the environment. you need to build a recovery system that needs to produce that much.

we were at 25,000 barrels per day. we said, not only do we what the capacity, we want redundancy. we want your system to be redundant and what the capacity to be over what you need. bp came back to us and it proposed a system that could contain 60,000 to 80,000 barrels per day. there would be four bustles that we would bring in to see that. the oil would be shuttled ashore. it's one of those four was not operating, -- we wanted that if one of those legs were not working, we would still be able to reduce the flow rate. they decide that and present at

the plant to us. it was probably two-thirds of the way done when we had a whether wendell for about 11 days and it was going to be -- window or about 11 days and it was going to be calm. it worked and we did not static killed. that was the containment plan moving forward. >> what was your plan for teachers -- for future containment? somewhere in the late 1980's to early 1990's, we went to platforms in the water that had a blowout preventer on the platform. when a pipe went down, they drilled.

once they did that and control that electrically , that electricallydeep. -- controlled that electrically, everything when -- went deep. when we go back and look at it, the oil pollution act of 1990 should have been called the tanker act of 1990. it is up and at the responsibility for companies carrying oil, response plans and so forth. the fact of the matter is, in the gulf of mexico, almost all the oil was recovered by pipeline that take it back to the shore. if you have a problem in a well and you are trying to recover

the oil and it is coming out of the top of the well, that system of production does not help you contain. what bp had to do to create the containment system that we ordered them to do to give us a redundancy and capacity, they had to get pieces of production capability that was in different parts of the world. they brought in floating production platforms and s huttle tankers. is he went to scotland, you would seek shuttle tankers coming in with oil and taking it out to sea. instead of having a traditional engine room and a rudder, you would have to have propulsion jets and computer controls allow you to take gps --positions and

hold it. they did not have those in the gulf of mexico. the first thing they did was they brought those production platforms in with shuttle tankers and brought them ashore. we installed a vertical rise or pipes. these are pipes that are not connected to the well or the production units at the top. they have a flexible coupling that floats below the surface. at the top, there is another flexible hose that goes into the production unit. that is how they produce oil off the west coast of africa. the ultimate solution -- there are some significant implications for that moving forward.

what bp created in the eighth five days was a production system work while containment for this incident that could be used to look at response systems in the future as part of assessment or response plant and how to mitigate risk in the future for oil production. is that responsive? i have exhausted all i know on that subject. >> i know you have mentioned numerous resources and dod resources being deployed to the gulf of mexico area. the naval district of washington sent some skimmer down that way. can you give us an idea of how helpful those were? >> every skimmer use and is still being used down there.

i had several conversations about this. large databases have to live in pollution control capability. just like large petroleum operations do. of them.t us a number or the navy supervisor has an inventory. when we needed more, we needed to go to the naval bases and ask them for skimming capability. the problem was that those skimmers were required as a result of their response plans. we actually had to go through an emergency rule making process to issue an emergency rule to

let a response requirement or loosen them so that that equipment could be floated in the gulf. we still have a remaining problem, that was state and local requirements. individual liability for companies and commanding officers at label -- at naval bases in case there was a spell when that equaled was not there. moving forward, you will see a serious discussion about how this relates to local compliance with state law and liability concerns for companies or naval command officers to be able to move this equipment. the equipment was put to good use. some of the navy skimmers were very helpful to us. >> i have two questions for you. i will follow my own rule.

can you please assess for us how copper chip bp has been? my second question is, as we approach the peak of the hurricane season, hit a category 4 or 5 comes running through the ball, how secure is what is in place now? -- through the gulf, how secure is what is in place now? >> the oil pollution act of 1990 designated in lot a term called responsible parties. it did not exist in law before then. it now exists in law and regulation. it is part of a national contingency plan. the doctrine we follow in oil spill response is guided by that legislation and a national contingency plan issued by epa. they call it for inland oil

spills and the coastguard college it for other spells it-- follows it or other spills. they are liable for the cost of cleanup, claims, and natural resources, damage assessment, and mitigation. they often made a decision that we would create a private sector in this country of contractors that would do spill cleanup. those contractors would be identified in response plans. if you have a contract or a vessel, you would say i have these resources and contractors standing by. you can question whether or not

this an area was correct. as a result of the oil pollution act, we made a decision that we would privatize oil spill response. the oil spill response resources would be identified and the response -- the responsible parties would bring those to the scene. i will tell you this. i believe there has been a social and political nullification of law. it is hard for the public to understand that a responsible party that is clearly responsible for the event itself is corporative in the response to the oil spill. as a matter of fact, that is exactly how we have conducted oil spill response is in this country. if the responsible party is going to pay, somebody has to write the check. if they are writing the checks, they have to be in your command

center. somebody has to visit the order that it paid the contractors. it is impossible not to be co- located and be able to do that. the notion of cooperating with bp has met with universal disapproval. we in the coast guard had operating in the oil spill response where we can manage that seeming paradox where there are a point to be criminal penalties coming down the line. everybody understands that. you pull together and you create a unity of effort. from where i sit, i get a lot of questions. do you trust bp? have they lied to you? my answer to that is best. the goal should be unity up efforts. not only between the coordinator and bp, but between

the government. my goal is to achieve the effect on the water to promote the most effective cleanup we can. it is impossible to do that and not be able to collaborate with bp. you can call it trust. you can call it cooperation. you can call it collaboration. the current response model assumes the response to a party will work with local and state entities to achieve unity of effort. i will tell you that it has been challenging at times to create that unity up at given what seems to be the rejection of the notion by the general public. that does not change the reality on seen that the instrumentality by which we are point to effect this will be through bp. there is a limit to how much the federal government can band on this response.

-- can spend on this. bp has no cap. they have a response ability to shareholders. they have to put liabilities on their balance sheet. they are not really of that. the intermixing of their responsibilities to their shareholders and their legal requirements to the requirements-- as the responsible party creates a set of relationships that i do not think are understood. as if there is an event like this, we do not want to have to go through this from the start. >> if you have asked them to do something, have they done it, and have they done it with

alacrity? >> if i really want something done, i call tony hayward, sometimes in the middle of the night. i have given written orders and verbal orders, and they are followed. i believe where, in the minds of the public, this starts to break down -- i have mentioned this before. bp is a very large oil exploration company. when it comes to the petroleum industry, there what i would call wholesale. their corporate capabilities and competencies are all aimed at exploration and production of oil and energy. if you look at the things that need to be done during a spell -- a spill, and it is not at the wellhead -- at the wellhead, they did an extraordinary feat in bringing together these technologies and creating a containment system. it is an extraordinary investment in the future, and it should not be discounted. when you start having to pay

claims and you hire a third- party contractor, it is difficult to write a specification and outsourced empathy and compassion. their ability to connect one on one and a transactional basis with the public, when you insert a third party in between -- first of all, when you have corporate values, that gets contaminated. as i said, the lens by which the public measures their response is not necessarily the technology at the wellhead. it is the compassion and the empathy shown for the people who were affected by this in terms of claims processing and so forth. it is very difficult if you do not already have that competency, capability capacity and organization to translate that to a third party during the spill. moving forward, i think we need to understand a couple of things.

first, what is the role of the responsible party? what do we expect them to do? beyond that, i think we have moved, since the exxon valdez, to the expectation that we will have a whole government response that will include things like behavioral, health, medical monitoring. these things are not presently allowed under the trust funds for me to spend money on. i think we have to define what the government role and duty is. we have redefined the contract with the american people about what to do during one of these responses. during hurricane katrina, we would establish trailers to get people out of emergency housing. as soon as you got a written trailers on the site, you needed social services -- as soon as you had over 10 trailers on the site, you needed social services, contractors, etc.

i think we probably need better clarity moving forward. one of the reasons we accelerated the production of a cap was that we thought that it would allow us to leave the well unattended if there was a hurricane. if we had gone to the production system with a four risers, producing $80,000 -- 80,000 barrels per day, we would likely have had to abandon the site during the hurricane and leave that discharging into the gulf. we had about an 11 day window of calm water out there that would allow us to accelerate putting the capping a stack on.

we accelerated cutting back production system in place. we took a pretty bold step -- putting that production system in place. we took a pretty bold step. sometimes things the right. his case, this also give us some kind of measure that we would be able to survive a hurricane. >> thank you very much for joining us today. [applause] >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> c-span has a special web page with all of our coverage about the gulf of mexico oil spill,

with nearly 200 congressional hearings, field hearings in the louisiana, plus all of the briefings, speeches and video. you will find it all at c- span.org. and now, a senate hearing on preventing suicides in the military and the effort to diagnose and treat brain injuries. we will hear from high-ranking officials from all branches of the military. this is a portion of the hearing, following the opening statements. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide information about the army's ongoing efforts to reduce suicide, and to also care for soldiers suffering from pete gptsd and brain injuries.

pictured as you are all aware, it remains a very busy time for our agency. the pace of operations is exceedingly high. we will likely remain busy for the foreseeable future. the men and women serving in our armed forces today are doing an exceptional job. however, their service continues to put a severe demands on them. one of the most obvious symptoms of this is the high number of suicides we have seen in recent years. fortunately, we've seen a reduction in suicides among active-duty soldiers this year as compared to last year. however, we as in an unexpected increase in suicides among our

soldiers who are not on active duty, in particular the and army national guard. needless to say, and the soldiers, civilian or family member considers suicide tragic and unacceptable. each of these people has suffered an irreparable loss. for the past 12 months, we have learned a great deal about suicide. for example, we now know that soldiers with one or no deployments represents a 9% of all suicides. first termers -- represent 79% of all suicide. first termers represent 60% of all suicides. we are working together on many of the same issues. you have my word that we will continue to work diligently to learn even more in an effort to further reduce suicide in our force. in the meantime, we have learned

a tremendous amount about the broader challenge of behavioral health issues affecting our soldiers, civilians and family members. after over eight years of war and multiple deployments, many are suffering from depression, anxiety, traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress, all of them referred to as the invisible wounds of war. these pose unique challenges, especially as compared to easily detectable wounds such as an amputation or a burn. in particular, the symptoms can make diagnosis difficult in many cases. the reality is that the study of the brain is an emerging science and there is still much to be learned. but we are making progress. over the past 12 months, the army commitment to the suicide prevention and reduction has changed army policy, structure

and process. we have realigned programs, increased care providing, and enhanced treatment of posttraumatic stress and promoted behavioral medicine. our success notwithstanding, we still have much more to do. we face an army-wide problem that can only be solved by the coordinated efforts of our commanders, a program managers and health providers. this is a holistic problem and that is how we are approaching it. we remain focused on investigating ways to promote resiliency, reduce stress is caused by a variety of factors, improve the soldiers willingness to identify when they are their buddies need help, and be able and willing to take advantage and support that are available to them. i can assure the esteemed members of the committee that there is no greater priority for me and the other leaders in the army then the safety and well- being of our soldiers. the men and women who wear the

uniform of this nation are the best in the world, and we owe them and their families a tremendous debt of gratitude for the many services and sacrifices. members of the committee, and thank you for your continued and generous support and dedication to the men and women serving in our armed services. >> distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about the ongoing efforts to prevent suicides in our navy and to discuss what has been referred to as the invisible weapons of war, mainly post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury. each suicide is a tragic loss that can destroy families, devastate community and impact unit cohesiveness and morale. while the contributing factors of suicide are unique to each person, a common thread is a personal, perceived inability to cope with stress. our focus of efforts is to

better understand the stresses that sailors and their families face, and equip them with the positive ways to cope with this stress. we went there to be family level of vigilance and encourage early level intervention and care. we want sailors to ask about the ship make -- shipmate, care for the shipmate, and tell the shipmate to get treatment. training for suicide prevention is has been conducted at 20 locations in five countries. and new training video called suicide prevention, a message from survivors, was distributed this april. interactive training programs

have been distributed, aimed at strengthening a culture of support. we have trained about 120,000 people so far in operational stress control. a key in all of this is taking control of stressors. stress is a fact of life. we want to reclaim the issue in terms of operational stress control, a comprehensive approach to address the psychological health of sailors and their families amid a dynamic work environment and increased deployments. we want to provide leadership with a practical decision making tools for sailors and families, to improve their stress response, and to take every action to mitigate the effects of stress as part of a healthy lifestyle. our soldiers in iraq and afghanistan face the difficult environment with unique

circumstances that could enhance stress. we are focused on building resilience and eliminating the barriers or stigma associated with treatment after deployment. prevention efforts include incorporating operational stress control continuum and stress first-aid principles for all of our sailors from basic training to fly officer development. -- flag officer development. our project focus, families overcoming under stress, has reaped tangible results and is being instituted dod wide. this is designed to guide our sailors, leaders and care givers to provide support and to overcome the stigma of requesting help. while there are several injury patterns in theater, an

important area remains brain treatment and therapy. there is so much we do not know about these injuries and the long-term impact on the lives of our service members. through a collaborative effort with other services, centers of excellence, brain injury centers, the department of veterans affairs and academia, we are committed to a full assessment of injuries, immediate attention to injuries, and ensuring that every sailor affected subsequently receives the best medical treatment available. treatment cost the -- treatment across the deployment continuum is essential. we must establish a baseline, monitor and three sailors, and institute tracking mechanisms for follow-up care on key elements. i want to thank you for your attention and commitment to the critical issue of suicide prevention in your interest in the best possible care for the

silent injuries of a war. by teaching sailors to navigate to stress, our navy will make our forests more resilient. by treating those with pete gst's -- will make our force more resilient. by treating those with pettsd, we will enhance family resilience and well-being. we will do everything possible to support our sailors so that they recognize that their lives are truly valued and truly worth living. on behalf of the men and women of the united states navy, and thank you for your commitment to the issues. >> distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the issue of suicide, traumatic brain injury and post- traumatic stress. on behalf of the more than 240,000 active and reserve marines and their families, i would like to express my

appreciation for the sustained support congress has consistently provided this court. i would like to highlight a few points from my opening statement. let me assure you that the leadership of the marine corps recognizes the seriousness of the challenges we face with suicide, and we're doing all that we can to prepare and protect our young men and women. we have learned much in the last several years about the effects of concuss the events in combat stress on our marines that we did not note several years earlier in this long war. gained, knowledge we've we have made progress in training to develop resiliency in diagnosing and treating pti and pts. we realize that we have much more to do, and with the benefit

of our research we will continue to improve our diagnostic tools and treatment for these injuries. the tragic loss of a single marine to suicide is deeply felt by all of us who remain behind. we have experienced about the same number of suicides this year as we had last year at this same time, and we recognize that our considerable efforts to prevent suicides must continue if we are to turn the trend of the last few years around. we are building on the training program that we launched late last year to reach the rest of our marine corps, and we continue to examine each suicide carefully and frantically, and disseminate the lessons learned from that across all marine corps leadership. i have personally been involved, along with the general from the army, in the guidelines for the detection and treatment of brain injury.

the new protocol and regulations we have in place for marines deployed in afghanistan are squarely in the leaders of the personnel. it will ensure that those ussive eventsncuss sa will be properly diagnosed. our long-term objective is to reduce the chances that a marine board sailor will suffer the effect of a blast injury at some later date, perhaps even years later. post-traumatic stress is a real injury that is often difficult to diagnose. many marines are reluctant to recognize the fact that they are in it, and even more reluctant to come forward. our efforts to reduce this injury began early in our training regimen. we have imbedded mental health

professionals in our combat units to reduce the stigma and the barriers to seeking help. we are exploring new ways to ensure that marines have access to care, including the establishment of a new crisis hot line aimed at marines, four marines and their families. we are committed as a marine corps to making sure that every marine corps struggling with stress gets the support and the treatment that they need. while there is no single answer that will solve the rise in suicides and post-traumatic stress, we are committed to exploring every potential solution and using every resource we have available. we will not rest until we have turned this around. thank you again for your concern on ththese very important issues. i request that my written testimony be accepted for the record. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general.

the testimony of all of our witnesses will be made part of the record, and thank you for that. general chandler. >> thank you. distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address the suicides in the air force as well as the detection of a posttraumatic brain injury. the air force is strongly committed to the physical and emotional health of our chairman. the number of -- health of our airmen. the number of arab men suffering from post-traumatic stress is on the rise. -- the number of airmen suffering from posttraumatic stress is on the rise. symptoms often do not manifest themselves in the visible ways. the air force suicide a great

recently reached more than a 14 suicides per 100,000 airmen. nearly two-thirds were not receiving assistance from a mental health professional. well no segment of the air force is immune to suicide, there are known high-risk populations and the known risk factors like relationship problems, legal issues, financial troubles, and a lack of diagnosis. this area of concern requires active and consistent involvement from people at all levels of the organization. this increased involvement is made more accessible through focused training, all part of our improved resiliency program. we have instituted a program to

illicitly address the root causes of suicide. -- to hold mystically -- holistically address the root causes of suicide. and we rely on leadership engagement. immediate family involvement and wing man support is key. many in the air force rely on women to reinforce the significance and role of every mn -- men -- we ended the air force rely on a wing man to reinforce the significance and role of every darmairman. the community action information board is now chaired by the air

force vice chief of staff to provide oversight of our increase in suicide rates. fifth counseling is available now more than ever threw primary-care clinics, the department of defense military one source referrals, for confidential, low-cost counseling. those most at risk receive as the greatest amount of exposure to suicide reduction in training. additionally, the air force is identifying strategy to ensure that everyone is exposed to

resilience and suicide prevention and early on. airmen will get additional training as they deploy for comment. a base in germany will open next month for airmen regularly exposed to combat related death. the goals of the center include providing reconstitution, wingmen support, and fostering skills for resiliency for our vulnerable airmen.ch in 2008, over 1500 air force personnel were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. efforts to prevent, identify and

treat this begin at home with screening and education and use of traumatic stress response techniques. we aim to foster resiliency through psychological first aid. while deployed, stress control teams seek to minimize the adverse effects of combat. of note, even non-deployed airmen must be monitored for post-traumatic stress symptoms as well. where it may not be possible to pinpoint the instant posttraumatic stress disorder is offset been an individual, this is rarely the case with the traumatic brain injury. this is recognized as a physical condition that can cause live long symptoms.

4% of all department of defense pti cases are in the air force. we are working to apply the best joint practices to identify and prevent this. our goal is to provide the best possible treatment, and minimize the effect on long-term health, and maximize rehabilitation, recovery and reintegration. the key component of our ability to partner with the coalition team is key to winning this fight. there is a commonality among the suicide, posttraumatic stress disorder, and traumatic brain injuries. they all require heightened awareness and understanding if we are to identify, prevent and treat them effectively. thank you for your continuing support of our airmen. thank you for your discussion of this issue today. i look forward to your questions.

>> good morning. fifth thank you for inviting me here to discuss the department -- thank you for inviting me here to discuss the department of veterans affairs efforts in this area. my written testimony provide greater detail about our programs and the cooperation with our partners, but in the few minutes i do have now, i would like to highlight a few key factors for the committee. before doing so, i would like to express my gratitude to the committee for their insight into the importance of these issues and for their ongoing support of all of the initiatives that are intended to mitigate this. we have developed and implemented a range of innovative programs to provide world-class rehabilitation care

for veterans and service members with traumatic brain injuries. we offer services a 108 facilities across the country that brings together some of the best minds in medicine. we deliver comprehensive clinical rehabilitative services while providing patient and family education and training, psychosocial support and advanced rehabilitation and prostatic technologies. we have nursed facilities, a patient transfers and shared patients. in terms of the population, we have seen in the last seven years almost 1800 patients, more than half of the more active duty service members. thank you. the federal