tv Capital News Today CSPAN June 11, 2010 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
if you look at the obama budget, by 2015, and that's how long it would take to do all these things, they are talking about a defense budget for 2015 of $695 billion. let's say, a miracle of miracles, congressman were able to persuade and get it down to $600 billion. the dollar billion of that is more cost. the base budget would be $550 billion. that would be more that we were spending before 9/11. it would be more than we have spent most of the time, even during the cold war. i think it is important to keep in mind. you talk about spending, we are spending more when you spent -- when you talk about the bourse in iraq and afghanistan and a time in our history except for wwii. we have 500,000 people on the ground in vietnam and we are spending more now.
if you look at the reports, we look at how much it has grown and what it would be. even if you took everything we have said, you would still be sending 1.5 times more than your potential adversary. those are things that -- when you say that to people, they understand. in the report, it has been pointed out that during the cold war, we spent 60% as much as our adversaries and potential adversaries. 250%, if we bring that back we will still be at 150%. >> is there is sustainable level you are looking for? is there agreement among q to say at least to return to that pre-9/11 levels? >> there are numbers in here.
reducing by nearly $1 children -- trillion less than was there. if you ask anybody there, you might get a lower number starting from scratch. we are operating within that context. that may go back to the f-35. it depends on how it is the fine. if you assume that we should keep spending all of this money on the f-35. the engine becomes stronger. if you just get rid of the whole thing, you are ok. that is what i am for. the president has asked for too little so he will not get what he asked for. i would advise the president that we do not need it. there is a qualification that every weapon should have the so many do not. you can look at its technical performance, its accuracy, its ease of being used by the
personnel, but none of that works if there is no enemy. weapons without enemies are a waste. if you look at the status of the people we are confronting, we have outstripped that. but there are a superior weapons currently available that we have to get to the next generation even if there is no demand for it. >> do you think that this can catch on for the truth mentality? >> we ought to be clear about the budget. you understand that the way we do the military budget, it is like having a lawyer on retainer. we have a budget but if we go to war, that is extra. likk an old -- like when a lawyer goes to court.
we have deliberately stayed away. i think we should be out of iraq very soon. we did not want to get into that debate as to whether or not because nothing in here undercuts what will be provided for the troops currently in the field. havergument is let's not any more iraq or afghanistan. you have the air power and sea power to go to the defense of people in trouble because they are threatened by somebody else. the answer to that is let's not get into those things in the future unnecessarily. but nothing in what we're talking about would undercut iraq and afghanistan. i think that makes it possible to get support. >> in response to two of those
questions, we are doing something very different here. we are moving outside of the process. the deficit reduction commission in a sense is outside of the process. when we look at what is happening in this country today, some of the difficulties and particulars that we face inside the beltway are not really compelling people outside of the beltway. we're looking at is the congressional elections coming up if it is a perfect political storm. that is what we are facing. a perfect political storm based on a need to get our financial house in order. different people to find that in different ways. some focus on the deficit but i think that is a gain tinter. the way in which we approach this is there are three pivot points for our security policy.
three that we need to keep in mind. one was the end of the cold war. the other obviously as the 9/11 attacks. the third, which needs to be elevated to a national security concern, is the meltdown of 2007 and two dozen aid. i think we need to take that to heart. that means thinking about security in different ways. and doing things that inside of the beltway seen quite difficult because of the interest disturbed. i think we will find a certain degree of support outside of the belt with because there, people's thinking is that in major change is required. really what we are doing is saying let's turn ourselves to providing people with options in changes that matter. >> let me take questions. >> i wanted to put something on the table that is not exactly a question. for instance when you were
talking and rhetorically asked why we need those things. the answer -- the question answers itself. in all of the discussions, there is no mention of what drives the defense budget. it is not because we're surrounded by energies -- and raise. it is the military industrial complex. >> that is part of it. there is a real fear and concern about terrorism. i think that is too reductionist in its argument. there is a factor of that. theee is also, we have allowed to go unchallenged for too long the notion that we really have to be part of this cultural lag. troops in europe have been driven by the military
industrial complex. there is still that the fear. >> i would like to commend the group for the spotlighting the need to audit the pentagon separately. mightn't nonprofit will launch next week -- my non-profit will launch next week. i wwnted to ask chairman frank, you experienced recently the trans partisan that movement coming from outside the beltway. >> i haveea conference that will deal with that. if there are questions for the military spending on the panel. >> the panel generally discusses troops with what is necessary and what is not. those are in market terms. human rights, a logical battles, what exactly would you deem as necessary? >> the human rights issue had generally not been the cause of the military expenditures.
>> the point that we of the side -- that we emphasize is that we are not the only country on the planet that is concerned about human rights. and we're not the only country on the planet that is concerned about the security of places or regions or countries. yet we behave as if we are. if you're concerned is averting a human rights catastrophe or even dealing with natural catastrophes around the world which the military is good at doing, my argument is you can conceive of a place where other countries are empowered incapable of doing that, as well. it is not always the responsibility of u.s. troops and u.s. taxpayers. >> about human rights, of course
the united states needs to be the example of how you would like the world to be run. we have smart security and a smarter way to deal with each other around the world and i would like to just say something about that for a minute. rather than the guns and bullets and airplanes and ships, we could invest, over the long term, in dealing with each other humans civilly, where we help each other with infrastructure, education, health care, the friends. we have to find a different way to deal human to human. civil rights, yes. we need to support that. but we need to find a way to set the example for solving our
differences. you talk about people saying i would never do that. if we do not do it, all of the weapons in the world will not save us from annihilating each other. so rights, human rights, there is a smarter way to do it. as we look at what we're doing here, step one is being a lot smarter and not investing in things we do not need. let's start investing in preventing why we have to have these weapons in the first place. >> there are cases where i would like to see military intervention for humanitarian purposes. but america is almost going to be one of the worst people to do that because of the suspicion and criticism which is unfair. we should be working with other nations to be supportive of those interventions.
i cannot think of cases where direct american intervention would be politically the best thing to do. but not made within the u.s. but i mean in terms of impact we are having in the particular region. >> i am curious about the personal cost aspect. i know a lot of costs .kyrocketed th the all volunteer force in 1973 caused a lot of escalation which is a big part of the budget. when you look at future directions, to go back to the draft idea because that definitely allows you to serve when you need to. >> any members of the panel wants to talk about that? we did not discuss this in the panel.
i had a role in creating the volunteer force and transition from the conscripted force. we basically had three components. one was in comparatively smaller active force, a guard and reserve which is a strategic bridge to a draft. we did not do that. we had two long worse. -- long wars. i would argue that what had happened is you put all kind of special pay and their which drove up personnel costs. that is not what we are talking about. what we're talking about is when you decide the annual pay raise which is become a bone of contention between secretary gates and the congress, you need p different basis. one review of compensation says it should not be based papered
regular military compensation. if you did that, that would slow down the growth in personal costs we talk about. the other is tricare. copays have not gone up since 1975. secretary gates has talked about it but not put it in the budget. tricare single person is $19 per month and for a family it is double that. even the military chiefs have said that it cannot continue. >> let me throw in one other thing. combat pay is a very substantial part of this. no more iraq and afghanistan. >> barry served at a time when the force was conscripted. i served in an all volunteer force. there was a misconception of the
all volunteer force being more costly than a constructive force. we have to capture the costs of very high turnover and a conscripted force. we also have a philosophical level of how to capture the cost of compelling people to serve against their will. it is hard to it does not impose those costs on a small number of people. >> go ahead. >> i agree with chris that the volunteer military has worked. it has produced the best force in the world. i don't think it's smart to think about going back. it is a over quantity approach. when you ask them to engage in very large scale slogs like in
afghanistan, this drives costs up because the pentagon has to been hired to get people. part of the problem we have had is we have been trying to fight president johnson's war with president reagan's military. this military is not suited for this type of fighting. we put it together in reaction to the vietnam experience. without the anticipation that we would find ourselves in a similar situation. our assumption is regardless about how you feel about these wars, nobody talks about that was a good idea. when people look back and say that was an investment of $1
trillion focus on 1% of the people. how much progress were we able to buy. we are still spending sums equal to the gdp of those countries. i don't think anybody is thinking about repeating that. what we want to do is lock in a guaranteed. we are not going to find ourselves in that slope again. >> there are allies i feel commitment to. there is taiwan, south korea. nobody is talking about significant numbers of ground troops. there is a technological aspect. i think it goes back about human rights. the focus ought to be on democrats in -- democratic societies. intervening in a civil war does
not work ery well because of the baggage america carries. it is counterproductive. any further questions? in the back. >> what happens [[naudible] [inaudible] >> let me make it clear that one part of this report that will not get much congressional support is tricare. i think it's in the interests of many of the people most opposed to the kind of think people have been through in afghanistan is people who have been through it. once we make it clear we are appropriately defined national security -- secondly, i hope every organization in this country that wants to see more
spending on quality of life issues and lower taxes will join this effort. we need to make clear to people. those other efforts will be severely hampered. we will be making this available to people. we will ask people to buy some of it. i would urge people -- people of the progressive caucus will be working with us. we urge people to urge their members of congress to join the letter we will be sending. we will be writing to our colleagues saying don't come home without this. don't try to get deficit reduction that does not include military spending reductions. it was important to show this
was possible. i hope this is the beginning of a campaign to do that. >> i am wondering if there was a comparable letter. >> he has been talking to a republican senator. it is bipartisan and bcoastal. [laughter] >> [inaudible] or anywhere else in the administration? >> within the armed forces people are beginning to think -- they see the reality of the probllm the nation is facing. there is not a lot of agreement. have we formally reached out to
people? no. a lot more needs to be done. we have just scratched the surface. there are broad areas of the budget we have not been able to look at closely. we will be able to find more. the important thing is we begin a dialogue and that it be based on a different. i'm that we need to be rethinking security and rebalancing notions of strength and seeing every part of the government has to play some role in deficit reduction. if we all get on that page then we can work productively together. there is awareness that there is begin to have a dialogue with them. >> if you look at what secretary gates has said, he is doing half of what we are talking about. he is talking about making reductions.
he would want to reprogram it all with and were fighting. -- the war fighting. secondly, i have been talking to some of my colleagues. the armed services committee wishes will committed to keeping military spending up. there are other committees with jurisdiction over this area. i am hoping to have a hearing to which the members of the panel will be invited to talk about this at some level. >> larry and i will be meeting with the defense comptroller and presenting copies of the report, so we are beginning to get that. >> gates is moving this direction. we agree on the savings. we would support the reductions we just don't want it to be
recycled. thank you all very much. [applause] c-[captioning performed by congress to pass new legislation offering tax benefits and increased lending to small businesses. this came after a meeting with small business owners at the white house. this is about 10 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. >> we talked about some of the
economic challenges facing these folks. we talked about the ways our government can make it easier for smaller firms to hire and grow. these men and women kkow how important is because small businesses have created two out of every three new jobs in our country. to replace the millions of jobs lost in the recession we will need to make sure small companies are able to expand and add names to their payroll. small businesses will help lead this economic recovery. that is why we will continue to stand by them, but insuring small businesses can thrive is about more than economic success. it is about who we are as a people. anybody who has a good idea and willingness to work hard can
succeed. it is that promise that has drawn millions of people here. it is what propels some inventor to bring a new concept to market. that is what led two guys who are here today to try their hand at running restaurants. obviously there would have to be restrauanteurs. they recently opened up their sixth location. the general manager of one of their locations is also here. this same promise of being able to build your own dreams led one
person to come to this country to become a citizen and open up a successful technology services company. when she started she had just one employee and now employs more than 100 people, including her husband. the fact is small businesses all across the country are hiring people, making a difference and getting back to their communities. they have also been especially hard hit by the recession. from the middle of 2007 to 2008 small businesses lost 2.4 million jobs. because banks shrank from lending it has been particularl+ difficult for small business owners to expand. it has been hard to finance inventories.
i said before government cannot guarantee success for these companies, but it cannot down barriers that prevent owners from getting loans. the government can create private sector jobs and the conditions for small businesses to grow and hire more people. that is what has guided much of our agenda. last year we enacted seven tax cuts for small businesses. so far the recovery act supported over 68,000 loans to small businesses, which translates into $29 billion in new lending. more than 1300 banks and credit unions that have not made loans since before the financial crisis are now lending again. more than $8 billion in contracts are going to small businesses. part-time workers because of the
recovery act. as a result of a bill i signed a few months ago, businesses are eligible for tax cuts when they hire. companies are also able to write off more of their investments in new equipment. 4 million small business owners from the irs and it was good news. they could be eligible for a health care tax credit this year that could be worth tens of thousands of dollars. these are making a difference. a little more than a year ago the economy was in free fall. a little more than a year ago the economy was losing 750,000 jobs a month. we have been adding 5000 jobs a
month. we are still in a pretty de paul. millions of family members and friends are still looking for work. they are still faced with the prospect of unemployment. credit is still less available than it should be. it is small business owners -- we may be recovering but we are not yet recovered. that is why i am urging congress to swiftly approve a set of tax breaks to spur hiring and growth. the legislation being debated would eliminate capital gains taxes for investments in small firms which will help move capital to these companies. it will provide tax relief to small startups to encourage folks to open up businesses.
to foster more credit, it would create the small business lending fund i proposed in my state of the union address. it would create a new state small business initiative because states facing budget shortfalls are scaling back. that is working against our recovery. i am also urging congress to expand its successful programs by increasing loan limits. it could benefit people like bobbi and steve. have been hearing from small businesses that want to hire more but need additional credit. this bill helps fulfill both needs. to help us create jobs without
making tough choices to pay for these proposals. i am hopeful the house will pass these measures next week and the senate will follow as soon as possible with the support from democrats and a publicans. i am eager to sign this into law. that is how we can continue to move forward. thank you very much.
>> the coast guard admiral breeze reporters on the oil spill cleanup. then, house speaker nancy pelosi talks about congressional action concerning the situation. more on the oil spill with louisiana congressman bill cassidy. >> live on c-span "book tv." two days of interviews and call ins. get the entire schedule at booktv.org. >> mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. >> 23 years ago president reagan spoke those words in berlin. watch the entire speech saturday on american history tv. now coast guard admiral latest update on the gulf oil spill.
he gives a summary of the personnel involved in response, including national guard and volunteers and how the coast guard plans to bring additional resources into the area. this is about 25 minutes. >> good morning. welcome to today's briefing. admiral allen will give the daily update and we will take 10 minutes of questions from the floor. >> good morning. i thought i would review some of the basic numbers of the response and talk about some strategic issues regarding stemmers -- skimmers. i would be glad to answer any questions you have for me. just to summarize where we are,
25,000 are on the ground. this has become the largest oil spill response in history. we have over 1200 national guardsmen and 21,000 contractors. tremendous amount of equipment has flowed into the area.kimmer. and more than 2000 vessels of opportunity, 64 aircraft and 2.7 billion feet of happen -- feet of boom. are removing as much oil as we can from the surface. ken we have skimed about 18 million gallons. our yield is around 15%.
we have burned 3.8 million gallons of oil. we are starting to limit the disbursements on the surface to where we needed for safety reasons for putting down organic compounds. have over 4 million gallons has been recovered through the containment cap so far. we continue to try to mobilize resources. i have a strategic resource team to look at our assets around the country. just to give you an idea of what is in a national inventory. we will have meetings about how we may want to redeploy assets. nationally, there are 2000 skimming vehicles out there.
probably about 3.1 million feet of coastal boom. what we will be doing over the next couple of days is doing a risk analysis. and the international assets we are seeking. try and come up with a way to mask our forces more effectively. >> as the oil gets there it will be smaller flows. we have part of the work done. our work continues and we will we are looking to put pressure gauges down on the blowup
prevent dirt to see if we can come up with an empirical way to take readings and corroborate what may have happened. as i said, the operation is going down -- going on down there. i would be glad to take questions. >> [inaudible] it will have a combined production capability of 20,000 barrels a day. [inaudible] maybe 40,000 barrels per day. isn't it true 50 days after this
was discovered [inaudible] but you still don't have the capacity to deal with that. >> we are still dealing with the flow estimate of. -- flow estimate. if they are operating at maximum efficiency is 18,000. we have told bp we need increased capacity and redundancy. we hope to, but the time we get the new system put in, should be
around 50,000 barrels a day. the issue is for bp to move quickly to establish a passing -- established capacity. >> wouldn't it make sense to have that capacity now? >> the tankers that have the dynamic positioning system are being brought from the north sea. because of the way they produce oil, a lot is piped in. it is industry, everybody. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> that is exactly what we are doing.
some skimmers are self- contained. other systems are boon systems. what we are trying to do is get these scheming and equipment in the hands of the vessels of opportunity. a and had a collection barge to backing the oil out. that is exactly what we want to do. it depends on the type of votes -- type of boat. that is exactly what we are about. >> [inaudible] >> we have to have a cooperative relationship for this thing to work. i asked for answers and i get them. this has to be a unified effort
>> local officials are talking about frustrations with the response. [inaudible] he still did not know who was in charge. he spends more time fighting bp officials than he does oil. what is going on with the command structure? >> several weeks ago we deployed officers. any time they have a problem he can turn to a coast guard officer and can get whatever he needs solved. we also have connections to the bp folks. >> give me what your problem was. who did you ask? i would be able to respond. we had coast guard officers for three weeks. >> [inaudible] >> we have a call every evening
with those officers in louisiana. we work the issues overnight. the parish presidents have a conduit directly into the command every night on a conference call. i would be glad to deal with specific issues, but i met with them. if they have specific issues i would be happy to do that. >> [inaudible] >> whether it is involved in skiiming capability, we are more than willing. has there been an assessment of national inventory? whether alternative methods? are there issues regarding [unintelligible] we are prepared to consider its.
>> [inaudible] >> i would say right at the well site itself is a limit to how much activity you can bring their. we have the discovery enterprise producing oil. we have a development driller two at the second relief well. all of those platforms used remotely operated vehicles. every rov has a platform above it. having been out there, you can have anywhere from 25-30 vessels. there is an issue about the space on the sea floor. when you move beyond that we are not constrained. therefore, as much skimming capacity is what we would do.
>> [inaudible] >> the proposal was given to us by bp. they are in route right now. between the middle of june and the first week of july we will start building out a new system. production at vessels will be linked to shuttle tankers. once we know we can do that we will shift from the containment cap to a more hard cap. >> could you give us an idea of timing? >> we are giving them a feedback on their time lines. we got that the night before last. we will get that in a statement later today once - the secretary was looking at it this morning to make sure we
understand the time alamance. and properly testing them out. >> [inaudible] >> they need the shuttle tankers because they will have to [unintelligible] >> can we assume [inaudible] >> that is what they have said in the plan we are revealing. we are reconciling what they gave us against the time lines. we will probably also require them to be flexible in the future. >> they brought in systems would generic capacity. that was over what the flow rate
numbers were. we will have to be adaptable. >> can you tell us about me [inaudible] was that the president's idea? >> i have had several conversations with tell me about it. there will be more conversations -- conversations with tony about it. to be a work in progress. >> [inaudible] >> we all decided it was time to sit down and talk. i have been interacting with the board of directors redeeming -- directors routinely. >> [inaudible]
>> we are working with them. >> [inaudible] >> there are conflicting opinions on that. we have a scientific a group's -- scientific groups that some say are negligible. we want to put these sensors down there to get the pressure readings. that is being dealt with by secretary salazar. >> [inaudible] >> if you look at pressure readings we were taking what we need to do is retake the pressure readings. we were all about the pressure readings. when they went to containment we wanted to get another set of pressure reedings. that will give us better ratings. >> how many vents are closed?
>> onr. concerns about the -- one. not wanting to create a pressure differential that will cause a problem. they are still rationing the choke up. they can handle more production. >> let's go to the phone. operator, you can begin. >> good morning. [inaudible] how many animals are being treated? there were reports about a whale that washed up on a beach in new york. is that oil-spill related? [inaudible]
if so, what do you and the president hope to learn from that meeting that you don't already know? i did not bring the wildlife numbers with me. any time we have a marine mammal death in the vicinity there are always concerns about whether it was related to hydrocarbons. i will reach out and see if we can ascertain if there is any causality. if there is any concern we will check it out. regarding the meeting, the agenda is being developed. there are a list of concerns. it will have to be a combination of bp issues. that is on my work list for
today. next question. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] i wanted to ask about me [inaudible] [inaudible] how much do you think it might cost? >> the federal costs being incurred are approaching about $140 million right now. as far as bp's costs, i don't have those with me. as long as we don't have that well capped we will keep pouring assets in there. we will update figures.
>> the next question comes from [inaudible] >> i would like to know where is the oil going to bay [inaudible] [inaudible] will the crew need to be specially treated? >> the way the oil is produced is it is brought to the surface and the natural gas is separated. it is like a bunsen burner. it is shifted to a tanker and taken to a refinery. by the time it leaves enterprise it is crude-oil ready for further production. my guess is it probably depends
on the capacity of the refineries. >> this will be the last question. >> good morning, thanks for taking my call. i wanted to go back to the 40,000 barrel capacity. the vessels that are coming that will provide capacity, is that they [inaudible] >> that is correct. they are more hurricane-purple. we will have to make a critical decision on whether we can keep this going. right now from the enterprise we are operating around 18,000 barrels a day capacity. they are rated at their most efficient operation.
we are anticipating it will bring 5,000 barrels on. the capacity between those two hits he will be 28,000 barrels per day. we asked them to bring in a segment processing vessel to work with the q 4000. it will add an additional 10,000 capacity a day. we will be around 38,000 barrels a day. that will be replaced by the new containment system which will consist of the new flexible hoses which will allow greater capacity and ability to disconnects quickly. that will be the [unintelligible] that will be the shuttle tanker. pisces is being converted for production. >> they will be transferring oil to the shuttle tanker. there will be another producer
being acquired because we require redundancy. that will be the -- the tanker has yet to be identified. they will have a capacity of around 25,000 barrels a day. that takes you from now until approximately mid july to build that seven system. is that responsive? >> yes come up one more thing. the combination -- yes, one more thing. the combination will replace the discover enterprise and clear leader? >> that's correct. the reason we are replacing it her -- id is a little confusing. the current production structure has a fixed riser pipe coming from the well head. we will increase the capacity, by taking those joke and kill
ines -- we will sock oil out of them. we will bring that up tosuck oil -- suck oil our of them. all to many, we don't want a fixed riser pipe. -- ultimately. and what we are constructing from the next containment strategy is a rise in a piper anchored to the bottom of the ocean. we have a flexible cable thht goes over the wellhead through a mock permanent cap. they will process and offload tankers. days will be larger vessels --
these will be larger vessels. that is the same capability on the drill rigs. they need that because they will continually transferred to the tanker as a source of storage. they cannot move very far. that is why these are brought from the north sea. that is not the usual form of transfer. >> i'm sorry, one more. clear leader is a drillship, correct? >> yes, it's very similar to discover enterprise. >> will the clear leader stay on site? last thing i'm confused about is we have this [inaudible] it will no longer be used at that point? it will either of the drillships be used? >> at some point we will make a
transition. it will be pretty crowded of there. we will move from they two production vessels, and the tanker yet to be named will replace that with two production platforms. that is the capacity we require to the pricing system. >> that's wonddrful. so the actual burning of of oil is not going to last very long? >> that is a strategy to increaae capacity and create redundancy. that's correct. >> thank you so much.
>> nancy pelosi spend much of her weekly briefing on the oil spill. she talked about various proposals to reform the oil industry. her support for the liability for bp's cleanup operations. this is just over 25 minutes. >> it has been quite a week. we have had a continued focus on the tragedy of the disaster in the gulf of mexico. i heard you talking about staying up late to watch the nba
and watching the chicago get ready to eat a lot of philly cheese steaks. -- it does world's command a lot of attention. i was watching the lacrosse championship. in any event, this week a good deal of the focus has been on it was very moving to hear their stories just weeks after they lost their loved ones, their husbands, their fathers, their sons our friends came to the capitol to tell their story. they wanted to be sure as i said
to them, you are the backbone of america. america will not forget you. they came here to ask for changes in high seas law. we assured them that would happen. it must be 3 miles off shore. the only damages can be financial, not pain and suffering. you change that a distance from shore in change what is -- and that change when discovered as far as a liability. we met with them yesterday. the leaders met with the president. they spent a good time talking about what is happening in the gulf. they talked about other legislative issues on the agenda. i was very pleased that the president said the attorney general to look into whether there is negligence involved in what happened there. this is a matter of integrity. the energy and commerce committee has been having
hearings around this integrity issue. the integrity that bp stated that they had, the technology and to drill deep, up behind the technology to prevent a lot -- that they have the technology to prevent a blowout. none of these things purlieu -- proved to be fact. the chairman of the committee -- some of you were at the meeting -- after which, we talk about issues related to reform. that comes to the minerals management service's. we have legislation about that. to what to do the in the law -- we want to do that in the law as well. we're looking at all kinds of reforms. we want to protect the workers on the rigs and involved in the cleanup.
sectorworking on private- preparedness. we're working on technology for drawings that are better -- for drilling. we want to prevent and deal with a blowout. we want to make sure the coast guard house what it means to meet the challenges that it faces in these circumstances. these and other priorities are being reviewed by the chairman of that committee.
we already written some bills. there is one bill from the national resources committee that talks about leasing reform. talks about the royalties. it talks about the adequacy of the royalties and the royalty holidays. it is our direction. we may updatt it. the oil pollution act of 1990 is a bit -- did not fully take into consideration deep water drilling. that legislation may need to be updated. the full scope of what happened -- it has a factual basis on how we proceed. the oil pollution at the 1990 is very -- of 1990 is very strong as it relates to the liability of whoever caused this tragedy,
in this case, bp, to make sure that the businesses, the employees, the workers in the region to compensated for their loss pinhead there is a 70 -- loss. there is a $70 million, if there is no negligence. that is why it is important to see if there was negligence. we will raise the cap if there was not. bp has a responsibility to make good on a lot in terms of their obligations to the workers and businesses in the region, and to do so in a reasonable time. there spent money on advertising -- they have spent money on advertising in dividends. they have an obligation to first -- i think it would be good public relations for them, but they did not ask me -- to pay these workers in these businesses. we of so many hearings " we have had some new who dreamed. -- we have had so many fewer loans. -- we have had so many hearings. they will have something called the spill act. there'll be a revision to death
on the high seas legislation. that lot is from a long time ago. it is long overdue, in light of the reason technologies. it is been a busy week in that regard. yesterday, as you know, the wall street reform conference came together for the first time to make their opening statements. the next week or more will be involving differences between the house and senate legislation. i think today is the day that the $250 goes out to the seniors to help close the doughnut hole. nearly 4 million seniors will benefit over the next few months. we pass legislation that make sure that the money still flows from the trust fund to address concerns in the the gulf of mexico, just to gee back to our legislative agenda. we also passed another bill. were there any other votes on the floor?
i think there was strong bipartisan support for the fha bill. we're preparing for next week. we will have small business credit -- a small business credit lending built on the floor. that is a very important commitment of this congress. we need capital available to small businesses. we recognize that they are the job creators. we are hard at work on wall street reform legislation. that is what our wheat is like here.
any questions? -- our week is like here. any questions? >> first, there is an don't ask, don't tell. i was disappointed when the full measure came to the floor. only nine republicans voted to pass the defense bill. this is historic. the republicans are not voting against the defense authorization bill. only nine dead because of don't ask, don't tell. we will now go after the bill passes to conference. our work is not fairness in that regard. one thing of the time.
-- is not finished in that regard. we want to finish don't ask, don't tell. we do not take it for granted. nine republicans voted for the defense authorization bill. five republicans voted for the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. only four more voted for the dod bill. they usually go to 100% for the period -- for that. >> i want to make sure i am not repeating anything. i cannot remember who had the last question about this. >> they endorsed an expedited decision proposal. given the history of bipartisan support with this issue, passing the house in 2006, do you have any plans to bring it up?
, he brought this to the freshman meeting the other day. -- >> he brought this to the freshman meeting the other day. i said anyone who wanted to sign on could come to my office. we wanted to see a show of hands there. he is collecting sponsors for aid. it will happen. -- for it. it will happen. i certainly support it. >> [inaudible] >> the big oil companies will be here next week. [inaudible] >> we want to hear the truth. people have spoken about integrity. jintao wrote -- the integrity of the economy and the environment.
the integrity of what they tell us. bp and represented that this deepwater drilling have the technology to succeed. -- bp had represented that the deep water drilling have the technology to succeed. the technology to drill is way ahead of the technology to clean up. it was not good enough. this is a big challenge. it is a big issue. the federal government has responded in a bigger way than it ever has to any other environmental disaster that has happened. this is probably the biggest environmental disaster. we would want to hear the truth from them. the evidence is clear.
we need a new energy policy. we want report -- we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but as not in have to dig deeper into the planet, unless we really know what we're doing. they did not know what they were doing. they did not care what they were doing -- did not care that they did not know what they were doing. they represented that the technology was better than it was. we're looking into these issues. we look to the wind and the sun and the soil to fuel our cars, run our factories. we will prepare for that. it will require a transition. we will alwayy be using petroleum products. i am not saying that we can thaw that. we have to transition to the renewals. we should not be taking vigorous and causing tremendous damage
when we should be focused on other alternatives to it. we want to hear why they -- they are in the energy business -- why are they not telling us the truth. i'm not pace -- painting the rest of them with that brush. they areeprobably disappointed as well. we've to look to the larger picture of how we do whatever we do to meet the needs of our economy. we need to clean up the air. we need to create jobs. we need to have a national security energy policy that reduces our dependence on foreign oil. it is an absolute must. the president has done -- he was referencing germany and china -- the country mean that -- the country that leads in the green economy will be the country that leads the world. we would like america to be that nation. their responsibility is not only in drilling, but the bigger
picture. they have to -- i should have led the way decades ago. >> cost is estimated at $37 billion. he supports that? -- do you support that? what do you see the taxpayer role in the clean-up? >> let me be veering clear -- to be very clear. bp is responsible for the cleanup. bp irresponsible -- is responsible. the cowboys that if there is no negligence. -- the top was that if there was no negligence. -- the top on not amount -- the cap was set only if there was no negligence. why should there be a cap? bp will pay the bill for the cleanup, the loss of livelihood for busiensses -- businesses and workers.
there will be no taxpayer dollars spent that are not repaid by british petroleum. i guess they changed their name recently. some of us are used to be a gold name. when we use it, they say that is being xenophobic. i do not say it that way. i m -- i am for no cap. there is no cap if there is negligence involved. >> leader boehner was critical of that. among is that what he said -- >> is that what he said? bp and the taxpayer should be footing the bill? was that the same statement? i am asking. i disagree. >> do you think -- is the congressman during in the way by calling officials from the coast guard ndp appear when they should be out in the gulf?
-- and bp up here when they shouldn't be out in the gulf? among no. -- >> no. we need to get a thought. people are jumping to conclusions. we cannot act upon this until we know what is happening here. what we learned in that time is that bp representee wrong with what their technology could do. there represented wrongly the amount of oil spewing forth into the gulf. the continued to do so. scientists have an update on that that is much higher than
what bp said. again, when ttey start telling you to cut your hair and some golf balls on diapers for the cleanup, you know that is not the technology of the future. unless you are changing diapers, getting a hair cut, or playing golf -- [laughter] i think it is very appropriate that time was given to focus on what the parameters were, what actually happened. monday, halliburton said they did not do a cement right. i do not know the complete information. that is what the hearings are about. some have taken place.
some have taken place on location down there, on site. some have been here. we have a responsibility of oversight. we must move quickly. we do want to give comfort to the families that they will be taking care of. -- taken care of. it is very important to act. we cannot act without the facts. some people have been tradittonally republican. they do not know the facts. they re acting -- the less you know, the less you have to do. i do not subscribe to that. >> should they not pay dividends at all? some of their first responsibility is to the families in the region who of
lost their jobs, other businesses, their livelihood. if you are a fisherman or a shrimper, may and june are your big months in the gulf. under the oil pollution act of 1990 -- if you expect me to read it to you -- i can. you probably want to read it yourself. they have responsibility to pay these people. they have to do it in a timely fashion. again, there is an expression. the pearl the anecdote is not data -- the plural of anecdote is not data. if there is enough empirical knowledge about what has happened -- and that is why i have asked the department of homeland security and pp to come to an understanding -- and indeed bp to come to an understanding. we need to understand how they
will pay the claims. they should pay the claims before they get additional dividends. the image is equal to the loss of profit -- and it just goes on and on. i refer this to the oil pollution act of 1990. the liability of the responsible parties. it is on page 7. >> can you package a series of bills -- a package of energy bills? >> i do not know. we'll make that decision when we see. some bills have been written. one of the bills as the bill from maine -- from the natural committees resources -- natural resources committee that was
written over a year ago. there's a recognition of and need to make informed -- reforms. dawson there was recognition of a need to make informed reform -- there was recognition of the need to make reform. some things need to be updated. the transportation committee has a big piece of this in terms of liability and the rest. if we will -- we will just take a look and see what we can do. this spill act -- will see how it moves. i know no decision has been made about that. we will probably take them as
they already are. the spill at is urgent now. we would insist the these people be made whole amount. one of the people who testified -- people testified before the hearing on monday. this is what happened. his family is in the fishing business. they have documented that last may, $7,000 is what they made. they filed the claim. they had all the documentation. they still only received a check for $5,000. 162-year-old man testified that he had four sons with him in
the business -- five families are the opening of connaught month. they got only $5,000. it is not just right. rwandese people to be made whole -- we want these people to be made whole. dividends should be something that you pay because to make a profit. i did not know it was something you paid off before you took care of your expenses. one more question? >> is anyone going to talk up position in bills? >> my concern is that we have had, in the committee, legislation that talk about more notification to the congress, beyond the chair and the ranking member of the house and senate. on the floor of the house, during the defense authorization bill, there was an amendment to that effect that prevailed.
the white house has selwa a lot of discomfort with the. the conversation is been work done to try to resolve the issue. i am saying the nation not be paying dividends until they make that they should not be paying dividends until they make these people hold. people are having to take up loans. i cannot afford to repay it. bp is not paying. they have the money. they made $17 million last year. they went up 12 points on the stock market yesterday. they made $17 million in profit last year.
these people have to struggle to and get a few thousand dollars from them. they are on the margin. they have been destroyed or harm degree in by that. iris of -- i respect what they think their fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders, but they also have more responsibility to pay their bills. these are their bills. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> next the presence of budget president obama makes a visit to the goal. in the meantime, hearings on the
oil spill continued elsewhere. tuesday, the head of oil companies testify on u.s. energy policy. the white house has invited executives to me to the president on wednesday. the c l makes his first appearance before congress, testified before an energy oversight committee. but those hearings are live on c-span 3 and c-span radio. now more on the impact of the gulf oil spill with louisiana congressman bill cassidy from today's "washington journal." this is about 40 minutes. . jessica taylor, thank you for us this morning. now we want to turn our ttention to the oil spill and is with us, republican representative from is -- a sixth district.
tell us where the oil spill is in relation to your district. guest: my district is the capital city of vekton error iyou think of -- that baton rouge. if you think of it like a boot, it is where the races are. -- the laces are. host: how concerned are your parish's about this? guest: it has clearly affted the fisheries and tourism, and now we see this as a third hit the economies of the region. ho and how much ofour area
is related to the gas and oil industry? guest: if we are just going to speak of the deep water of rigs are going to be affected by the matorium, i'm told ththat there are 25 deepwater rig jobs. and each of those has four or five spin-off jobs. the deepwater rate droprig jobse high-payg position. we say there are growing -- be a six monthto ratorium, thosees are lost. there is truly a human dimension to this. host: we are talking to bill cassady. the numbers are on the screen.
you wrote a piece for polito that obama should take the lon view on this bill. the administration has comeout wil go ahead and allowed shallow water drilling. guest: and that is very nice of them. that is very different from deep water. rig. a deep water 70% of our new oil production in u.s. is coming from deep rigs. i am told about 40% of our natural gas is. that is really the growth area, if you will. the problem with this mororium is that the floati rigs from drove to work for $500,000 a day. if thisororium extends, they
will float those rigs to brazil or the coast of africa or elsewhere, andegin job there. jobs are not just lost for six months they are lost in perpetuity. host: are you hearingrom these companies all over this issue? gues i have learned in this job to say what i have been ld, not wh know. but morgan stanl has saithat only one in 20 chance moratorium will end in six months a moratoriumis instituted. if you're a persont( that works or $500,000 per day and it only you two weeks to flow to the coast of africa with a one in 20 chance, would you decide? host: why not step back and given the outcome of this oi spill, the impact on the shoreline, which is also
jobs the fherman, e shrimpers who cannot do because of the oil spill, why not take a step back and wait? guest: there is a plan for increasing safety. it is from the national academy of engineering, i believe. and they mention these experts t tey peerying tha reviewed the recomndatn. but experts came out yesterday with a skating revival of that, saying that theyoot agree scathin buttal of that saying that they do not withhe moratorium. the esident said his administration would be guided by a science and not politics. here is a decision that is being guided by politics anno by science. thscientists say you can continue to do your drilling and
oil and they do not favor the moratorium. and when they speak to the fishermen, they also favor host:t( maryland, democric line, shn, you are on the ai call: i have a few questions you. was the president's job in handlinghe spill in louisiana? and what is your job in handling a spill like iis? guest: the president is charge and has that he is in charge. qas a legislator, i do not have executive responsibility. i wish i did, but i do not. my job is to investigate and things and tryt to create an environment where right decisions are made. host: >> phone call, michigan,
pepublican line, brian, good morning. caller: every marti law in the wor in speaking of theseshs at can acally stop the oil gulf, iave listened to the coast guard. i have sailed a lot of wateu÷. if you put an admiral and his staffñrñr in charge of this operation, bp needs to foothe bill for all of this as far as the second this -- sucking this. i think if we have been in f ts program frohe started, certainly we be of further along out.
e weather is good now. if some of them have to paddle a carbeanor a the while, -- paddle a round out in caribbean for while, fine. guest: i have been -- i have learned to say what i have been told, not what i know. okçóhey have discussedhe federal response and what they have said that ugh seas inhibitthe to skim. the wav of and the chop is 3 to 6 feet, they will not be to do skimming. the second thing is that the seabed, the dispersants' placed there dispersed. instead of having t oil th op and can be instead, it disperses it below the surface ancause now the world plum. the will plume isot oil. it looks like -- the oil plume
o.not like water. it just has a higher concenation of hydrocarbons. is it better to raise it to the dispersed it at t bottom? if you dispersed it at the bottom, it is harder to skim at the top. the louisiana coastline is being terribly affected. i am incrediblustrated that research was not done before. host: next call from massachusetts. caller: the skimming ship was offered from sweden or switzerland if ihad not had the jones law that it had to be run by americans and shipped by amricans, the only way to lead the waters -- and it was given for free and it was a all thoseip usefor bills. what about that one?
guest: i am not familiar with that particular incident. it seems an unusual application the jones law. the jones a says if you're like ao transport goods groceries from one states the united placin aamerican-bui, american flagship. about deepalking that -- a deep rig, which is a vessel, transferring from one place to another. think it is safe to say that a skimmer is transpoing from one place to other. sure that the jones act would affect that. host: the next call comes from paul, republican line, kalamazoo, michigan. you live with --re you with us? i thinki lost the phone call. let me ask a question and then we'll go back to phone calls.
to lifting the cap, there is work done ithe house and e senate. our guest on wednesday said that she thinks that legislation e to a vote before the fourth of july recess. how will you vote on lifting the liability ca guest: first, let's make a couple of things clea lifting e liabily cap is not -- does not pardon this bill. that they will make everyone whole. we have to ok at the spending cap. host: theres no way they will retroactive? guest: they could if they wanted to. if the overall cost is $11 then they will be off total -- $1 billion. -- off the hook billion.
the second side is thait is in our national interest to look up the bill. reasonably speaking, $75 million l too on the of iran, there are companies --y for on the other hand, there are basically only four companies thatanrill in theulf. it turns out tre arebout 100. if iis aalance, sort of a, let's raise it in a wayhat is reasonable, also cano, a cleanpa paid by themoney people that do the exploration to cover the cost of this bilsp, it is basically one tha is
the hands of the five different companies ando one else. host: chester on the democratic line in york, go ahead. caller: i am very disappointed with the way that the government this oil spiil. i am disappointed that allen. -- fadthad aallen. i am disappointed that they came out and said it w a small oil, and now they a was hoped to 110,000 barrs --p to00,000 barrels in the news. all the way of to the president, no one wants to tell the truth.
this bill is well over 10 times the eon valdez. and we see thad allen coming on the tv. he has no compassion. everyone down there, you wtch the impact the gulf and the response that they had. you start crying looking at the people there. we, as an american people, are of being told that everying is so compliced talk about an oil coany, which is the number- one oil company in the united states that does this. they know how much l is coming
up out of the ground. you cannot say that a business that is really well doenot much is coming out of the ground guest: i agree with you entirely. of the things that has been very frustrating is the the initial response. if someone got really angry, -- someone got really agry, resources would not be focused. i kept making phone calls and asking, do we know howuch oil is coming out? lo and behold, 5,000 barrels per day, plus the gas. now they said that they have tryened a federal board to calculate this. ybe i am wrong. maybe they never told us in previous phone conferences that brought this to get there. not in my recollection until we began to mention it. ht: what about bp's
responsibility to know how much is coming from tt wealth? guest: in faiess to everyone, to the scientists, say it ii hardero estimate denny might think. we he to also -- th you might think. if we he to ao acknowledge e physics. there is less external pressure and the gas oil expands as it comes to the surface. we know there is a the 9.75 injured diameter of the pie. -- inner diameter of thepipe. there is certain pressure gradient between the bottom and the top. all that to say, i can accept that it is a haer call to make. hand, it is should
have been started from day o. host: lincoln, neb., republican line. caller: i have 3 years' pxperience both as a record -- roughnecand a commercial diver gulf. and i have sent along possible solutions. i do not know if bp has not gotten them. i do not know. but the governor of louisiana, oot ground the aircraft until they find ut what is on.g the same thing is to be going on with the oil. those people need to work.
and with the jnes act, that should have gotten in there and start sucking the will of. guest: thi it strikes me doug from lincoln, nebska is working in the gulf. the fact is that there are people employed across the nation the flight to the gulf to work on these rigs. -- that fly to the gulf twork on these rigs. that is because there is good money to be made. and with a six month moratorium d all of tse people trying exist on welfare checks. is not what they want. i was told by the coast guard -- again, i have been told, i don' know. but that the skimming has been
delayed by the roughness of the seas, nothe ships. host: next call om indiana. caller: i want to talk about poible to clean up the oil and are only using certain things. i wonder about the new technologies that we are not usi, even though so many are saying they are the right thing toouse. guest: in 2003, there was a report put out called "oil and the c." by the research -- national research council. in doubt, they collaborate to at the best way -- in that, collabora to get the be way to handle oil in the ocean. the report indicated that this
not happen, bu nevertheless, it seemed reasonable. if we' going to doe if there is a spill.hat could is it better to disperse it at subsurface, olet it rise? there are folks that have given testimony and they're basically repeating the recommendations of 2003. now it can be done, and i think took 500 barls of oil out the north sea 500 feet below the surface and they released it would happen. you do not want to release it, but they diit to see what woul happen. that was not done in the waldrop deep -- in deep water. when these actions are not acted upon, that is frustrating.
host: and that is when in control.re gues this isbipartisan issue. this particular well was in february, 2009. will, this is an oba well.stration from initial permting and all the way through all its adjustments, it has been on this administration. that there is say bipartisan way in. -- a bipartisan blame. host: there is a report in the journal" that bp ways dividend cut. -- bp weighs dividend cut.
you think they should delay tha a dividend cut? guest: what they do with their dividend does not matter to me as long as they take care o everyone else. host: but if they're unable to ke care of that commitment? gut: then pay the dividend. what they do it after making whole, thats their business. but let's make everyone whole first. host: next call from new jersey. xdcaller: i understand of the budget is going to be cut in t next upcoming process. this is a clear reason why the coast guard budget xt be increased -- should be increased and brought more into theermitttng, research and
technologies, and more advanced booming, etc. the coast guard budget? est: i am a republican, no majority, but it does appear that it will be in the budget year. the democrac majority will not submit a budget this year. secondly, they will be reimbursed from the hospital expensesd for all related to the spill -- from the sll trust fund for all expenses related to the spill. one of the proposals is that nerness would split -- whatever they morph into because
they have spt into three agencies. obviously, i would hope that they would be funded to support the more prominent role. host: south carolina, democratic line, wendy. caller: you said earlier that there should be a 10% tax on liability to maintain smaller -- able to operatin the gul wt would happen if on of the smaller, independent companies have caused this lead? guest: every rrel ofilthat brought into the united states, i am told either by production or by importation on tanker, there is a small fee that goes into the oil spill
t fund. into the backstop for are unable -- they may be a $2 billion company, but unable to p for something that this might do. . . i agree with it. host: jonesboro, arkansas. caller: and good to bring up one. . if this trust fund is taking care of by the federal government, business this thing is a trust fund. the government spends all the money it gets in them grows more. there is no good thing as a trust fund.
>> the congressman has explained this trust fund is funded with money from the oil and gas company. >> one of the pressure the thinks about washington is that they are going to increase that the in order to increase the amount and the trust fund. escrow, full, for future spill, it's being used in t budgetary process as a pay go expanded entitlements. i actlly submitted an amendment to keep that from happening. ploiting the misery of the ieople in the gulf coast a pitical ieve goal of a fig leaf of fiscal responsibity texpand your g gernment safe. caller: that's not actually why alled. f there'sing e, i if to be a moratorium, it ought to be on the stipulations that put forth nt has the people of louisiana from doing anything g they can to
clean up their coast, to take ess, because you t.n't goacand change i it's there. it's happening. o be allowed total leeway to skim, to pick up, to r they to do whateve ry to clehis t host: congressman? guest: as a louisiana man, i harge.ou were in c he burn took 2 s to permit. now, if there had been a real kind of energy and focus, i don't think it shouldave ken 2 1/2 weeks. let's y at least a week, was interchange between the originallans, the etc. concerns, but 2 1/2 weeks. and then i'm told -- again, i've learned what i've been i know, but then i'm told the dredgers that would be used to make the burns are in the upper misssippi, n was il the decisio made, the dredging, they were not begun to be towed. now, clearly that's a lack of alacrity. you need a focus and energy in
2 response to shorten t 1/2-week period to a week. we in louisiana are frustrated by that. thank you for your sympathy. host: elville, new york. republican line. alex, good morning. caller: good morning. to reond to the issue of removing or raisi the notion that you p the liability high at $10 billion is going to preclude smaller , i think as dills ingenuous. what about t nion of ivate enterprise and buying insurance fothat? carolina om north mentioned earlier, if you had little comny and they created mess, the trust fund would cove it. well, private enterprise and insurance would fine. this wayt should underwrite e tt the nd make sur with lawsnd safety were there to figure their values. ucle he same with the n energy. we have limits on that for nuclear disasters.
that? ughts on guest: great response. i would say, if we could take rican dom of the ame it on to the el floor of the house of representatives, we'd all be better off. tothere would be a way rivate market in et a bond for that $10 million, tt would be a good response. ll look at the legislation t possesses such. host: congrsman, do you tweet? guest: i do. host: do we he on the journa we have one here. how long does it take for an b.p. to he size of get through u.s. red tape? best estimate. guest: well, it depends on what ou're speaking of. me of the concerns regarding -- let's back up. a drill, they get an ey apply a.d.p., an advanced permanent o drill. but whenhe when they make y getn fakedses, the advanced permit to modify.
now, one of the concerns is that, in the mes they were sending in to m.m.s. their modificationof their plan, and m.s. was sending them back in five minutes. "the wall stre journal" ur orted that, in a 24-ho period, the different p.m.'s were applied for. so in one sense, it didn't take them any time at all to cut through the retape. on the other hand, in this particular example, since there's been criticisms from withiindustry and witut at b.p. did and how they drilled, how they constructed that well, perhaps in this case there should have oversight. rous host: michigan, democratic line. bo good morning. caller: good morning. representative cassidy, is the fact truth to -- guest: i'vlost you, bob. host: we' going to have to on.
aller:aid that they thought the deral government ought to b.p. pay for this. guest: bob, i just caught the statement.f your did somebody say in the house that the federal government that? helb.p. pay for anybody say that. sayin the s government should take over b.p.? guest: well, people want the federal government to federalize the resnse, if you will. o aspects to the spect is and one a what's happeni at the sea level, where the well is actually lking. admiral thad allen has said, rightly so, the federal vernment does not have the resources, nor the expertise, experience, etc.to take over that operation. level of rpons at the sea be irightly industries, beuse we have the resources. now, in fairness, what the government has done is they put government experts, as well experts froother compaes to monitor what.p. is doing sure it's their best
effort, so we've been told. the other level of the you wil is how do we mitigatend prevent envinmtal disasters. now, accorng to the oil b.p. as a t, responsible party gets the main feder that, but the to rnment has the ability what to do. but again, that's, in a sense federalized, because thad allen to do, but . what b.p. still has se ability to, within that instruction, decide another. rse or right.all next phone call, hawaii, indepdent line. l, good morning. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. thank you for c-span. patient with me, a fend of mine who was a navy scientist in deep smergence assigned by the nixon administration to help resolve the il spill in santa barbara in 196 they basically
utilized seenage tent models for emerge incident -- you trol ust to rapid con the spillage. one ing he mentioned was that the vy doehave seetary of salvage, which was utilized only during problems like finding nuclear weapons underwar, but because submergence technollgy, they should have had a larger hand in understandi exactly sething of ve , eecially with tripleoint problems. said that they basically to look very carefully a having a much stronger tool chest, and the navy's deep e and secretary of salvage already have tools on the shel for these kind h oblems because they deal wit all the te. guest: again, our 3:00 conference call, which i've been fairly safe about bng
on, where no m.m.s. and coast , the specic re question w aed regarding d.o., or department o apabilities. those were considered. the traditional submari is not rated to go 800 feet below a level, and so -- and this ,000 feet. so they do need remotely operated vehicles. felt that those within industry were d to work designe wells. those in.o.d., if i guess they have them, for whatever . . host: next phone cal mount vernon, new york, republican line. you're on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'd like t engage represenve cassidy one-on-one if you'll entertain me. are you aware of any oil spills in the past that have occurred?
guest: oh, ok. caller: there was one in ecuador. guest: remind me of that one. caller: that was a deliberate act. and to this day, tre's an ongoinlawsuit between texaco, chevron, who at the time was texaco, between 30,000 ecuadorians for the deliberate outputting of at pollution, and it was 18 times the exxon valdez occurrence. so what is your response to th? th? i mean, these people are dog -- guest: you know, i d't know the particulars of that incident, but it does bring t mind some things that people bring up in general. folks say we need to stop the gulf of mexicorilling because we're too weded to fossil fuel what folkseed to realize is that if we stop drilling, we're not going to do away with fossil fuels, we're just going to import it, typically from opec nations, aspposed to produce it ourselves. and the other thing to kns thattat tickly, tanker spills
are three times more likely than drilling spills. that's true. tankers are more likely spill than are drills. and unlike drilling, where you kind of know w you're drilling, tankers can one of in any place, whether it's alask california,hode island, new jersey. jersey. tankerwill be all over the place. the coast of france. now, i think we need to alize, if we as a country make the decision to stop drillingn the gulf, we are also making the decision to import more oil, and statistically, importation via tankers is three times me likely t result in a spill. ow, folks have to adjust their thinking, but in reality, drilling is safer than transporting oil by tankers, andhat's hisrical statistics. so don't know the partilars of that, nathan, but i can comment in general regarding the environmental concerns.
host: one more call. cary, cincinnati, republin line. caller: i'm wondering why the relief well, or the relief well that they're gng to have ready in augus isn't a retirement beforthey drill the main well. guest: that's one othe suggestions that is floating out there, which is you simultaneously drill two wells. clearly that increases yr chance of leaking, ok? so it increases your chance of problems by two. on the other hand, if there re a problem, you would css over and be able to interrupt the flow in the leaking well. that's one of f the things bein
>> tomorrow, the author of "the state of nature," discusses a federal response to the oil spill in the gulf. an associated press reporter talked about the survey of the nation's economic condition. new republic editor franklin foer on how soccer explains the world. up next, the nato secretary general talks about the handle of -- handover of security to afghan forces. we will have remarks by u.s. secretary robert gates. after that, barney frank and others talk about a new report on defense spending.
ú? >> the nato secretary general said that a handover to nato forces could happen by the end of the -- afghan forces could happen by the end of the year. robert gates also talked to reporters after attending the meeting in brussels says that the counter insurgency in southern afghanistan considered a taliban stronghold needs more time to succeed. this is about 45 minutes. l ,
>> general mccrystal briefed us on the programs and operations. the assessment was very straight forward. the new strategy is working. it is delivering the intended results. the taliban is resisting every step of the way. the going is tough for our soldiers and for the afghan people. general mccrystal word from all around the table and he was equally straightforward.
it is said that an unstable afghanistan where terrorism can find a safe haven is a menace to all. because a stable afghanistan means a safer world, our focus today was on two issues, transition and training. afghanistan belongs to the afghans. the transition is not only desirable, it is inevitable. what we discussed today was how to ensure that it happens in the right way. we will agree in the coming weeks with the government on the details road map for conditions. three fundamental elements are already clear. transition does not mean
withdrawal of our forces. it means shifting towards supporting afghan forces and long-term training. the second, the military and civilian conditions have to be in place for transitions to be irreversible. we want those conditions to be in place as soon as possible. for this brings me to training. we have had a real success in our training efforts. we established the nato training mission about six months ago. 2300 trainers are required, many are already provided. we still need about 450. i have pushed them very hard to
dig deeper to ffnd the training is an investment in transition. the mar, training th dide sooner transition comes. sample populatn and smart investment. one look at the battlefield makes that clear. nine years ago, there was no afghan army. today therere over 130,000 afghan soldieron the ground and inhe fight. there are about 100,000 afghan police. that is a real success. as they get better at defending eir country, we will be able to tak on a suppting role.
ised on today's discussion, am sure that we will see more trainers soon. this morning, met the defense minist in the nato/tokyo commission. he hea a strong meessag of territorialgeorgia's integrity from all allies. if they think georgia for the strong contribution to the icef missions and they reiterated a toato's door remains open georgia when its meet the standards. thatay is not yet here.
there is a long road of reform still to follow. tehe elections were an encouraging sign. nato will continu to support the reforms. at is all from m i am ready to take questions. >>bc news. you said that you hopto the transition process which began the end of this year. do you think that'll happe given that things on the gund seem to be movi more slowly than you anticipated? >> i still think it is a realiscoal that the process can start b the end of this year. i have stressed that is a a condition and not calendar
based process. the trantion can start at the end of the year provided that the conditions permit a gradual ansfer of responsibility to the afghans. that is exactly my point. we have to wo hard from now on to make sure that the conditions are met. >> bloomberg. just a question of the opening of t supply route through russia and central asia. how quickly will is route be is the goal to ship the majority or is it the the the proportion of supplies to that route to avoid the more dangerous route to pakistan? >> i've is a, i canttgo into detas about the obviously, i
cannot go io details about our opational decisions. we will take advantage of all the transport routes available. as soon as possible. >> german press agency. two questions. he said he pushed ministers very hard -- part. how did they respond? did they promise more trainers? what do you expect? on the afgha army and pole, you told us about the quantity trained. yet not mentioned the quality. how would you rate the quality of the afghan forces? >> the two qstions are terlinked. an expsion of the capity, improvement of the cacity of the afghan security forces is that only a question about quantity. it is also a question about
quality. the quality is also about training and education. it is two sides of the same subject. i got a positive response. ministers agree training is key to fill our goalf starting transition and a process. the fourth generation is also a process. today we have had the political discussion. now our military authorities will renew their requests and initiate contactwith individual allies and partners. as i sd, am confident that we will see pledges in the coming weeks and months so that we can further expand the
capacity of our training mission. >> to questions. preeti a threeear. the afghan police is shown to be very much corpt and the afghan army is not really could do well. how can you fht corruption in the coming mons in the afghan force? how can you equip the afghan army in in just a few months? ishere a specific budget for increasing the quit since -- the equipment? >> lete say that i think the afghan army is doing a great job. afghan soldiers are good fighters. of course, part o the expansion of their capacity is there that
we gradually build up their military equipment. as far as the fight against corruption is conccrned, it is primarily a challenge for the afghan government. president caer's i kar --zai and the government -- karzai and the gernment have committed themselves against corruption. i am confident the afghan government will do its utmost to fight the corrupon. i fully agree tt it is k to establish confidence in government of in ortiz afghanistan. government authorities in ghanistan -- establish confidence i government
authorities in afghanistan. >> general mcchrystal is concerned of the rollback of some trips next year. he expects other allied countries to have similar plans and that it is rlistic. do you share thatssessment? do you expect othersto start growing back troops next year? >> this statement is not a new statement a new assessment. it has been clear for quite some time that 2011 will be a year fo evaluation of the troop surge. we have decided on a troop surge. in this interview, general
mcchrystalas stressed at the transition will be condition based. it will not be caldar driven. if we are in a position to change the role of icef troops during 2011, it will be because conditions permit and thcapacity of the afghan security forces has bee well developed that the afghan army and the afghan police can take on these responsibilities.
agenda. we discuss this sector reforms. we go beyond that with the reforms of the demratic system. they are off the judiciary. we discuss all aspects of reforms necessary to prepare a country for a possible future membership of nations. with regard to the summit, i think the most important message for couutries with aspirations will be at nato' door remains open. our policy is based onhe principle that eachndividual country has a right to decide
on its alliance affiliation itself. it is as simple as that. it is stated that the aiae may invite any democratic country tfurther the principles of natures. we bay and fig any such untry to join the alliance. -- we they fht any such country to join the alliance. we reiterate them at the summit. >> "wagton post." added follow-up question on trainers. you've been asking for these trainers for several months without much to show for it. why have nato members been so unwilling to revise the trainers that turkey to the strategy? aren't you getting frustrated at this time?
>> we are faced with a more basic problem. it is not lack of will. it is much more a lack of capacity. it is a new thing for nato allies to engage in such training missions. we established a training mission six months ago. to be a trainer, it ruires some specific skills. it is a gradual process. we have to adapt our alliance to this new task to train and educate local forces. i think we will deal with this aspect in the new concept.
new allies ve raised this as an issue for discussion. taking into consideration the need for training and education of local forces. they engage in such training activities. in my opinion, that is one of the lessons learned from ou ssion in afghanistan. in conclusion, it is not lack of will. it is in the short term a lack of capacity. we work ha to develop that capacity. in the longer-term perspective, i think it might lead to the conclusion that we need this training capacity as one and the nato's capabiliti.
>> the process and afghanistan is under review. how you see pakistan and the other neighboring countries? >> pakistan can pull a -- play a crucial role in our endeavors to improve the security situation afghanistan and to be very direct about it. we cannot solve the problems in afghanistan wiihout a positive and strong engagent of pakistan. but we takthis opportunity to -- l me take this opportunity to commend the pakistani military for their determined fights against extremism and terrorism inheorder region.
i would very much like to see cooperation with pakisn further developed in the coming years. we have already enged in an intensive high-level political dialogue. i would ao like to see an intensified military cooperation based on demand from pakistan. in conclusion, we need a strong partnership anwill grisham. -- and cooperation. >> our first priority is to provide air tops in the field the resources they need, sucas counteried capabilities.
during time of war and fiscal austerity, allther expenditures have to be closely scrutinized. it has been clear for some time now that neda has access infrastructure and outdated command rictures that bear little resemblance to oureal- world needs. in many ces, the current arrangement arranges th political news. you can no longer afford to use nato and job creation. instead, all decisions on reforming the military command structure must be based on military requirement to create a lean a flexible organization. the measures we mistake and n about cutting people and cost precipitous a day are about focusing on real reforms to achieve and create an effective
and efficient alliance. the defense has been grappling with the same challenge of balancing between cutting costs and maintaining key programs we realize the mess to everything to eliminate inefficiencies. the worst thing any of us cld do would be tried to save money. was vy encraged by the supporting of the'generals detailed ageeda. it cost over $5 billion a year into three. i also worked to make lasti ductions in the civilian/that nato headquarters. with his leadership, i believe
it will be bolder reforms. there is widespread agreement that we must adjust our institutional problems they need the will and courage to make tough but necessary desions. during so is crucial. >> a you comfortable with the opations in canada are k -- dahar? kan >> i think the key is to be uuafraid to show progress. but my expectation and focus is is that by the ended the year will be able to demonstrate that we have the right strateg a
that we are making progress throughout the country. it is going to be a long and difficult fight. the key is nothat there will be some and staged by the trafford began last june and will last through july. we are beginning to see significant progress in the river valley. rst from when t marines went in and for their self last summer. now the effort around mar . frankly, my estimation and expectation anhopes are based on what general mcchrystal tells me, notn what iell general
mcchrystal. >> we have heard a lot about the need for trainers but we have not heard any response on the queson is who will provide more trainers. given the number the u.s. is providing, are you satisfied with the european contribution toward you think the u.s. is carrying the weight on this? we are not carryinall the weight. a number of europeans are committing a secur -- a signiffcant number. that said, it seems to me particularly for those countries that cannot have a lar combat presence in afghanistan, that providing trainers is another way to serve and it is a need. the secretary-general made the point th morning the number of trainers and the growth in capabilities of the afghan national security force is directly tie to the pace that
we can proceed to the transition in different places in the country. what i havdone is provide a bridge of about 800 marines and soldiers as the trainers but i consider that a temporary solution until the europeans arrived this fall. also, to bridge the gap until more trainers are found. it is my intend that those additional american trainers willedeploy and come this fall point of i did not take that tion. >> after turkey rejted the sanctions on iran and the united nations, this s the first contact for the new defense minister. my question is will this be affecting theato support to
turk and the mediterranean? the israeli turkey tension, will this be affected? >> will be honest. i was disappointed. that said, turkey is a decade- long highlight of the unite states and nato. turkey continnes to play a critical role in the alliance. we he a strong military relationip wh turkey. we obviously have a relationship th turkey. allieso not always agree on things. i think we move forward and we
will just do tt. >> every organizati ithe world uses the wd efficiency as a euphemism for moving personnel. you seem to be contrary in saying it is not about doing that. for instance, combining four agencies into three. >>hen it came to the agencies and nato headquarters, i sd at dinn last night that the number of personnel has to come down on also said that to take
14 agencieand redraw the orgazation on a piece of paper and call that change. i have seen that too many times. that is really an excuse for no change. you call it sething different and it takes awhile to call that again. what is needed is changes in ways of doing business. reductions and personnel, and cost savings. i think that those are really+ essential requirements in terms of the changes. we cant expect signifint changes in the military command structure without also demanding personnel changes at the nato headquarters itself.
>> no has regained the initiative and afghanistan. >> i think clearly until last year, the taliban have the initiative. there is no question in my mind about that. i think w forget the historical context here. we basically won the war in afghanistan and t taliban in 2002 and the taliban fd to pakistan. what happened over the next three or four yearss btaki advantage of safe havens on the pakistan side of the border, the taliban were able to recotitute themselves to a level of violence thatncreased again in 2006. we saw tt when i took this
job in 2006 and said that i did not think we had paid enough attention to afghanistan and we added ather brigade. we added a further arican brigade in 200and brought the total troop numbers from when i arrived from about 17,000 to about 42,000. that had been authorized and lot d not arrived by the end of 28. th solution is sunday military and civilian side that afghanistan was neglected until to sell the -- until 2007. we took our eye off the ball. it gave the taliban the opportunity to capture the momentum. that is the condition with nd rselves in. here is where i frankly get impatient.
the lack of historical context st from the u.s. standpoint, the significant increase in military capabilitand presence only began dec. of 2009 and january of 2010. general mcchrystal has spent the last yr sorting out the situation and figuring out the right straty. as far as i am concerned, this endeavor began i fullnd reasonably resources only a few months ago the counter insurgency takes a good bit of time. we have places in the central elementhere bazaars are reopened and kids are going to school and kids are being immunized and marke he reopened. we are seeing some of these areas elsewhere.
you would not know you were in the same country if you were and some othe other cities in the country. frankly, there needs to be a more broad perspective. a nobody would deny that the signs of progress are tentative at thi point and that they are almost anecdotal. you see them and various places around the country. if you talk to the people that have been there a whilend are moving around the country as a whole, they agreed the situation is slowly beginning to impve. are recapturing the initiative. >> which among commenting on
that? i think this is first for nato. it is really all of the allies. nce it oped last yea we have probably delivered some more on the order of 14,000 units of equipment and supplies. it is substantial. the central asian states are playing a role in ound tranortation and others. >>can you say what is being
done or what should be done through nato in terms of where these -- were the eu fits into that? >> in istanbul, i made a mmitment to share training and intelligence and equipment to deal with ied's with our allies and partner nations. we are providing the training for seven nations which will grow to 11 the next w months. that training will start next week. we have gotten approval from3 we are going to buy 100 mrats.
mine resista and bush protected vehicles. we can share those -- ambush prected vehicles. we can share those with our allies. we can share access with tir computer networks that have all the lessons learned thawe have from ied's. we are setting up a situation where everybody in the alliance that the ploys tohanistan will have countered ied training. we have a lot morequipment in ple tbetter enable us to spot them being planted and to also help us track networks. >> many israeei officials are very anxious about iran and skeptical skeptical about the impact of sanctions. i was wondering how much time you think you have to show
sanctions can work and what do you do if they do not do the trick? >> i would say the israe skepticism is not exactly a new development. think that we are in very close touch with this -- with the israelis on the development in iran. the purpose of the sanctions and of the u.n. resolution is combined with diplomatic efforts to try to persuade the iranian government that their secury will aually be wor if they procd with nuclear weapons then if they do not because of proliferation in th region and the potentl for military action whether it is from israel or somepla else. >>e are staying in touch. i believe evebody agrees we have some more time, including this is really is. we will continue the best we can. i would say that most people say
that the i iraniansscou not really have a nuclear weapon for at least another year or two. i would say the intelligence estimates range from one to three years. that is different than but denies station or delivery system or anything like that. clearly, getting them to the threshold of having a weapon is what concerns everybody and not the other thing in that area. i would say there is a range between one and three years. thank u. [captioning pe >> >> tomorrow, we will discuss the federal response to the oil spill in the gulf. the associated press reporter talks about the federal reserve's survey of the nation's
economic condition. there has been growth in all parts of the country since the recession started. the new republic editor talks about how soccer explains the world. "washington journal," starts at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. omah>> on tuesday, we visited ap that is helping in the cleanup process. >> this is dutch but there are codes that are built and holland. i would like to believe that.
they will sit out almost like an excellent aircraft. each arm is about 60 feet long. the total set up is about 170 feet. since the arm is going forward and since they are rigid, they will pick up any kind of debris or anything that flows along the arms going into those basements. the pumped inside will start pumping in the oil. this goes up and down and we manually adjusted depending on the thickness of the oil. the nature of the pomp and the thickness of the oil demands a
little bit of water rolling through the pump in order to do this. as long as we pick up the oil, we pump it into the tanks behind us. we let it settle for a few minutes so the oil and the water has a chance to separate. we want this to have separated as much as we can. we'll have to go to the loading barges and they will discharge the recovered product. . >> we want to fight as much of this as possible.
these systems allow us to do that job. if we can minimize the impact to the shore, the marshes, the on- line ecosystems, that is what we want to do. this technology is just another set of those resources that we want to bring on board to collect as much oil as possible. >> coming up next, barney frank and a number of others talked about in a report on defense spending. then president obama outlined his initiative to create small after that, the new japanese prime minister meets with the news media. >> the democrats have run the congress and there was a certain
level of corruption that had taken hold. we are rallying against that. it is interesting that i would be the face of a similar type of corruption to a different group of people. >> alex gibney talks about corruption on capitol hill in his new documentary "casino jack." >> now we hear about a task force looking for options to cut the defense budget. barney frank, ron paul, have been been the task force. this is just over one hour. this i just over one hour.
>> it is easier to find ways to cut the defense department then to find this room. i as in the wrongart of the building. it took me awhile to give up. this is it imptant meeting. going to be giving out, i do notftenreach from a text but iyesterday's new york times, there's an article about the warn afghanistan and i came across this. officials regard support and afghanisas especially important at a time when man european countries, including britain and germany, are committed to sharp cuts in defense spending as part of eir drive to reduce huge government deficit in fact, two sundays ago, the times haan article about the european ability to sustain a
much higher lever -- level of expenditures for wt many consider quality of life for their own citizenand it mentioned they were able to do this becse they are sheltered by nato and the american nuclear umbrella. i am a gat supporter of president obama but he makes a serious error when he exams military spending from any budget constraints. secretary gatess talking about some changes witn thoverall amou and i welcome his moment there. he does not talk about reducing the overall amount. it is very clear that we cannot deal with the budget deficit over the longer term beginning now to make plans for scaling it backubstantially for the future without making substantial cuts in our military budget. nody here is for cutting bac on america paused national security. what we object to is the
equations of the current and projected pentagon budget with national security. you will hear from a number of very well informed experts. the identity there is a false one. i should note that this is an effort that is bipartisan in nature the house and senate are voting day so my colleagues are not here butenator brown widen and congressman ron paul and walter jones have been strong supporters of this. we believe that america has substantially overextended itself militarfar beyond what is necessary for our national security and with reason cooperation with allies that need us. a symbol of western europe. we continued to be heavily invested in western europe when
their budgets are significantly smaller percentages of their gd+ than ours. i doot know what it is we are protecting western europe from. i do not know why if there was a threat, it could not collectivelyith their budgets and populations defeed themlves except for the fact that having read tom sawyer, which was apparently translated into all of the nato languages, ey are happy to have america paint the fence and make us think we are doing an enormous favor by allowing us to do it. we continue to have substantially -- substantial weaponry that we have to defeat the soviet union in a nuclear war. that seems to be a place where we can still back. we insist on keeping marines on okinawa for purposes very unclear. it is true there are in efficiencies and we have people that are experts in that. those have to be pressed.
the point is, as far as enforcing efficiencies, but when you exempt any agency from budgetary discipline, it becomes hard to enforce and efficiencies. enforcing efficiency from outside is difficult. only when they know that there are limits to what they can spend that they join wholeheartedly in that effort. we have a debt reduction commission -- deficit reduction commission that will be formulating. it will be our intention to circulate a letter to our colleagues to be st to that commission saying we will not vote for a package that does not include substantial reductions in military expenditures going forward. we have a very thoughtful presentation which is the product of a group people who
are expert in this area and a range across the political spectrum and other issues. it talks about how to make substantial reductions from the planned expenditures i terms of scaling back commitments and deficiencies and sizing our weapons to the test that we do -- that doemain. we wilnot be asking mbers to sign on to every specific. we do intend to forward this to those who say we are being unrealistic that this is a very realistic and well informed example how these things can be done. people might want to substitute one for another. i do not bieve after this circulated that it will be possible for people to dismiss the argument that you cannot responsibly -- can responsibly and at no cost make reductions of over $1 trillion from what has been proposed for the military budge i will now ask my colleague, but
i stress this is one that denies people across the spectrum. i report some coaging signs. at a recent meeting we have weekly of the committee chairs, several of my colleagues said it is time to start -- start looking at a reduction in military expenditures. i believe some tax increases will be necessary going forward. i believe they should be on welfare people. there are areas that i would like to spend more on but i underssand there are constraints. if we do not ilude military spenng reduction of this magnitude and our longer-term deficit plans,e cnot reduce the deficit and irresponsible way. without come -- without some combination of taxs being too high where reductions in import quality of life issues. we hope this begins a serious debate and i challenge the
president on this, exempting the military from deficit reduction and reshuffling the way the spending goes which in and of itself is good, but it is not compatible with responsible deficit reduction. i will call on the representative and the panel will present to this rrport. thank you for inviting me to paul pit is on the issue of our budget deficit. if we are serious about tackling this important issue, the pentagon has loaded up the budget and it must be on the table. according to the congressional budget office projections, the
defense departmentil spend more than $7.50 trillion over the xt 10 years. that nisei that again. you all ow this. $7.50 trillion ovethe next 10 years. this is coming at the fiscal year alone, the pentagon will spend more than $700 billion, almost as much as congress bent onur entire recovery package. we're going to turn this economy around it and if we are going to do that so that we can invest in policies that will sustain the middle class and offer real opportunities to the next generation of americans, we must get rid of the runway defense spending that we have in this country.3 under control. we can begin by getting rid of
over budgeted an outdated weappnsystem ke the osprey. who needs an airplane that does not fly? and the marine expeditionary fighting vehicle that does not float. we do not need to those things. we have to get rid of them. from my point of view and many of us in congress,lthough it is not recommended in the task force report, we believe the reduce our budget deficit is by ending the wars in iraq and afghanistan where we have now spent $1 trillion. $1 trillion that could have been spent on our crumbling infrtructure, affordable health care, better education for our nation's youth. this report and the alternave budget which includes many of the same defense cuts represents a very essential starng point for discussion about our budget priorities.
i honor this committee when barney frank puts together a task force, it is the brains of this country. i t y for that. >> [applause] >> an approaching this, and realized it is importantor us to have a product that can be defended against people who will distort it. we are not talking about undercutti troops in the field. we're not talking about backing away from the fight against terrorism. we're talking about a realistic and hard-headed look of people from across the political spectrum about what are true security needs are and how we can said bridging sufficiently meet them. i am grateful for this group of peopll that have come together and then serious work for us. i will call on the executive director of the natiol security network. security network. she will begin the