decisions in the can many times see communities grow around locations that were suitable for disposal facilities. my job is to have regulations that govern how a disposal facility should be cited. in the case of oil waste, it is generally exempt for all our regulations. the issue of the broader community wanting to know who has to deal with this waste, they were getting under amounts of waste and that became part of the conversation. the primary lead on that discussion was the senate for

early confirmed head of our program. >> my belief was that local decisions -- there were concerns that one area in not try to exempt itself from a larger waste plan, which we ordered bp to put together through the coast guard. we wanted to put information on- line to justify what was happening. i went on -- down twice. i was looking at facilities as to where it was being staged. we took a very unusual step of doing our own independent testing, which caused some people to scratch their heads.

we wanted to show that the government was going the extra mile, and to take care of concerns by constituents. it will be something that i think this commission would welcome input on. if there is a fairness issue and the issue of the surf facilities that take waists lightly at all times in the glare and spotlight around this spill. committees asked reasonable questions. i think some good and strong efforts were made on the government.

they made good decisions about waste disposal and did not send it to any one community. bp made decisions on their own for certain communities, which caused frustration. if one community can opt out, it is not fair. >> thanks. >> it is good to see you today. in this process when it became known the size of the event and how it would go on for a time frame, even though the dispersant used was pre authorized, the issue that seemed to be elevated to a national response team in washington at some point, a decision was made that the epa

should play a more active role, then call for. on may 20, and you advised bp to reduce the application of dispersant and provide the availability of less toxic dispersants. please help us understand your concerns and the process you went through in conjunction with the other federal agencies. the epa had more of a commanding role than anticipated than in the area contingency plan. is there some recommendation you can provide to us about what kind of guideline that we might recommend that would elevate the decision making to more routine decisions of these dispersants

to these extraordinary kinds of decisions? >> thanks. i will probably end where you ended. there is a need for those kinds of guidelines. every day you make the decisions that are before you. over time, one of the things i discussed often is duke are not only looking at the decision before you that today, but also at the response. from the surface application, there was authorization on plans that gave an on-site coordinator, it rep the ability and authority to make a determination to deploy or have the responsible party this --

deploy certain things. that is what happened early on. our involvement at the epa -- he mentioned secretary janet napolitano. the national response team is chaired by the epa. their regional response team on are about the 30th, around april, the regional response team showed there was a respect -- request. and application of disbursements at the head of the well. the justification is one that makes this statement.

there is so much energy associated with heat and oil. that is where we have it all in one place. that is the place to get it. you will be much more effective. you cannot apply dispersants on a weightless day. there is not enough energy in a flat seat that mixes with the dispersants. it sounded like a great idea. when we were skeptical. i was skeptical. s in the nrt ency's in th process -- it had not been done. i have said publicly that one of

the toughest decisions i have made, if not the toughest was that one. why the addition of more chemical was done to aid in this response. it was only made after a few weeks of work. i made several trips. we sat down with academia. we spoke about a number of issues. there was skepticism and concern. the idea was is it enough where we could design a monitoring system where we could employ this and no if we are doing more harm than good on a daily basis.

we were re about the conditions around the head of the well. we were looking at it being damaging to the eco system. that is part of the monitoring. along with the criteria, the cut off if we saw it go below that level, we thought it was a reasonable level for cut off. the then looking for a certain type of clinton in the food chain where we saw massive die of, we were looking for something that we could see every day that we could direct

tests to every single day. there were tests where it did not happen, but we were looking at particle size. if you were applying this in not getting it at all, that would be of real interest. those took a couple of weeks. it is anecdotal and photographic. evidence that we look that was when we were testing what happened at the surface. you really could see a difference at the surface in the amount of oil.

it was an indication that you're getting this version of oil better. a few weeks later, we ordered use of but along with the requirements to monitor it. i was reviewing the monitoring data to ensure that i would be in tact. we wanted to make sure everyone was focused on the data. probably the next milestone and then i will let someone else jump in. one of the reasons we thought this would make sense is there was lots of concern about this area of application. lots of vessels of opportunity to really come up. people were concerned about chemicals. many were concerned about what these chemicals were.

it was causing a level of real concern. you will hear from one person. we saw levels increasing despite our dispersing. the idea was to disperse it here. that is when the next directive came along. it said prioritize the other mechanical means first before the first application of dispersant. we were not looking to seeing more at the same time. bout another 60,000 gallons in surface this%.

>> that is very helpful. you indicated publicly fears about the use of dispersants both from the basic nature of putting another chemical in the problem. still there's a lot of concern about the remnants of these dispersants that can still be causing problems, not only toxicity for marine organisms but for people. when you have told us is that the monitoring that you have done thus far has not shown any remaining traces of the dispersant from the sampling that you have undertaken. however, as i think the progression of your testing has shown from when you actually did toxicity testing with the dispersants alone to then dispersants and oil, the real issue with the dispersants, because you said they were fairly low in toxicity, is the fact that they inject more oil into the environment.

if they are effective, they do that very well. can you give us some idea about emerging protocols that might be developed to more accurately assess the risks of the dispersant use in marine environment other than toxicity testing? >> absolutely, commissioner. the actual decision about whether or not to use the tools, when it should be used, and the guidelines are not a scientific division as much as a risk management decision. risk-management is best informed by better science. in my opinion, and i just went to a national science foundation workshop on this the other day and there are tons of brilliant minds working on this. there is some real expertise within the epa. i should commend my staff who worked on this issue. there are lots of experts outside in the private sector and also in academia.

there is a need to, i think, go back to some basics about long- term toxicology studies in a deep sea marine environment from the application of these. the same work we will be doing to monitor what happens to this ecosystem over time. there is a potential for more of as long as it does not mean we are growing in a different ecosystem and if we do, that it can recover. those things are absolutely necessary. it would be my wish that no one has to make the same risk- management decisions with the same level of science. if the science becomes clearer, i am not sure that you will ever

convince the average person that putting huge amounts of chemical into the system is good. if you can show that you optimized the amount of chemicals, you can show that you have optimized the disbursements to make it as green as possible and that was a discussion as well and that you have studied the longer-term effect. we would be able to answer questions about it in a much better way than we promised we would monitor this. that is really what we were doing it is my belief we set up the best short term and the day- to-day monitoring we could but we never thought that should take the place of long-term and midterm monitoring as well as a real investment in the science them up tomorrow, >> tomorrow, our session will have a hearing on the restoration of the gulf coast following the oil spill. you mentioned that the concern about the low oxygen environment in the deep water, hypoxia.

, around the spill site per there's a very large area every year around there, a dead zone along the shelf. a day or so after the oil well oil ceased toapped flow into the gulf, our home town newspaper ran an editorial that said that we kept the oil well but when will begin capping the nitrogen coming down the river that is causing this problem? this is something the epa has complete responsibility for within the federal government. i wonder how dealing with this problem as well as the other environmental issues in the gulf coast would play into the administration's efforts to respond and restore the gulf in the wake of this spill? >> the president truly unprecedented turn in his oval

office address to the need to look at the ecosystem and the rest of the coast as a whole made me proud because i think it was a recognition. there is the atlantic ocean, the pacific ocean, and a big water body down by texas, louisiana, and alabama, and florida that was unnamed. i was looking at an old map and i made a joke about it. it is really unprecedented for everyone. the eyes of the country were on the gulf, realizing that this resource that we rarely talk about is truly an outstanding resource, any way you measure it from ecosystem to energy value to see food value to its cultural value to its security value. the epa place a strong and important part in dealing with gulf coast hypoxia.

one of the things we have quietly done is look at efforts now that the country is looking at this resource again, engage the mississippi basin states in what i hope can still be a cooperative process to start to find a larger inputs and make people realize that if you care about the gulf, we have to go upstream to really kill it. there are complementary efforts. there is a restoration' of the marshes which is important. there is the study of the ecosystem which is so important the epa, i can assure you, my role in making sure the epa does its job on the hypoxia is there. the need for us to redouble our efforts there is highlighted by this tragedy.

of course, we do it realizing that everyone is pulling out of recession. i believe there are some states who have shown leadership in the watershed already. the epa will hold everyone to a level playing field with respect to the release of nitrogen and phosphorous. >> do you anticipate we would get to the on point of tmdl, total maximum data loaded? >> the chesapeake bay example is what happens when we say four years that this is a worthy and important thing, healing the bay or healing of the gulf, but there has been any need to bring to bear the clean water act. the clean water act gives us some tools, not all tools, with dealing with runoff pollution, the pollution comes from our lawns, our farms, our animals,

feeding operations are all what causes the kind of algae buildup and low oxygen conditions it we see not only in the gulf but in other parts of the country. i think that never should we take regulatory tools off the table. my hope continues to be for the chesapeake that because we have i outlined for the states, we will see maryland and the district tried to get in front of us to insure their citizens and their businesses and their agricultural community that the state realizes it needs to be done but has it as part of a bigger for more. it is certainly something we have to -- >> thank you. >> any other questions? >> mr. garcia? >> it just one question -- we were discussing the oil budget this morning. some significant amount, we don't know how much, but some

amount of the oil evaporated and was put into the atmosphere. i assume you were conducting air quality monitoring tests during the oil spill. can you tell us what those tests indicated and the likely consequences or concerns that arose from those tests? >> absolutely, the air sampling was the first sampling that could stand out because there is some amount of air sampling that happens routinely all around this count as part of the clean air act responsibility. the first thing that epa did was contact the states and ask them to take their regular monitors which are located in gulf coast regions and step up a notch. by april 28, we were doing additional sampling, looking for the volatile fractions of oil per and i have the data in my

time line and i can get it for you. we edit different constituents that are volatile in disbursements. there was aerial spraying of disbursements going on. none of those samples -- the samples and results are available on our website. depending on the turnaround time, we would get the results, qaqc them and then we would try to interpret them and compare them to some benchmark. with some chemicals it was relatively easy because we have human health benchmarks for the spread the fascinating thing is that maybe it is the air equivalent to the hypoxia question -- there is air contamination in the gulf coast region. what we did not see was any huge

spike as a result of the oil release per se. you can smell, as many of you know, the volatile areas of portion at low levels, lower than science says is a chronic health risks. for some people, they are an irritant like a hot summer day and the weather was extremely warm along the shore, people were irritated or they would say they did not feel well or they can smell the strong petroleum odor. that is why early on working with the state health departments, the guidance went out to have people stay in sight in an air-conditioned area. if you can smell it, it does not mean that it is harming you systemically or chronically, but you can smell it and it might make you feel nauseous or ill. don't do that as much as you possibly can. for workers, that is a different question. worker health and safety, osha and the coast guard worked

closely during the response and they are probably better able to speak to that. it is important for us to remember just as we cannot focus only on restoration from this issue and forget about the hypoxia in the gulf, we cannot only look at the air samples and say they were not out of the ordinary and not realize that ordinary in that region, like much of the country, means there are a number of ozone alert days where we say to people to stay inside. we are at the point in this country where there are many, many days when air pollution is significant where are only health intervention is to say to people who have pulmonary problems or heart problems, our best advice today is to stay inside. >> thank you. >> to follow up on that -- one of the key issues that you find again and again when you visit that region is lack of public confidence in the data that is there or in the response that

has been made. i am sure you have heard this many times. we at the commission have discussing the issue of public confidence. looking back at what happened with the disbursements and air quality, is there a different approach you would take in explain to the public what the government's response is and how to develop a higher level of public confidence? >> absolutely, a commissioner. as the response went on, epa -- another one of our strengths is that we have fairly good relationships fairlyngo's and community organizations. i am proud of the fact that we included environmental community outreach as part of what we did and oftentimes we work hand-in-hand with the coast guard to set up and attend these multi-agency meetings. and yet, there was still a lot of skepticism. some of that is the remnant of

the fact that people down there are skeptical of the government. i hosted a couple and i spent hours with fishermen, with the louisiana seafood group hearing their concerns and explaining to them the rationale for my decision making and ensuring them that i was not going anywhere and i had no one's interest at heart except the human health and the environment. it is very hard over time, more investment in community-trusted voices to do sampling and get information is important, but i also have to say that if there is going to be bad investments in trusted voices, they have to be willing to not hype but be honest about contextualizing information. i cannot tell you how hard it was for me to sit with groups who were petrified.

the mental strain on folks down there i think has been talked about bags to the commission and others. what we need to do as we are building this scientific research is build a group of folks who can speak to the community and say we are reviewing the epa data and we understand what they are finding. we had a mobile unit, our boss that could go anywhere -- our bus that could go anywhere. we went there and sample the air so they could watch us do it. we found many people did not have internet access. actual fact sheet with data helped. that is ongoing. i think it requires a real sensitivity. i don't think the gulf coast is unique with that. community's trust each other and they are the best source of information. we want to make sure they are getting it from my source that holds itself to the highest standards of scientific data

collection and interpretation. >> thank you. >> i have long been suspicious of disbursements. you make a powerful case for their use in this instance. one of the suggestions that the commission has heard is the need for more than a laboratory test is open water tests. they point out that not everybody is excited about granting permits in an open water situation. are you open to that? would that be a helpful way to resolve these questions before the need arises to use the disbursements and then we start the debates? >> i should first thank you because your leadership on this issue and your willingness before you became share of this commission to talk to me about your decision making was very

instructive. i am probably not the person although i would be happy to talk to my staff about whether the next step is to go open water or how much you could really understand from a pilot control pool. remember, the testing that is done now to lift the disbursements does not use louisiana crude oil. it uses crude oil number 2 and prudhomme bay crude. we were doing testing on disbursements on our list with south louisiana sweet crude oil. we used gulf of mexico water. because you are doing those same tests and changing the fact that you're using this crude-oil

meant that we spent a lot of time in the laboratory at the epa and the contractors devising methods to ensure that we got representative samples. if you are not dispersing the oil, that is not helpful. trying to find the oil disbursed fraction was really important. i think there is a huge amount of science between fuel oil number 2 and prudo bay. i am probably not qualified to speculate. i would want to see a progression before i would agree. the deep sea environment is different. certainly, that is harder to imitate those pressures. and the temperature gradient between the oil. i cannot say it will never happen but i believe the industry will want to look at this tragedy and draw the conclusion that disbursement

should be used all the time at up well head. look at how well it worked. i am personally not there yet. i think we had to make a decision and there were other interventions. having to sit in that meeting with the fishermen's and explain why that tradeoff would be the lesser of two very evil situations is not something i think anyone should take lightly. >> thank you, thank you very much for your appearance today and this presentation. >> thank you all. >> admiral landry and dr. einner, would you please take positions at the table. ? the admiral is the commander of

the coast guard and dr. kinner is head of research at the university of new hampshire. >> could afternoon. -- good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to be here today. our initial response occurred on april 20, 2010 when the deep water horizon with 700 gallons of diesel fuel on board exploded 45 miles southeast of of venice, louisiana. i received the ax cities of the on board coordinator spread. since this impacted multiple zones, i asked and received approval for designation as the federal court never for the gulf by the commandant of the coast guard. the system is based in new orleans. you have a brochure which outlines our mission in the geographic area of responsibility district eyelid is divided into seven sectors

each commanded by a senior coastguard officer. with the amount of activities, the eight members are accustomed to respond quickly and working collectively with both the private and public sectors to respond in the say best and most effective and efficient manner to save lives, to protect property, and to minimize environmental damage. the response to the deepwater horizon began with the eighth district coast guard demand doing search and rescue. the sub-unit led the response to the fire, the pollution, as well as the marine casualty investigation. the eighth district command center briefed me and my senior staff immediately in the initial hours of this incident. my responsibility is to insure all aspects of the response are going as prescribed by law, by policy, by doctrine, and to pull upon resources or specialized

services outside the district. april 21, we were involved in a search and rescue case and the command center reported numerous survivors with critical injured survivors being airlifted ashore to hospitals. we were involved in the first steps at establishing a unified command with the coast guard, the department of interior, epa, bp, trans ocean and other federal partners and the coastal states. this required preparing for a worst-case scenario. bp began mobilizing response in accordance with the plan that bp had filed with the former minerals management service. my discussion over the phone with thad allen and with others centered around the potential for the worst-case scenario. the worst-case scenario i describe is that the blowout preventer could have failed and the safety features designed to

shut the well could have failed to operate as designed. we began to process the build out to the unified command response. we want to capture and preserve the information as to why this accident took place. the coast guard have a memorandum of understanding dating back to 2009 which has been transferred to the coast guard presently so that both agency investigators dispatched that morning would rendezvous with the survivors sailing ashore. this was to get the initial impressions from the survivors and what might have occurred with this incident as we aggressively stage it brought an array of assets, and explains we wanted toes,, explain our responsibilities.

we worked with mms. secretary impala tunnel was briefed and deputy secretary hayes was being dispatched to the gulf. we were already undertaking the field response on the national contingency plan, working with other federal agencies and the affected states. when the oil rig sank, we were informed that 115 persons were accounted for and we were still searching for a 11 potential survivors. we mourn the loss of these 11 workers and our hearts go out to the families. we saw the efforts of the good samaritan vessels fighting the fire. we took great steps to rescue the 150 members who were saved. on april 24, we discovered there was a leak. there was a designation and there were discussions about the disbursement protocols. this pre approval for disbursement was clearly understood. we had it for the gulf and we

knew regions four and six had already subscribe to these pre- authorizations. i made a commitment early on that it was obvious that if we considered sub-sea injections of disbursements, we would be going beyond anything that had been done before. the decision to use these disbursements was not made without making sure that we had robust protocols in place. we had three different times where we proceeded to employ sub-sea disbursement injections. >> dr. kinner. >> thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak before you today. the coastal response research

center, a partnership between noa's office of restoration and the university of new hampshire acts as an independent honest broker to oversee research on oil spill response and restoration and serves as a hubbub for the r &d community. the research has focused on efficacy with little research conducted on their long-term behavior and the fact. in addition, much of the older research has not been peer- reviewed or use the standard protocols for a disbursement issues has been the focus of our efforts for it in september, 2005, the center convened a workshop in response to the nrt report and disbursements. the participants included government, academic, industry, and ngo scientists and

practitioners from the u.s. and abroad. the workshop report was a de told r &d plan for disbursements and dispersed oil. the center founded the disbursement working group which consists of government, industry, and ngo organizations that fund or oversee r &d. the group coordinates the research funding in order to avoid duplication of efforts, update the r &d plan, and maximize the funds available. unfortunately, due to lack of funding, only 25% of the $40 million of research identified in the 2005 plan has been conducted. during the deep water horizon oil spill, the response community was at a disadvantage with respect to the use of disbursements. little was known about the novel application of deep sea disbursement injection with

thousand-fold greater pressures and temperatures not what was used in research for a little research have been done on the long term use of disbursements during an oil spill and very little was known about the chronic toxicity, biodegradability, and accumulation of disbursements and dispersed oil. approximately one month into the oil spill, the center was asked to host a workshop to address the use of dispersants as part of the response. the group of 50 experts representing a diverse spectrum of views regarding disbursements are arrived at conclusions that are worth reviewing today. number 1 -- no combination of response actions can fully contain oil or mitigate impacts from the oil spill the size and complexity of the deep water horizon incident. number 2 -- mechanical recovery,

burning, and chemical disbursements are all components of an effective response to surface oil pollution. number 3 -- mechanical recovery is the preferred method for on- water response method because it removes the oil from the environment, but it is not always effective due to environmental conditions such as wind and waves which were high enough during much of the deep water rise in response to often prevent the use of mechanical methods and favor of the mixing of chemical dispersants into the oil. it was the consensus of the group that the use of disbursements and the effects of disbursing oil into the water column was generally less environmentally harmful than allowing the oil to migrate on the surface into the sensitive wetlands and near-shore coastal habitat. the group and on to conclude that there should be a continual re-evaluation of trade-off options during the oil spill by

a means of a consensus ecological risk assessment or the equivalent and that detection and modeling are essential. i believe these observations are valid for future oil spills. in addition, there is a pressing need for independent peer- reviewed r &d funded through a grant process to address the long and short-term fate and behavior of disbursements and dispersed oil, especially in deep offshore environment and arctic waters. we must also study the effects of disbursements and dispersed oil on a variety of relevant species and life stages with realistic exposure scenarios, especially in light of our increased ability to detect impact now at the molecular level. in conclusion, the deep water horizon oil spill has reminded us that disbursements can have

our role in a response to a prolonged, massive offshore release of oil when sea conditions prevent the use of mechanical recovered. we must not fall short in formulating, funding, and conducting a rigorous r &d program on disbursement used for future oil spills. thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak before you today and i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> admiral landry, you heard administrator jackson talk about growing concerns of the increased volume of disbursements that were being used. the perception by some members of the public and environmental groups was that bp was unconstrained in its use of disbursements initially and that the use was growing on a daily basis. administrator jackson talked

about them being asked to reduce -- moderate the use of sub- surface disbursements and moderate the use of surface disbursements except in rare cases. it seems that every day exceptions were made. , almost on request. i am wondering whether you can describe for us the process by which the coast guard evaluated disbursement use, especially in this. were there under the yet objective to eliminate the applications on the surface. #two -- can you tell us to the extent to which there may be application disbursements outside of the bounds that were described, particularly in shore environments? >> let me explain that

initially we had to follow this mark protocol with the pre- authorized use of disbursements so there was active oversight from the get go including an audit midway a few weeks into a to make sure planes were flying and applying the disbursements as a program to make sure they were being applied by plane or vessel at the appropriate distance of offshore. we were monitoring very carefully throughout to make sure they follow the protocols. the sub-sea injections -- the challenge you have is that some days you can use mechanical means and other days you burn and sometimes you only have disbursements. the other elements of the protocols that were put in place for sub-sea injections included trying to continue to secure the source. source control and the boc of

compounds that would reach the surface if you not injecting were part of the parameters that led to our decisions as to whether we would authorize use a sub-sea and surface disbursements. we felt there could be a reduction in the amount of disbursements over all and that was obvious because we realized we were reaching a significant volume of disbursements being applied. we had time in those days around the end of may when the directive was side were the source control issues and try to keep the work going was critical. we were going into top kill phase and it wants to make sure workers could continue to work without rest to air at their health. we want to mitigate the impact on the shore line. >> on the issue of the frequency or rarity of the exemptions,

could you provide for us some documentation of the in frequency of proposals to apply disbursements that were rejected by the coast guard or scaled back? >> my role as the federal on scene coordinator did require me to go back to the district 4 hurricane season. i am very familiar with the requirements placed on bp to ask daily for the application of disbursements and being attentive to the volume and evaluating the volume. it was being submitted and reviewed by the unified area command scientific group. each day, we had to take conditions of what was going on with the operation and factor that into any conditions to proceed with the amount of disbursements under or over the city. sea.

over time, we met that goal of reducing the disbursements overtime. >> thank you. dr. kinner, you give this a broad research agenda that to advocated. are there a few cui -- key questions that should be as with the feds to disbursements that are central to understanding their risk a decision making for more? >> yes, i think we have to develop a new set of protocols to evaluate the risks associated with disbursements. there are a couple of things i would point out. first of all, we have to use relevant species. in the tests that were done this summer for example, they used mice and shrimp and an inland fish. those may not be the most relevant species for this particular oil spill. that would be true in any site

credit think we have to the bank of the relevant species. i think we have to think about the relative life stages. this is why doing their risk assessment and keeping it going is so important yugo as time progresses to different life stages of an organism. different organisms are in their reproductive stages so we have to have something that is flexible. when we do these tests, we tend to look at 96-hour exposure. that is the standard. that may not be the relevant time frame that we want to look at. we are really looking at what we call lethal or acute toxicity. we may be much more interested, in some cases, in looking at not only acute toxicity but chronic toxicity. that may change the time frame. during these tests, you want to

look at specific compounds that may be of most importance instead of looking just generally at what the concentration of oil is. you want to look at whether those compounds are in a water soluble state and/or what the specific tampons are. each, -- specific compounds are. each one has different -- >> you are talking about the components of oil rather than the disbursements? >> yes, i am. >> you made the point that maybe 96 hours toxicity test might not be adequate. that has to be balanced against what the exposure time is and at what concentration. in most cases, the concentrations to which an organism is exposed dissipates

with the use of disbursements. you would not have to replicate that. >> that's correct. we actually funded a study by n who looked at an organism after it was exposed and then put it in clean water. he found dramatically important results there. he found that many organisms that you might have considered impacted lethally were actually reviving. i think we have to really have a view to revamping the standard protocols. >> mr. chairman? >> thank you. i am going to suggest that the commissioners submit further questions to if that is agreeable and we will look

forward to your answers. i have one concerning this that we don't have time to go into. i want to thank you, admiral, and you'd dr.kenner and i look forward to continuing to have communicatio david axelrod and talks about the midterm of -- midterm elections for 2010. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] tomorrow morning, party leader ed miller band will speak at the party conference after gordon brown stepped down. live coverage begins at 9:30

a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> i trust that following my testimony, both sides will work together on this issue in the best interest of the american people as you always do. >> celebrities have often appeared in washington. take a look at some of their issues with the c-span video library. nearly every program since 1987. a search for a name you might know at any time. president obama signed legislation into law earlier today. it is on a lending fund that provides $12 billion -- it passed the house and senate. some spoke with reporters after the signing. this is about 25 minutes.

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] thank you, everybody. thank you so much. [applause] thank you so much. [applause] thank you so much. i am thrilled to be here on an exciting day. the message of congress that fought so hard on behalf of

american small businesses. a lot of work was involved in this obviously. there are a few folks here that i want to make sure to acknowledge. my dear friend and senator from the great state of illinois, senator dick durbin. [applause] a champion for businesses in louisiana, mary lender is here. [applause] a champion of small businesses, ms. washington is here. [applause] a thoughtful person about

industry and manufacturing is carl levin. [applause] from the house side, represented syphilis of been, also my neighbor from illinois. and congressman green from texas is in the house. we have a couple of governors here, the governor o'malley of maryland. and the somebody who has been working so hard on behalf of the great state of michigan. we are proud of what she has been doing it is really hard work.

but outstanding work has been done, and i want to acknowledge it. [applause] we also have some mayors in the house. the mayor of columbus, ohio, racine, wisconsin, charlotte, n.c., allentown, pa., and pittsburg. give them all in round of applause. [applause] the small business administrator and a terrific at decatur -- advocate, give her a

round of applause. [applause] and treasury secretary tim geithner. [applause] as well as one of my top economic advisers that worked so hard. [applause] most of all want to thank and welcome all of the small business owners, many of whom i have had a chance to meet. i saw their facilities.

we talked about how essential it is. we got this bill done. it was critical and to make more loans available to entrepreneurs. it has been a long and tough fight. i have signed a bill which it found a bill that will do exactly with needs to be done. [applause] . .

.

>> we have to figure out how to dramatically shrink the cost and size of government. . e in a

way that is an amazing intrusion in our lives. a financial reform bill that radically centralizes power in washington, d.c. a dramatic increase in the president and the power of of washington over a whole range of activities and our live, a desire to control our entire energy supply by controlling carbon. when you go down the list, is by far and away the most washington-centered and most dramatically different agenda in american history.

frankly, is fundamentally different from what he campaigned on when he ran. >> you worked with this administration and this president on one issue -- education. >> the issue .

.

auction and real spirit and the desire to create new jobs, we are now at 9.5% unemployment. this is the highest terms of unemployment since the great depression. even the obama administration support says that we will not see full employment before 2016. that is an amazingly gloomy report for an administration. it would suggest that they should dramatically change their policies to move toward job creation instead of killing jobs. and fact, they do not seem to get the message at the white house and they continue to kill jobs. that is probably the economic challenge, the one that is

mostly undermining the administration and the one that they're having the hardest time coming to grips with. they do not want to talk about radical islamists. it is hard to understand how their security strategy is going to work if they do not know who their mma -- to their enemy is. he may be better campaigner than he is a president. he may be a better celebrity than he is a chief executive. he may be more attractive as a speech-maker than he is as a commander-in-chief. my sense is that they do not have a very good grip on how to get things done. that is what they have mishandled the bp will problem in the gulf. i think that is why they had a difficult time handling the economy. i think that is why they failed to handle the border where people want to see the border

controls. when you look at implementation, they seem to have a very real crisis of confidence. he is a good speech-maker, but i am not sure that he is very effective. a president does not like a senator. a senator is for speaking and voting. the president gets things done. >> whether people looking for in any president? >> they want someone who shares their values, the president is tough enough for the job, and that the president has a vision of where they want america to go that is comparable to your vision and he can get us there. president eisenhower and president reagan were successful because they could get done with a sow to do. -- what they set out to do. it is not a political office. it is not a speech-making office. it is a job of executing policy.

what has been very discouraging as the gap in the obama administration between words and achievements. at times, literally they do not understand. when the administration established a moratorium on deepwater drilling in louisiana, these big rigs can move and now you have seen one of the rigs take hundreds of jobs to egypt. because of political instability in the united states, they will move to calm go and drill off of africa. literally, -- they will move to and drill off of africa. once they move, they will stay where they're going for five years or six years. >> people look at congress and say this town is dysfunctional.

they say that republicans blamed the obama administration for not going far enough, to bridge the divide. democrats have said -- republicans have said that they will oppose you on every front. is that a fair assessment? >> if you look at the breakdown of lyndon johnson's majority over vietnam, civil rights, the free speech movement, the student council culture, inflation, and all the different problems that were drowning him. if you look at nixon through ford threw carter, people, by 1980, had concluded that the presidency could not get the job done. then ronald reagan came in and change that whole attitude. -- and changed that whole attitude. it takes strong and consistent leadership in the white house. it takes a president who is congruent with the american

people. if reagan and fdr and lincoln all understood this perfectly -- if the american people want to go in a certain direction and the president is willing to leave them in that direction, the pressure they can bring to bear on the congress virtually guarantees achievement. if, on the other hand, the president wants to go in a direction the country does not want to go or the president is a weak leader, then the system does not work well. the founding fathers designed the system to be a machine so inefficient that not even a dictator can force it to work. what is fascinating about obama's said he clearly lost popular support by last -- about obama is that he clearly lost popular support by last august.

kennedy'slost 10teddy seat in massachusetts, they ran the bill through. they ran a huge energy tax increase through the house. no one had read it because it had a 300-some page amendment. they could like that through the senate. -- they could not get that through the senate. >> let me put a hypothetical on the table. president gingrich's president and you have a majority in the house or the senate. how you deal with that? >> you do not rule on the evening of your viewers with

democrats by pursuing that hypothetical. >> what would a republican president for gingrich in the white house do? >> we wanted to balance the federal budget. we wanted to reform welfare. clinton had barely favor those. we entered into negotiations for 45 straight days. we sat across the room arguing out the details. you have to have a willingness to reach across, not to placate, not to appease, but to have honest conversations. when we passed welfare reform, half of the democratic caucus was with us and half of it was against it. when we passed the balanced budget, we had a substantial democratic party vote on it. we did not happen -- that did

not happen because we had nice breeze to get together. it happened because the american people said back home, "i want you to balance the budget." there is a terrific book by thomas evans called "the education of ronald reagan." reagan worked for eight years at general electric. in the process, he learned a great deal about talking to people and communicating key ideas. reagan used to always say was to turn up the lights for the american people. the heat onturn oup congress. the executive needs to know what america needs to '60s, how do you communicated to the american people so they decide -- needs to succeed, how do you communicate it to the american people so they decide they

wanted, and had you put pressure on congress to do it? they would come back at something again and again and be very patient. the pressure back home it unavoidable. the problem for obama's that, the more people that come understood his bill, the more they oppose it. he filed a lawsuit against arizona. 60% of the country is for arizona. you cannot turn up the light back home when people say do not do that. i think that is where obama has had a huge problem. >> the debt and the deficit is approaching $14 trillion. can you reduce it without increasing taxes? even if you cut government spending? >> i do not want to sound like i am old. but once upon a time, we balance

the federal budget for four consecutive years. we paid up $405 billion in debt. it was the only time since the 1920's where we had four straight years of a balanced budget. we cut taxes to increase economic growth. the key tool is simple. we stop spending. in the four years i was speaker, we had 1.29% increase in spending. that is the lowest rate of increase since calvin coolidge in the 1920's. if u.s. we could you get to a balanced budget, absolutely -- if you asked me could you get to a balanced budget, absolutely. would you like to have lower taxes and less government or higher taxes and more government? my guess is that 80% to 50% will pay lower taxes and less government.

>> what did you learn from your mistakes? >> it was very sobering. the first elected republican speaker in 40 years, the first one reelected since 1928, i really underestimated how big the jobless. i had been the republican minority whip. i would jump from minority whip to speaker overnight. it was the biggest one-party increase in history. i enter estimated how big it was. at times i made mistakes that were just a function of misunderstanding. >> such as? >> when you are a minority whip that has not been in office for

more than 40 is, you have to yell to get attention. if you're a minority speaker, if you whisper, you get more attention than when you were young. i did not learn to be careful about my words. i did not learn to be cautious about what we had to get done. in ways, we were self- destructive. if he could relive it, there are clearly boundaries i would have set on things we did and how we operated that were, on retrospect, wrong. i did not understand the context of this new job. >> do regret leaving the speakership in 1998? >> no. i have lost the ability to fight for reform. i gave a speech at cobb county in january 1998 abdicating a very bold net cycle of reform. there was a book called "the

pact" where they all agreed that clinton and i had developed a strategy on medicare, on social security, on health care reform, and balancing the budget and we had big bold series of reforms. the monica lewinsky can go blowup. it was clear that -- campbell -- the monica lewinsky candle blew up. by the fall of 1998, they just period of being quiet. that is not what i was doing. that is not one was. leading and having the last 12

years -- leaving and having the last 12 years to look at transformation and to write books and make movies has helped me grow in a big way. >> regardless of the party or the individual, what it buys would you give any future speaker of the house? -- what advice would you give any future speaker of the house? >> you are not the leader of your party. you are the leader of the house. my father was a career soldier in the army. i take very seriously this idea of serving your country. by opening speech was bringing the two parties to get, about working together on things. the speaker has to be the speaker of the house and leader of their party in that order. that is very important. second, you want to understand where your members want to go,

but you also have a general vision of where you want to go. the speaker is potentially a very capable leader. if you look at how strong pelosi has been, whether you like her or do not like her, she is a very powerful and effective speaker. she has changed the house and change the outcome by the power of her personality. >> has a speaker come to you and ask you, "what would you do in the situation?" >> i think everybody who has been speaker has a mutual respect for everybody else who has been speaker. tip o'neill said to me years ago that someday i would understand why you had to be a very strong speaker. i told him how much i had respected the job he did. i think he is right. just as the president's understand other presidents, speakers understand the

challenges, the problems, how to manage the house and work with the executive branch, things that are common to that job that have no counterparts in the american system. >> you two did not always get along. >> no. this may be a better analogy, but, in some ways, politics at the -- this may be a bad analogy, but, in some ways, politics at that stage is like being in the super bowl. everyone is determined to get what they want. it does not mean that you have to hate each other. you may be on different teams. you look at the game planning think that guy made a great catch or a good hit. dick gephardt used to describe this beautifully. he would always say when he was the democratic leader that politics was how we sublimate

civil war. politics is about dreams, power, resources, values, and we all have to recognize that we're trying to manage civility within a process of enormous tension. i think that he had it right. you have to recognize that any of us who offer ourselves for public life are taking on one of the highest and more challenging roles as citizenship. we have to try to find a way of to live up to that vision of a self-governing republic. >> in this current media environment, how is that complicated? >> it has always been like this. jefferson and hamilton all paid for a newspaper to sabotage the other. washington almost did not run for a second presidency because papers were criticizing martha

for having high tea. this is a rough-and-tumble business. it has always been a rough-and- tumble business. we now twitter what we used to send people around with pamphlets in saloons in the by country. we now tweet and we facebook and we youtube and we do 101 different things. it is the same thing. it is humans communicating to humans. some of it is noble. some of it is wonderfully romantic. and some of it is disgusting. >> from your perspective, framed the debate in 2010. what will voters decide? >> i think there are four big things that will identify september and october. how do you create jobs versus

killing jobs? it will be very difficult for them as a job-killing party. the democrats have to have a simple and straightforward model. the second big test will be controlling spending versus raising taxes. if you look at chris christi, the most interesting governor in america today, he has tackled the head on how to shrink government. information technology was the first of bubble. housing was the second bubble in 2007. wall street was the third bubble. government will be the fourth bubble. athens, greece just cut their budget by 11%. california is out of money. new york is out of money.

i think you will see tremendous pressure to cut spending. the democrats answer will be to raise taxes. the republican answer will be smaller government. you have mcdaniel, tim pawlenty, bobby jindal, alley barber -- they have all been cutting spending rather than raising taxes. issue will behird yea the lame duck. i think that people will have a totally illegitimate lame-duck session. they will go home and not come back. i think people distrust pelosi, read, and obama. the final question is how do you protect america?

i have day movie coming out calling up -- called "america at risk. 31 years after the iranian attack on our embassy in 1979, we still have not come to grips honestly with the challenge of radical islamists and the degree to which they would destroy our civilization. this administration will might even use the right language to describe them. this will be a major question that comes up this fall. are you prepared to defend america? are you prepared to tell the truth about our enemies? are you prepared to control the border? i think those are all serious questions. >> you already said you will make an announcement or decision sometime early next year about 2012. what questions leading up to that will newt gingrich ask himself as to whether or not you want to run for president? >> we talk about this now.

first, is their duty. my father's 27 years in the infantry taught me that there are times when you do what you have to do because it is the right thing to do for the country. when you look at the crossroads we are at and competing with china and india with 9.5% unemployment and enemies who want to destroy us and a nationally elite, could i make a contribution as a citizen just by the active running and articulating those values and those ideas? second, as a practical matter, can we gather the resources to run? i am too old to have been too many things out there to be a joke. -- i am too old to go out there and be a joke.

we have two daughters and we will talk about moving forward and if so, how. we're taking steps. i own some small companies and head up a political action group. we're taking steps so that if the answer is yes, we would be in a position in february or march to move away our companies and focus on running. how do not think about it too deeply until after the election. the job now should be maximizing the victory this fall not worrying about 2012. >> how would you approach a campaign? what would your thinking be? what would your message be? >> the model i would must be attracted to would be lincoln in 1858 running for the senate.

we're faced with such enormous problems that the current political system has no way of describing them. the current at the serial talk- show, 140 characters in a does not carry the complexity. that was a model of what i think the campaign should look like in that it is fairly comprehensive, it is very substantive. it is designed to make a fundamental point about change in a very deep way from the current model of talking about terrorism, which is an activity, to talking about radical islamists -- that is a fundamental argument. one of the things the president

obama has done that may turn out to be at good for america at is that he has forced us to think about who we are in a way we were not doing. my daughter writes a weekly column and she wrote a couple of months ago we had voted for someone who wanted to change what we believed. president obama wants to have a redistribution of wealth by politicians. i want to have creation of wealth by individuals who work hard. he wants to have a much bigger government with much bigger bureaucracy. i think the time has come to implement the 10th amendment and return power to the states. return power back to local communities, get it out to local counties and local schools. these are very fundamental

choices. if they do end up running, how would run a campaign that would be a c-span model campaign. you have a genuine dialogue, genuine open discussion, not so much looking at teleprompter but genuine conversation about fundamental principles or with those principles leave the -- lead into genuine policies. reagan made his career in a speech for barry goldwater and came back and remade his career in 1975 after the great losses in 1974. then he came back and having lost gerald ford, relaunched again giving a speech at the convention.

you see these things. mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall -- that is part of the bigger speech. and yet, in some way he's staged his entire campaign on one line, he said that he paid for the microphone. one can seconds and change someone from bush to reagan. you never know. i lost in 1974 and 1976, and then i helped organize national campaigns and was involved with many presidential campaigns in my career. you can understand that is the business.

you don't know which days going to be someone with a video camera or cellphones that captures you looking foolish. adlai stevenson waiting to get a haircut with a hole in his shoe, and a photographer takes that picture, and it becomes symbolic of an absent minded professor at as opposed to general eisenhower, at the confident military commander. another moment where carter was out in the fish pond at his farm and a rabbit jump in the water, and he understood rural life, he understood that may be .apibid it's trying to get on to the vote, he knows that it could be

diseased, and he tries to push it away with an oar. the ap photographer on a weekend assignment, he does not expect to cover anything, it gets this picture of carter trying to push away the rabbit. some 80 edit the -- a p editor decides to caption at the attack of the killer rabbit. it's one more of those moments where you thought, how could this happen? anyone who thinks that you can go into the campaign, control all the events, enact it into some sort of roller-coaster where you can survivor not. >> if you enter the race, he would bring intellectual leadership to the republican party, it said. >> when he said that on chris wallace's program.

he would give my -- the gingrich, the howard dean canada. we both like ideas, he is a medical doctor. i'm a historian. we like debating. i think part of us is fund -- i have a similar relationship with robert reischauer. we like bouncing things off of each other like ideas. >> your president in 2013. explain how you would structure the white house. which you surround yourself with? what kind of administration would you want to have? >> that's a very subtle and important question. i've gone back, reading a lot about lincoln.

he comes into a very tiny government and has to fight the civil war. his background as an administrator is that he has been all lawyer. lincoln had the advantage that he was the only true genius to was the president and his learning curve was unbelievable. it is clear that government these days is dysfunctional. it does not work. it starts with your possession of the white house. i will tell you one story that bothers me. i was very fortunate to spend 20 years in the legislative branch. the bush administration was very generous and allowed me to work as a volunteer in defense, in state, intelligence, and health issues. i got to be inside the executive

branch. i had a number of senior cabinet officers who said that having a 28-year-old staff person call and instruct them on what they're doing, and in several cases people who have been governors of major states, is a fundamental imbalance of power. it seems to me you want to have a working cabinet that actually reports directly to the president. go back to lincoln -- he only clerks,lark's -- two it may affect the part of a solution. it means that there is too much of a buffer between the president and the people who should be executing policy. one of the things that people should look at is, do we need of fundamental reorganization of

the executive branch that makes it very clear who is in charge and gives them real power and then reports to the president in a way that is a much more aggressive in directly manage system than the current. this is a -- this is not a comment on president obama. there has been an evolution into this overly layered system, probably starting with nixon. you have almost 40 years now of continual increase in the size of the white house staff and control factor which then makes the rest of the government dramatically less affected. >> can you do that? jean and i do not know. it strikes me that people have done it in the past and done very well in the past. >> where you go for ideas, information? >> howard dean. i go everywhere. i listen to everybody. i read three widely and i have a very good friend who scans the internet and send me between 1

and 200 e-mails the days. he tries to into it what i should say. ever where rico for american solutions, we have a t party meeting for an hour-and-a-half, we have a small business meeting, and i listen to people widely. most of our meetings involve listening to what different companies and hospitals are doing. i think you have to learn -- if you're going to try to teach, you have to spend an immense amount of time learning. otherwise you cannot teach. i don't think there's a single leader who is not try to understand how you communicate this to the american people for their permission. and if you got the permission, how would you implemented? that requires listening to an amazing range of people. >> the me conclude with a couple

of personal questions. your legal name is mcpherson. >> mine mother was married to a macpherson and they got to forced. and my stepfather, he had been adopted and thought that i ought to be adopted. and so i have the same last name as my parents. when i was 5, i became mute being rich -- newt gingrich. you can never explain the true pronunciation in georgia. >> you recently converted to catholicism. what does that process. -- walk us through that process. >> the basilica of the national -- it is a beautiful church. i got in the habit of killing

and limit travel around world, i would go to mass. gradually over an eight year period, i think they became absorbed into the church and then decided they must be catholic. it was not a decision to become catholic and then go to church. in the process, it was coming to understand the power of the eucharist in the catholic tradition, the body and blood of christ, and the importance and central that the place in the mass, and in second was being allowed as a spouse to be at the basilica of when the pope came two years ago just having the chance to see the pope and to think about his slogan for that trip, which was, christ our hope, and deciding that that was exactly right. i have been amazingly welcomed

into the church. i understand why people would walk up and say, welcome home. it has been a very profound and very comforting experience. >> what the state and religion mean to new gingrich? >> i have always had a deep faith. i've always had a deep faith in god and believe in good and evil. it does that to my mother's mother. i originally -- for example, have almost parade before every speech. d to me is an ever-present part of

[captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2010]

>> i've gotten to know mitt romney as the guy every time the party asked him to do a fund raiser was there. he's gone to fund raisers for our state senate candidates, for our house candidates, and who has truly been a good friend to the nh gop. i know he's still a resident in massachusetts, but we really have adopted him a little bit because he truly is all summer up in woolsborrow. so i encourage you to feel free to drop in and visit us. [laughing]

ladies and gentlemen, former governor mitt romney, a great republican! [applause] >> i brought my sweetheart with me this morning. ann, do you have anything you want to say? >> i think john just made a very generous offer, and the place is open. i notice there are a lot of greenskeepers as i was driving today. it is a beautiful state. a lot of people don't know anything besides the politics here. we all love this state and how beautiful it is. john sununu, how unbelievable

has he been for this party? [applause] but there is something else, there is something in the air, and the something is that the republicans are going to win big in november, so i'm so excited to see this. [applause] and we all know how much work you have to do when you get there, so mitt and i are so excited to be here. >> she should just go on and on. that's the way to go. >> well, it is an honor to be recognized by you and by governor sununu. it is not always the case that i'm recognized and given such a welcome. i was in newark flying to boston, and i was in the waiting area, and i recognized that because i was flying back to massachusetts as the former governor that i might be recognized there. i was reading a newspaper being

kind of discreet, and i heard a shriek, and i looked up, and a chinese exchange student was looking at me. i knew she wasn't texan because her pants were tucked into her boots. she came running across the terminal and she pointed at me, and she said, you're john kerry!" so i held up my newspaper, and i said, i sure am. i'm john kerry. although, i have to tell you, i can be a little clueless myself. after that ann and i went off to the olympics to beijing to see our olympic athletes there, and i went to one of my favorite events, women's beach volley ball. ann insists i do that. so we went, came a little late, and sat down toward the front, and i noticed some of the

americans had seen us. then i saw some chinese were pointing at us and taking our picture. i thought, boy my campaign touched people around the world. i said, ann, you better sit up straight people are take our pictures. she goes like this. there is kobe bryant sitting behind us. so it is an occasion where i don't know who i am and i'm not recognized for who i am, but it is good to be here today at this john lynch, cheryl seaporter fair we will party. -- farewell party. isn't that nice? [applause] >> their numbers are going down the chutes bet -- faster than a jet blue flight attendent. by the way, saying good-bye to

john and paul and carol is just the beginning. soon we'll be saying hello to senator kelley ayott, to congressman charlie bass, and to congressman frank goodman. [applause] by the way, we saw a great campaign waged by tang. [applause] he brought a lot of energy to the campaign and showed commitment to republican principles by getting behind kelly's campaign and saying let's be united and bring republican values back to washington. thank you so much, obit. [applause]

>> and talking about character and courage, thank you john sunu nu for coming back and being chairman of the party. [applause] look, they are getting up for you, john. what a guy. [applause] four more years, john, exactly right. i tell you, the pundits are expecting a -- predicting a big

victory for us in november. two years ago, they were singing a different tune and we were listening to their tune, and a lot of us were on our heels. the commentator cast atalking about his legs tingling with the new leadership. the president, by the way, was so confident that he was able to fit in 40 rounds of golf in his first two years. actually, we're probably better off if he's getting advice from his caddies rather than his economic advisors. i can't predict the scale of his victory we're going to see in november. first -- there are a lot of reasons.

first is the abject failure of the president. he was elected to get this economy going again. he has failed in doing that. he went a lot of time talking about how he inherited the recession. he did. that was the reason we campaigned so hard saying it was not a time for on-the-job training for president of the united states. [applause] frankly, had he had experience in the real world, the economic world, the world of small business or big business or had his advisors had that experience, they would known the first three rules of any turn-around situation are focus, focus, and focus. but instead of focusing on the economy and getting people back to work, he used the economy to put in place his liberal agenda. changing the relationship between business and labor. and as a result, he failed in turning around our economy. for that the american people are disappointed and in some cases

angry, and by the way, it is not just tea partiers and independents alike, we are all unhappy by what's happened under this president. [applause] now interestingly, and about a year ago, i began to get some hope that maybe he understood the mistakes he made in his first year, because he called it a jobs summit, as i recall, and brought in pizz leaders, small and large, and brought them in and said roughly these words. he said government doesn't create jobs, only the private sector can do that, but government can create the conditions that encourages small businesses to create jobs. i thought, i'm not sure who put that in the teleprompter, but it is exactly true. then i looked at what he had done. and i said, did what he -- has

what he's done actually helped them or caused them to pull back. raising taxes on sub-s corporations does not encourage small businesses to grow. taking the tax on dividends from 15% to 39% does not encourage people to invest in the future and to grow. having a take-over by the federal government of what is fundamentally a state responsibility, health care, was a huge mistake and caused anybody in the field to pull back. [applause] his cap and trade, or cap and tax bill, would have raised the cost of energy by an undetermined amount. any business would have to ask themselves, would i invest not knowing what the future cost of energy is going to be? then he of course focused on vilifying one job creator after another whether it was financiers, bond investors, or doctors or people in the medical

insurance business or people that went to company meetings in las vegas, they were all vilified and deamonized. and prap the thing most disturbing was the $1.8 trillion deficit, and the next 10 years trillion dollar deficits every year? people thinking about starting a new business had to ask themselves, what will the dollar be worth down the road if this president implements dollars that borrow that much money? as a result of that, the small business community, big businesses, pull back. he did exactly the opposite of what was needed to get the economy moving. he said, it is not that liberals are ignorant, it is just that what they know is wrong. [applause]

his policies are the worst i've ever seen. i've heard of declaring war on drugs, but war on economics? we're going to change that. the economy is going to get better, by the way. it always does. it will get better, but it will come back more slowly than it could have, had the president taken the right action and focused on it. what he should have done, one, was to focus on the economy and put his liberal agenda side, and two would be to create incentives to get the private sector hiring and growing. three would have been to make sure that we take all the action necessary to get this economy boosted and energized by showing the american people that we have

leadership that understands how the economy works. what happened? he put in place the stimulus that didn't really do what it was supposed to do. you know what the numbers are. his 8% unemployment level grew to 10%. instead of reducing government employment and trying to econ mies, by the way, like the germans did, they added 170,000 new government jobs with their stimulus, and we lost 2.7 million private sector jobs. all told the number of people looking for work or out of work are 15 million. enough people if they lined up in an unemployment line to reach from washington, d.c. to los angeles and back to washington, d.c. it is a traff city -- travesty. who would have guessed we'd look back on the carter years as the good old days? by the way, we spend our time appropriately focusing on what's happening here, but also

recognizing that he's made a ub number of errors in foreign policy. you probably recognize that. one, of course he said he was going to carry out this policy of engagement, remember with iran and north korea? how has that worked out? northkorea has tested a nuclear device, and of course, sunk a south korean ship. what did iran did? well iran armed the yemeny insurgents and it is moving head long toward their nuclear program. and then our, if you will, our contestant in the world of g.o.p. politics, russia, sat across from us from the table and asked for their number one objective, to remove our missile defense sites, our plans for those sites in poland, and this president gave them their number one objective. he shouldn't have done that. and he got nothing in return. how can you have a leader of the free world who doesn't

understand the basics of negotiating to understand that we protect ourselves against rowing powers? -- against rogue powers? [applause] so for these reasons and more you are going to see change in november. the pundits will say that happens all the time. there is something different this time. there is plenty of reason for anger and disappointment. i know there is a lot of that on both sides of the aisle as they look at these administrations and see the failures. but there is something more fundamental going on, i think, something more profound and somber and sincere. that is, i think the american people are recognizing that this administration and the liberals generally don't understand what it is that makes america america. they understand the most fundamental values of our nation

that propel the economy and make this place the hope of the earth. they ran for office saying they would fundamentally change the way office works. they misled us. what they are trying to do is fundamentally change the way america works. let me explain this. i was at christmas time shopping for my grand kids at wall mart. -- walmart. i don't shop for ann for christmas at walmart, but for my grandkids i do. i looked around, and i said, you know what? this store reminds me of sam walton. now, i never met him, the founder of walmart, but i read about his character. people said he loved low, low prices, but he wasn't an organized guy, he was more impetch with us, make it happen kind of guy. the store is just like sam. low, low prices on everything

from tires to toothpaste, but it is not highly organized and laid out just so. it is not like target where all the aisles like the swiss would have organized it. it's more like sam walton. and i began thinking about other businesses where i've gone and shopped and i know how much about it and how they reflect the sort of character and personality of their founder. so microsoft is a lot like bill gates, at least what i've read about him, and apple computer is a lot more like steve jobs. when i was a boy, i met walt disney. he bent down to ask me how i was enjoying his theme park. my dad and other people were there. i recognized this was a guy thatting loved taking care of little kids and sparking their imagine nakeses, and you go to disneyworld today, and it is like the physical legacy of walt disney him sefment it still

entertains kids with the imagination he brought to it. it reflects walt disney. virgin airways is edgy and irreverent just like the founder . when i recognize it, businesses reflect their founder, and that's also true of colleges, schools, even churches, tend to reflect the people who founded them and built them. it is also true of countries. who we are as a nation reflects the character of the people who founded this nation. you go back and think about the very first colonists, imagine what kind of person would have said i'm going to put behind my family, my friends, my homes, and put behind my security in europe, put behind everything uncertain if there will be food, uncertain if the natives will be hostile or not. that kind of person had to love

liberty and pioneering and inknow vating. -- innovatin. then the founders of the constitution, they made the same kind of trade. they could have followed a path of security and confidence. following the crown or perhaps establishing a government here that would be so large it would tell us what to do and how to do it and how to get paid and who would get what. instead they said, no, we, the american people, are going to follow the dreams of our own heart. and by doing that, this land became the land of opportunity. everybody in the world who wanted to be a pioneer came here seeking opportunity. that's who we are. that made america, america. what's happening today in washington is that there are people, and actually in congress as well, there are people who believe that, no, instead of

people making the right choices for their lives, the government should. the government can guide the lives of the people better, that it can guide the economy better, that it can choose which technologies we can choose. these people are trying to gather for themselves something they never could have gathered, and that is power and control over the american people. they would extinguish and smother the very spirit that has made america, america. the love of liberty, the love of freedom, the willingness of people to take risks, to pioneer, to innovate, the daring duo of the american spirit, and we will not let them! [applause]

>> they spent time in their first days in office apologizing for america, disappointing. you think about the sacrifice that's been made by the sons and daughters of this land of the bloodshed to help free millions of people from tyranny and to bring freedom to them. you think about our free enterprise system, the economic vitality that we brought not only to ourselves but to uplift other people. even the chinese are copying parts of it today. and by virtue of our model of free enterprise and free trade, billions of people are being lifted out of poverty. there is no reason to apologize for the united states of america. [applause]

>> i know as we look at challenges in our own country and around the world we look at what the future holds, but as we talk with people one on one, you learn what's in our heart, and that spirit we described is alive and well. at the end of my term as governor, i got the chance to go to afghanistan or iraq, and i was invited by the department of defense to go over in to meet with members of the massachusetts national guard, and they flew us there and then

they take us -- there were three governors in all, they would take us from base to base, and after a few of those visits, i had the idea, i said, look, why don't you guys, if you would like me to call your spouse when i get home or your mom and dad, take out a piece of paper, and when i get home, i'll give them a call. so when i left the theater, i had 63 pieces of paper. i thought, boy, it is going to take a while to make all those calls, have all those conversations. when i got home, the night before memorial day, and ann i drove up to lake winepesa kifment, on the morning when the kids got up, i thought why don't i bang out three or four calls just to get started. so i started making calls. on about the third call, the woman who answered said, oh, governor romney, i thought that might be you calling. i said, what do you think it

would be me? she said, well you made a couple calls and the wives e-mailed their husbands and they said you called, and then they e-mailed their buddies in iraq and they in turn e-mailed us to say to expect your call. so i called 63 homes on memorial day. so it was something i was a little nervous about, because this is before it was clear that the surge had worked. some of our liberal friends in washington had said that we had failed in iraq, that we had lost. and i was worried that in some of these calls, a loving spouse would say, why is my sweetheart still there in harm's way? why can't you bring them home now? why are we there anyway? what's wrong with america? in 63 calls not one complaint.

not one. [applause] and at the end of each call, i would say roughly these words, i would say on behalf of the nation and on behalf of the commonwealth of massachusetts, i want to express my appreciation to you and to your family for the sacrifice you are making and for the sacrifice your loved one is making. and they would either interrupt me or wait until i was finished and in every case say roughly these words, no governor, it is an honor to be able to make a sacrifice for this great country. [applause] this is what's in the hearts of the american people. it's what gives me confidence in our future. it's what gives me confidence that america will always be the land of the free and the home of

the brave. it is thees these heros, their country love, and mercy. to give me confidence in this great future. it is to give me confidence, it is the spirit going on over america, and it is to say, we're going to keep the american spirit alive and well. we're going to maintain the spirit of entrepreneurship, and we'll maintain one thinking, and that is keep america as the land of the free and the hope of the earth. thank you, guys. thank you! thank you! [applause]

>> coming up next on c-span, interior secretary salazar. topics include iraq, afghanistan, and this year's election on "washington journal." and labor joint forces command headquartered in norfolk, virginia. goverage begins at 10 -- coverage begins at 10:00 eastern. later, ed miliband will speak at his party's conference in england. gordon brown steps down after labour lost.

>> whether poking fun or dealing with more serious issues, celebrities have often spoken in congress. search for names you might know any time. >> coming up, interior secretary ken salazar talks about the recent oil spill. he testified at the national commission on the bp oil spill yesterday. this is just over an hour. very pleased to see you here this afternoon and we know you have been vigorously addressing problems of the sort we have been investigating.

we have turned to the government today as the focus of our inquiry and look forward with great enthusiasm to your presentation. thank you, sir. >> thank you very much. thank you to each of the members of the commission. thank you for your service to the country and your service on this commission as we move forward to understand what caused the explosion at the deepwater horizon and how we move together to develop a gold standard for the development of ocean energy in a manner that protects workers and fully protect the environment we look forward to working with you and we hope to give you an update on some of the work we have been doing at the department of interior to achieve that goal. i will make some brief opening comments on several matters and mike abramowich will make a

statement about the moratorium. we will then review some of the scientific issues and initiatives under way. tomorrow you'll also hear from assistant secretary tom strickland who is focused on the gulf of mexico and the wildlife impact. let me say at the outset to the members of this commission that for me as secretary of interior, i have one very simple goal and that is that we are able to move forward with the development of oil and gas in the oceans of america in a matter -- in a manner that will protect workers and protect the environment. that is something i have been committed to and will be committed to and know that we have much work ahead of us. we started with our reform

agenda of the day i arrived here. when i came into the department as secretary, we were given a plan that had been put together by the administration that opened up all of the oceans of america for oil and gas development. we took all look at the proposal that had been put on the table, a plan that was supposed to cover 2010-2015 and made the decision at that time that we need to have additional public input and comment on that plants away extended the 60-day. that was set forth from that plan to 180 days. we want to hold hearings around the country from new jersey to louisiana to california and alaska. we solicited comments from the public and all interested parties. we received over 400,000 comments on that plan. that led to the march 31 announcement which the president and i made and we set forth a

new framework with respect of development of oil and gas in the outer continental shelf. we said that with respect to the arctic areas of america that we needed to develop additional information and science and information with respect to oil spill response to reach back into 2007 and made the determination that bristol bay meant that blaze had to be protected into the future. with respect to the pacific, based on one of the actual factors in the business of the state and ecological values in the pacific, we said it was off- limits to development and with respect to the gulf of mexico, we look at the central and western gulf of mexico and given the position of the infrastructure and level of environmental information, we decided that was an appropriate

place to move forward with respect to oil and gas. with respect of the eastern gulf of mexico coast of florida, we said that as long as we state more than 125 miles away from the coast, about 67% of the resource could be recovered in that area. that is a process which allowed for environmental analysis to take place prior to making any determination. on the eastern gulf, it would have required congressional action. with respect to the brief statement on atlantic, we said there need to be additional information because there is information 30 years old on the atlantic. we moved forward outside oil and gas to embrace a new energy frontier for america with a strong effort to develop renewable energy especially wind. we have an atlantic wind energy office with many efforts.

with respect to oversight and management of what was then the mms, a number of additional initiatives we have undertaken. we want to establish a zero tolerance policy with respect to ethics. most of the issues raised with respect to ms. behavior by public employees, we have established a new zero tolerance policy with respect to that. we killed the last program which was scandal-ridden varian. we also moved forward in fall of 2009 in testimony before congress supported the proposition that this agency needed to have an organic now.slation that exists dow

this agency collects $13 billion per year from the taxpayer and makes sure we have safe energy production in the outer continental shelf. in the fall of 2009, we asked the national marine board to put together a set of recommendations for us with respect to how we might be able to do better in enforcement with respect to offshore oil rigs. we are now in a state or have a moratorium in place. there are central questions we have been reviewing in many meetings throughout the united states of america. and i would like abrqamowich to review those findings. >> it is good to be with you again as you know, the secretary asked me in early july to hold a

series of public meetings during which i would gather information on the three issues that underlie and support his july 12 moratorium order. he asked me to gather that information by going around the country and soliciting contributions from a range of industry, environmentalists, and others interested in the issue. to review the three issues are drilling in workplace safety, oil spill containment, and oil spill response we put together a program where we touched all the parts of this country that have interests in the offshore drilling issue. we started in new orleans in early august. we start went -- we went to mobile, alabama, pensacola, santa barbara, anchorage, alaska, houston, texas, biloxi, mississippi, and we ended in lafayette, louisiana. for those eight programs, we had

close to 100 presentations. from representatives of industry, from environmentalists, from academics, and from a significant number, close to 40 elected officials who shared with us their views on the three issues that are on the table. over the last two weeks since those forums concluded and gathering that information, we have analyzed the information and synthesized it. our original deadline was to have a report by the end of october, will be able to provide him with the report by the end of this month. it will be later this week. >> i would like the deputy secretary from his efforts from last year and the response to provide comments on the science. >> it is great to be here with

the commission. i want to make a couple of quick points before we get into the q &a on the science budget. i want an eye toward the arctic. we share the interest on that. voem has a budget of $30 million per year and up to 1/3 of that is bent supporting science efforts by noah and the united states geological survey in. they are the biggest size customers of voem. the balance is provided to independent scientists whose work is necessary to fill important science gaps. there is a standing faca committee.

they made every year to review the proposed size priorities of voem. they just met the week before last to look at the current proposed science efforts. in addition, we have independent funding of a number of issues that relate to the management of the oceans and the best example and most pertinent is the united states geological survey who is supreme -- who is the premier expert when it comes to polar bears. , their interactions with the eyes issues. they did the work that underpins the old listing of polar bears as an endangered species. dr. marcia mcnutt is the director of the geological survey and consistent with their role in science and her own interest as an oceanographer, the secretary has asked her to the secretary has asked her to do a special