between what the u.s. is doing and what al qaeda is doing. al qaeda sometimes kills -- the u.s. sometimes kills people without meaning to. it is called collateral damage for a reason. the u.s. is not specifically trying to kill innocent civilians or muslims. whereas, when al qaeda plots a terrorist operation, the specific purpose is to kill innocents, civilians. more often than not, it is to kill fellow muslims. i do not think there is a moral equivalence between the u.s. position and the al qaeda position. i am sure there are some people in pakistan and iraq who feel that way. host: bobby ghosh, thank you for being with us. you can find his story on the

cover of time magazine on newsstands right now. that is all for "washington journal" this morning. thank you for joining us. coming up next is "newsmakers" with representative ed markey. . . ♪ >> this morning on "newsmakers" -- ed markey on the safety of seafood from the gulf of mexico. then, a look of the future of

iraq with christopher hill. >> one of the things i regretted about political and rhetorical life in the washington is that every major figure, from the president on down, is merely reading what someone else and some other committee has produced. more about presidents and architects of power. tonight, he will share his insights on washington on c- span's show. >> our guest this week on "newsmakers" is representative ed markey. this week on thursday he held that the latest oversight hearing looking at the facts of the bp oil spill in the gulf. thank you for being here today.

let me introduce our reporters. this is jeff from cq, and david is from "the washington post." we will begin with you. >> since the oil stopped flowing, there has been an increased focus on the long going effects of the spill. as much as 75% of the oil the begun -- using that is a mistaken estimate? >> when the government released their work, they should have released the analysis that would with it that a ride with that conclusion. that is why i have asked the government to release all that information. rrived with that

conclusion. therefore, we could understand their assumptions, and decide what they were overly optimistic. >> is there any specific way you think they may have been given too rosy of a prognosis? >> i would begin with the fact that while 4.9 million barrels of oil did go -- was released from that spill, that 800,000 barrels were captured immediately in ships. only 4.1 million barrels actually went into the ocean. as a result, that number, if you are calculating the amount of oil captured, burnt, sopped up with boom, would result in a

much higher percentage still in the gulf. at least five exxon valdez si zed spills are still unaccounted for. balling, we low bosch bolli- should do all we can to protect the long-term viability of the ecosystem in the gulf, and the livelihood of the fishermen and others in the gulf of mexico. >> when you look of the numbers they put out, do you think this is the product of rushing? or do you think there is the intention to make the government's response look better than is? >> i do not know, but do know that it should be double- checked by independent scientists. in the hearing on thursday they

indicated it would be several months before the information could be peer-review. i don't think it should take that long. it should be made public now. the independent scientists should be able to evaluate it, and the commentary should occur in a way to make it possible for a re-calibration of the study to be made before it is too late to counter some assumptions made as to the magnitude of how large this spill is. >> there are some contrarian thinkers out there -- albeit in a minority, who offered testimony that being carbon- based as most of the earth is, that the long-term impact may not be as great as some alarm we're hearing. do you want to hear from those contrary and thinkers? or have you completely discounted those berries the? >> again, there are people who

hold those theories, but we're dealing here with the best scientists and our government has, the best which the gulf- based universities have, who have spent their lives working on these issues. there is no question that we're dealing with materials that are part of nature, but any material in excessive quantities will begin to harm you. we must make sure we understand the consequences. this has never happened before. the sciences still trying to catch up with this underwater chemical experiment which has been taking place in the gulf of mexico since april 20th 2010. we want all scientists on board.

they have a right to their own theories. but since we know so little about it, there should be a little humility, which all scientists bring to this particular task. >> at the hearing you also raised concerns about the large volumes of chemical dispersants used. it you feel that the epa rushed too quickly to allow those to be used? >> initially, the agency raised questions in response to my letter. subsequently, while there was an agreed-upon limits on a daily basis to be used on the surface , actually ,bp used more daily, and then sought retroactive permission to have done so. in other instances, they were

granted permission to exceed what was believed to have been a safe level of the dispersants which could dispersantssprayed like corporate bonds on to the surface of the ocean. so, yes, i'm very concerned that a formula was constructed to ensure there was a minimization of the harm to the ocean and to workers on the surface, and those standards were not abided by. >> given the large volume use, are you confident there's enough testing done to make sure that the seafood is actually safe? >> i think there is much additional work to be conducted. for example, there is still very little known about knownmetathes in materials being consumed by

the finnsh. i think the work needs to be intensified being done to make sure that the work is done to calm people's concerns. >> is anyone looking into methane? >> that is another subject that has not historically received much attention. it has not received the attention yet over the gulf of mexico. i raised the question again to make sure we do the evaluation concerning the impact of the methane. these events have never occurred before. we have the chance to study them. in the long term, to protect against the worst from adverse effects -- if any, of what

happened, by sending this methane into the ocean. >> a quick question about the secret testing. many people say we need more -- beyond just saying more, what type of testing would satisfy you? more in the volume, or different kinds of tests? >> for example, not much testing is being conducted on the seafood in the areas that still have heavy concentrations of oil. they are close to areas. many study should be done right now of those fish. that will make the long term tracking a lot more informational in the future. that is really not happening now. i think that it should be done as a way of augmenting the information being gathered with the fishing is now being permitted.

it is there that i think people have the greatest concern -- where the oil is most heavily concentrated, people want the most information gathered. so that there can be a long-term understanding, not only on the fish, but on the eggs, the ecosystem at the bottom of the ocean, the dispersants and the oil as interesting, not only with the fish able to process the dispersant through their system, but others that process it less quickly. in my opinion, all that could be better understood if we did massive testing right now where the fishing areas are still closed. >> would you eat the gulf coast seafood now? >> i would eat it where the epa has determined it to be saved. i have had seafood every day for

the past seven. i think we have to have some confidence that where the fda is acting, they're acting in the best public interest. but while still stipulating that there are still questions that must be answered -- and more research that must be done. >> if i could shift gears, two summers ago when gasoline was $4 per gallon, all summer long on the hill there would talk about offshore drilling and drill, a drill.baby, what is the potential fallout? >> we have to% of the world's oil reserves, and consent 25% daily. -- we have only 2% of the

reserves. this is what happens. we are off 50 miles an drilling down 5 miles to find it. it should be a wake-up call to the american people, that while we need all our domestic energy resources, we have to begin a transition to a renewable-based energy economy. all alternatives. egin to transition our selvsels away from a. our population is increasing. we will still have only 2% of the world's oil reserves. the one big lesson from the should be, while i understand senator mitch mcconnell wants to block any energy bill, and the

oklahoma oil industry wants to stop it from moving forward, at the end of the day, if we do not, we're not only going to subject ourselves to $4 gasoline again in the future among the one that importing renewable energy technologies from china and germany as the mover and to exploit this lack of vision from the republican party. >> to midmost send you must worry about getting momentum behind the cause to move to clean energy. if gasoline moves to $4 per gallon again, everyone forgets it. how do you prevent the debate from changing? >> in 2007 as soon as the democrats took over the house

and the senate, we were able to pass legislation that increased from 25 up to 35 mpg the fuel economy standards. we did that even though for the preceding six years the republican congress and president bush opposed it. but speaker nancy pelosi and i stood andbush's shoulder while he signed that bill. it backs up the equivalent of all the oil we import from the persian gulf daily. so, we have to look at this on an economy-wide basis, think through a smart, transitional plan which the henry waxman ed markey bill actually was, to make sure the other industries make the transition with a clean energy technologies.

let people know it is not something we want to use as a weapon against old industries, but to find the new funding mechanisms to allow them to coexist in a way to back out the imported oil. unfortunately, senator mitch mcconnell, oil state republicans are adamantly opposed to. to any change whatsoever. in the long run, our country will pay a huge price. there will look back and say and historical mistake was made by those generations of republicans to stop any progress toward a clean energy economy. >> at least in the senate you keep mentioning mitch mcconnell and others -- there are moderate democrats from coal-producing states who have also been reluctant. that is one reason the bill has not gotten through the senate.

given that conditions in this congress are more favorable than ever with the democratic majorities, and your catastrophic environmental disaster over the summer, if not now, when, and how? >> senator mitch mcconnell has taught america lesson. that is the power of party votes to say no. that is what he has said on energy. the proportion of the problem is 95% republicans opposed to making any progress on these energy and environment issues. if any of them broke off and began to work with us and away that said let's pass a renewable energy cent, double the efficiency of new buildings,

double that of appliances, quadrupled funding appliancesplug-in hybrids, you know their names. but there is no evidence now that anyone, in a way to be politically viable, is broken off from what mitch mcconnell wants to happen -- which is to stop anything on this energy subject from occurring this year. yes, the conditions should have been ripe for us to act. no question about it. but those situations will rise again. we will head back towards $4 per gallon gasoline. this wild weather around the world from pakistan to russia to the u.s., the four-times the size of manhattan that broke off of greenland last week -- all of this will only increase.

policy makers will have to deal with this problem and months and years ahead. from my perspective, it is not a question of questionwaxman/markey will ultimately pass in the senate. it is only a question of time. >> but i wonder, if the measures to put ford in the bill, the senate did not take them up. if the idea of cap and change is so popular, the you think anyone will pay a political prize this fall for standing in the way of kind of legislation? >> it is not a small minority, but the entirety of the entire minority blocking the way. they are successfully blocking its. in addition there will be a reverse political take down in many districts when the ads run on wind, solar, biomass

contrasting the member who supports that with the member who opposes it. it will poll at 80%, backing the opec oil that undermines national defense, and oil that the chinese want to send into our economy. that will poll out for many members across the country and a powerful way. in the republicans who have decided to allow themselves with the kentucky coal and oklahoma oil agenda will find themselves with a big surprise on election day this fall 2010. >> the conventional wisdom is there will be more republicans, not fewer, and the house and senate next year. if democrats retain the house, would you do differently to engage them on this issue? >> henry waxman, nancy pelosi,

and i worked hard to pass legislation in the house of representatives. you are asking a senate question. it is not the congress. it is the senate. that will be something we will have to determine based upon what the composition of the senate is next year. we are very proud of what we did. we were able to build a consensus around that approach. it was now 14 months ago it occurred. that is how slow the sun and has been to take up the legislation, not because of harry reid, but because of republican obstructionism. time is our ally. in the same with bob dole blocked passage of the telecommunications act of 1994 so that he could win a majority of the house and senate -- it did become the

telecommunications act of 1996 two years later that unleashed the creation of google, ebay, hulu, thousands of companies. they were able to deliver two years. they are willfully committed to delay it again this year. but over time, technology and innovation triumph. the markets triumph. there are many venture capitalists across this country who are looking on with dismaying, watching what republican senators are trying to block. to block an innovation revolution and that can create many new millionaires or billionaires' across america. that will inject itself into the debate as time goes by. >> speaking of technology, it was you and your offices who pushed for bp to put the spill

cam up on the website. what difference did it make, looking back? >> a person used to say that the medium was the message. once the camera went up, after i demanded it did, then every american could see. when i put it on the web site of the select committee, the entire website crashed because hundreds of thousands of people immediately tried to gain access. it almost became a channel unto itself for millions of americans. that is what put the pressure on the political process. congress is a stimulus-response institution. nothing is more stimulating than millions of people becoming obsessed with what they believe is a problem. this crime against nature which

bp has committed is now more palpable. they could see the smoking gun, the oil, methane, natural gas and just shooting from the pipe. that is what catalyzed the nation to put the pressure on bp, to find a mechanism to cap that well. not golf balls that there were talking about in the first week. not nylons with "project r unway." the federal government was in, and admiral thad allen was supervising getting the response mechanisms out into the ocean. >> you knew that that would happen to? >> i did.

>> now that the oil has stopped flowing, and the public losing interest, those that slow momentum for this fall the? >> is why i had been touring this past thursday. i had to ensure that just because the spill cam went away, the pressure to do with the consequences of the spill does not go away. i'm going to ensure that from a congressional perspective, we keep the spotlight on this issue. wish is that their commercials on television supplant actual congressional hearings and public attention being paid to what is going on in the gulf today. >> i wanted to ask -- the effective moratorium on drilling. what the want to see in terms of new regulations, new safety

precautions? what would satisfy you to say it is time to let people drill offshore the? ? >> what we did it three weeks ago on the day before we broke was to say that a system would be put into place that would beal brrigs cleared one by one, and then be put into operation. the republicans voted against it. they would rather have the issue of the moratorium rather than the solution to the problem. not to have a time limit on how long it would take, but to have a mechanism that as soon as it was checked out, that people could go back to work. as the moratorium still stands, there is a $100 million compensation fund their paying for the salaries of all the workers on those rigs.

my hope is when we return in september, the republicans will cross the aisle to put together a common sense plan to put these back into operation as soon as possible. >> we are out of time. one last question. you heard from fishermen who told you there were hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. with ken feinberg taking over distribution of money, do you have confidence the money will reach those who need it? >> i have confidence in ken feinberg. but we need to make sure that bp stands for bills paid. we have to make sure that these fishermen are not left with their family nies holding the

historical back. i told the fishermen today, as i told them and other members did in a field hearing in louisiana couple of months ago, that we intend to ensure that everyone found is paid. that $20 billion i'm sure bp would like to walk away from by minimizing the accounting of it any of these individual fishermen and a way to only give them 20 cents or 50 cents on the dollar. our job will be to make sure -- ken feinberg and bp -- and a check to each fishermen in a way to ensure that the history of their families are not sent thinly and irreversible direction. direction. >>