Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
President Bush Signs Stimulus Bill; Roger Clemens Testifies on Capitol Hill
Aired February 13, 2008 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Let's go to the White House now. And President Bush, he is about to sign the economic stimulus bill into law.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have come together on a single mission, and that is to put the people's interests first. And I really do welcome the members of Congress, and I thank you for your hard work.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for your leadership.
Senator Reid, I thank you for the leadership as well.
I appreciate very much the fact that the vice president has joined us, along with Congressman Boehner, Congressman Hoyer, Senator Mitch McConnell, Congressman Roy Blunt, Congressman Jim Clyburn, and the other members of the House and the Senate.
You are welcome here in the people's house any time.
I am very grateful that members of my cabinet have joined us. Secretary Paulson was the leader and the negotiations on this.
I thank you very much for your hard work, Mr. Secretary. You're earning your pay.
(LAUGHTER)
I appreciate other members of my cabinet who have joined us as well.
You know, I know a lot of Americans are concerned about our economic future. Our overall economy has grown for six straight years, but that growth has clearly slowed.
And so in January, an important phone call with the leaders of the Congress to talk about whether or not we could come together to provide a booster shot for our economy, a package that is robust, temporary, and puts money back into the hands of American workers and businesses. Congress passed a really good piece of legislation, and they did so in a very expeditious manner.
The bill I am signing today is large enough to have an impact, amounting to more than $152 billion this year, or about 1 percent of GDP. The bill provides temporary tax incentives for businesses to make investments in their companies so that we create new jobs this year.
The bill provides individual tax relief in the form of tax rebates. These rebates will amount to as much as $600 for individuals and $1,200 for married couples, with additional rebates for families with children.
The members resisted the temptation to load up this bill with unrelated programs or unnecessary spending, and I appreciate that. I thank the members for acting quickly. I thank them for acting to provide immediate tax relief to the American people.
There are other ways we can work together to help our economy through this rough patch. I know many Americans are worried about meeting their mortgages. My administration is working to address this problem.
Last fall, for example, we brought together the Hope Now Alliance to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure. Yesterday, Secretaries Paulson and Jackson joined Hope Now in announcing what is called Project Lifeline. It's a targeted outreach effort to help more at-risk homeowners.
Congress can also help by passing legislation to reform the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, and to allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. I hope that Congress can act on these matters quickly.
Helping our economy requires to us take action. It is equally important that we not overreact.
Our economic success is not the result of wisdom of politicians in Washington, D.C., but of the collective wisdom of the American people. Shopkeepers, farmers, laborers, entrepreneurs in the private sector have given us the most -- the strongest and most resilient economic system in the world.
For the past seven years, this system has absorbed shocks -- recession, corporate scandals, terrorist attacks, global war. Yet, the genius of our system is that it can absorb such shocks and emerge even stronger.
In a dynamic market economy, there will always be times when we experience uncertainties and fluctuations, but so long as we pursue pro-growth policies that put faith in the American people, our economy will prosper and it will continue to be the marvel of the world.
Now I am honored to sign the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.
(APPLAUSE)
KEILAR: Let's head now to Kathleen Koch. She is at the White House, where President Bush has just signed this economic stimulus bill into law.
We want to figure out exactly what this bill is going to do. Now, this is, of course, a bipartisan effort in Congress. But, you know, some economists are really critical about whether this will actually do anything.
So let's -- Kathleen, if you can just tell us, what is in this bill for consumers?
KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, first of all, let's talk about what consumers, like you said, really want to know. And that's, will I get a tax rebate?
Now, basically how it breaks down is, for individuals, if you made between 3,000 and $75,000 a year in the year 2007, you will get between a $300 and a $600 rebate. Now, for married couples, as you heard the president mention, who earn up to $150,000, they will get a $1,200 rebate. Then for children there would be an additional $300.
And, of course, you also heard the president talk about the importance of these incentives that would go to businesses. Roughly a third of the $168 billion package, some $50 billion, will go to businesses around the country in the form of tax breaks.
And as you said, the $168 billion question is, will this really make a difference? Will this stop the country from slipping into recession?
That is part of why obviously Congress and the president, the administration, worked so quickly to craft this bill -- this deal, getting it together in less than three weeks. That is lightning speed on Capitol Hill.
So, when will the checks go out? The administration is saying starting in May, with the final runs reaching consumers perhaps at the end of the summer -- Brianna.
KEILAR: All right. Kathleen Koch there for us at the White House with the latest on the economic stimulus bill.
And then just one thing that's really interesting. IRS, at this point, trying to reach out to a whole lot of seniors who -- 20 million-plus seniors are expected to get a tax rebate in this. But a lot of them, if they don't make a whole lot of money, don't actually file their tax return, as you know, Kathleen. So, the IRS trying to tell them, file your tax return even if you don't normally, because if, you know, you have to file that tax return, that's what these rebates are based on, right?
KOCH: Quite so. And indeed, these were seniors who were added in at the last minute on the part of Senate Democrats. They really insisted these are people who need this money, they will spend this money. So they were not in the initial bill.
Also added in were some 250,000 disabled veterans and their widows. They will now get tax rebates as well. Democrats feeling that was really important to include them.
KEILAR: Yes, that's right. You only have to get -- make or earn about $3,000. That includes Social Security benefits. So that's the message for seniors out there -- make sure you're filing your 2007 tax return.
Thanks, Kathleen. Appreciate it.
KOCH: You bet.
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Also happening in Washington today, testimony from one of the most honored baseball pitchers of his generation, one of the all-time greats. Today Roger Clemens is facing one of the toughest challenges of his storied career, saving his reputation and defending himself under oath against claims that he used performance-enhancing drugs.
He took questions today from members of Congress, sitting just a few feet away from his former trainer, who is also his main accuser.
CNN's Larry Smith is on Capitol Hill, and he has more on today's testimony.
I can't say that I have seen anything like it, Larry.
LARRY SMITH, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: Oh, it's been crazy, Don. You know, we're just now beginning the fifth hour, and as I was talking earlier to someone else, I don't know if you really could declare a winner at this point, if that's what we're looking for. But let's face it, it's a he said/he said. It's been going on now for two months.
Now, just now at this moment, as we are checking out some live pictures here, Roger Clemens just read a statement from his wife talking about the time that she was injected with HGH, and this has come under scrutiny as part of these proceedings. She has been injected with HGH. They don't deny that. Roger Clemens says he has not.
Now the committee chairman, Henry Waxman, set the tone at the very start of this, this morning on Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: They both insist that they are telling the truth, but their accounts couldn't be more different. They don't disagree on a phone call or one meeting, they disagree on whether over a four -- whether over a period of four years, Mr. McNamee repeatedly injected Mr. Clemens with steroids and Human Growth Hormone.
It's impossible to believe that this is a simple misunderstanding. Someone isn't telling the truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMITH: Well, Roger Clemens is a seven-time Cy Young Award winner and one of the greatest pitchers of all time, and certainly delivered under pressure time and time again. But the pressure here has been nothing short of unbelievable. Among the things that have been argued, a boil on his rear end and how he got it; his wife's use of HGH; whether he was at Jose Canseco's house for a party back in June of 1998.
At the same time, Brian McNamee has been under fire as well. Check out this exchange between the former trainer, personal trainer of Clemens, and Indiana Representative Dan Burton.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DAN BURTON (R), INDIANA: I want to make sure I've got this straight. Your friend, Roger Clemens, you allegedly gave him these shots, you kept the pads and the needles for five years, and went on and kept working for him because he was your employer, and then you said you felt bad, you felt bad about proposing and giving these to the Mitchell Committee when you first started talking to them?
BRIAN MCNAMEE, FMR. MLB STRENGTH CONDITIONING COACH: Yes, sir.
BURTON: Gee whiz, are you kidding me?
MCNAMEE: No, sir.
BURTON: My goodness.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMITH: That was Dan Burton getting in his two cents on Brian McNamee. By the way, the lawmakers are very serious about this, because clearly one of them is not telling the truth. One could face perjury charges as a result of these hearings.
Let's go back to you.
LEMON: Larry Smith, thank you very much for that.
And we want to get back to the hearings live, where the panel is questioning Roger about -- Roger Clemens about his size over the past couple of years. They just used visual aids to demonstrate Roger Clemens' physical appearance just over the last couple of years.
Let's take a listen.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
WAXMAN: Mr. Clemens you don't know whether this is true or not. The question you were asked is, do you have a good regimen for physical exercise? Do you?
ROGER CLEMENS, BASEBALL PLAYER: I do.
WAXMAN: Obviously. You've been very successful.
CLEMENS: I'm sorry?
WAXMAN: You have been very successful as a baseball player, so you keep yourself in good shape, don't you?
CLEMENS: Without question. I take a lot of pride in it. It's...
WAXMAN: I see that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Murphy's time now.
REP. CHRISTOPHER MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all three of you for sustaining yourselves over this long period of time.
Listen, it's clear that someone's not telling the truth here, and I don't think I can invent or create any new questions to try to get at that -- that answer. So I just want to step back for a moment and ask a couple of questions of Mr. Sheeler (ph), and also Mr. Clemens about how we got here and really where we move forward from here.
Mr. Scheeler, we had some discussion earlier about the notice that was given to Mr. Clemens and people that worked for him, and there certainly seems to be some degree of confusion about who knew, and why that information didn't get to Mr. Clemens, why conversations did not happen between Mr. Clemens and the committee staff.
Can you just address this issue as to how notice was given and why there wasn't potentially a more aggressive effort made to try to get Mr. Clemens to come in and address some of these before his name was included along with the information in the report/
CHARLIE SCHEELER, MITCHELL REPORT INVESTIGATOR: Certainly. From the very first day of the investigation -- as a matter of fact, the press conference in which the investigation was announced, Senator Mitchell made it clear that he would give any person about whom allegations were made an opportunity to respond before anything was printed. As a practical matter, we were informed by Major League Baseball that all communications with current players such as Mr. Clemens had to go through the Players Association.
Those were the union rules, and we played by the rules.
So, in the summer of 2007, Senator Mitchell sent a letter to the Major League Baseball Players Association in which he requested the interviews of Roger Clemens and a number of others, and in which Senator Mitchell stated that we had evidence that Mr. Clemens has used performance-enhancing substances during -- sometime during the period of 1998 through 2001.
We received a letter back on August 8, 2007, from the Players Association in which they stated: "The following players have asked us to inform you that they respectfully decline your request for an interview at this time: Roger Clemens." And several others.
We did not stop there, however.
In October 2007, Senator Mitchell, myself, and others had a meeting with members of the Players Association, because the Players Association had stated that they weren't clear on Senator Mitchell's invitation that any player who came in would be provided the evidence which was -- which had been -- the allegations which had been stated against them, shown any checks, shown any money order, shown any corroborating evidence, and then be given a full and complete opportunity to respond.
So we had that meeting with them in October. And then we sent another letter.
Senator Mitchell sent another letter to the Players Association on October 22nd in which he stated, "To be clear, I have been and remain willing to meet with any player about whom allegations of performance-enhancing substance use have been made in order to provide those players with an opportunity to respond to those allegations. During the course of any such interview, I will inform the player of the evidence of his use, including permitting him to examine and answer questions about copies of any relevant checks, mailing receipts, or other documents, and give him an opportunity to respond."
Five weeks later, Senator Mitchell received another letter from the Players Association indicating that the players had been re- contacted, and he said some have been in direct contact with you, with Senator Mitchell -- which was accurate, some had. On behalf of the others we report that they continue to respectfully decline the request.
So I would submit that given the limitations which we had, which is to say we were required by the collective bargaining agreement to do our communications through the Players Association, we made repeated requests to Mr. Clemens and others, and we got repeated declinations. I would also add we sent -- Senator Mitchell sent a letter to all players, including Mr. Clemens, which were provided, asking anyone who wanted to come in and provide any information about steroids that they could come in.
MURPHY: I want to turn this over to Mr. Clemens, not on the specific issue of notice -- not on the specific issue of notice, but this, to me, and I think to a lot of baseball fans out there, seems to be another instance in which a lot of people are doubting the strategy and tactics of the Players Union. And listening to the testimony that they gave before this committee several weeks ago in which they made a claim -- Mr. Fehrer (ph) made a claim that essentially that the sole reason for the existence of the Players Union was to represent the employment rights of the players, not necessarily to represent the best interests of baseball.
I'd be interested, Mr. Clemens, just to get your sense on -- your opinion of how the Players Association and the union has conducted themselves in this process, and whether you have criticisms of the Players Association's willingness to sit down at the table. Because it's going to be their ability to move from these hearings, to sit down at the table and solve this, that is going to be the legacy of these hearings and this issue going forward.
I'd be interested in your opinion on that issue.
CLEMENS: Congressman, thank you.
I never received any of those letters on that topic there. And I -- again, I believe that baseball, the Players Association, the committee, I think everybody is working in the right direction to clean up our sport, baseball and sports in general.
I think it is very important that there's -- we send no message to the young kids about that. And I believe that the Players Association is well aware of that, and I believe it's going in the right direction.
MURPHY: Mr. Clemens, you don't think that the Players Association might have had a responsibility to make sure that you were notified that you were being offered a chance to talk to the Mitchell Commission? It seems to me as potentially the highest profile player that they received notice regarding. They had a little greater obligation than to just tell people that worked for you.
I mean, I would -- if I were you, I would be angry not just at the people that worked for me, but I'd be pretty angry at the Players Association as well.
CLEMENS: I understand. And from my understanding was, they asked Senator Mitchell and his people, staff, what have you, what it was concerning, and they said they would not tell them just to come down. That is what I've got.
MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
WAXMAN: Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
REP. VIRGINIA FOXX (R), NORTH CAROLINA: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry, too, if I could.
WAXMAN: Yes.
FOXX: Mr. Scheeler, I want to get a clarification on something you said, and then ask if we can make sure that we have exactly what you are saying.
You said that Senator Mitchell sent a notice -- and these were how I wrote it down -- "We had evidence that Mr. Clemens had used performance-enhancing drugs," or something, but the key word here is "evidence." You said, "We had evidence" that he had used it. You didn't say that we a had allegations that he had used it.
Now, I don't know technically evidence, allegations, but it seems to me that you all had made up your minds before you ever talked to Mr. Clemens. Is that a technical term, "we had evidence"? Wouldn't it have been appropriate to use "allegations"?
WAXMAN: Ms. Foxx, that isn't a parliamentary inquiry, but you asked your question.
FOXX: Well, allegations...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, but it's a great question.
SCHEELER: Well, let me -- just so that there is no misunderstanding, let me just quote what the letter said. This is a July 13, 2007, letter to the general counsel of the Players Association. We listed a number of players, and for Roger Clemens we stated, "We have received information that this player allegedly used performance-enhancing substances sometime between 1998 and 2001 while a member of the Toronto Blue Jays and New York Yankees.
Now, there were a number of other players mentioned as well. We had not...
FOXX: Mr. Chairman...
SCHEELER: ... made up our minds.
WAXMAN: I'm sorry, but we have to follow the regular order, and each member has five minutes, and you have had your five minutes.
FOXX: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this is part of the problem here.
WAXMAN: I'm sorry to be rude, but I think I have been more than generous. And I don't think it's fair. Other members aren't getting extra time to do that. We're only going one round.
Mr. Cummings.
REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), MARYLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clemens, I want to come back, because I've got to tell you that of all of the testimony and the things that I have read, and if I had to -- if I walked in here and it was even Steven between you and Mr. McNamee I must tell you the person that I believe most is Mr. Pettitte. You admit yourself that he is a good guy, he's a truthful guy. And there have been a number of things that make his testimony and his deposition, and that -- and his affidavit swing the balance over to Mr. McNamee. I've got to tell you -- and part of it comes from your own words.
Now, let me go back. This is about a conservation not regarding HGH, but steroids.
Mr. Pettitte told us about a conversation that took place in Mr. Pettitte's home in 2003-2004. Mr. Pettitte told us that Mr. McNamee said -- and I quote -- "He had gotten steroids for Roger."
Let me read to you from transcript of the deposition with Mr. Pettitte.
Question: "Did you have any reason to think Mr. McNamee wasn't being straight with you about that?" Answer: "No, I had no reason to think that."
Question: "Were you surprised?" Answer: "Yes. It surprised me when he said that. That was the first time I'd ever heard him say anything about steroids."
Mr. Clemens, you have stated that Mr. McNamee is lying about the use of steroids. If he is lying now, why would he have told Mr. Pettitte in 2003-2004 about your use of steroids?
CLEMENS: Congressman, I have no idea. Again, Mr. McNamee never told me about Andy Pettitte using HGH.
The running theme that I know of is that every time something came up -- again, a conservation with Jim Murray -- Brian McNamee said, "I'm trying to warn you, but don't tell Roger."
So I have -- I have no idea. All I am telling you is if Andy Pettitte thought that I had used HGH, our relationship was such that he would have come to me.
CUMMINGS: OK. You told us that several times.
CLEMENS: Yes, sir.
CUMMINGS: I got you that. I got it. I understand that.
Let me go into this -- you know, I have listened to you, and I've listened to you carefully. And again, I am trying to see where the strike the balance.
If I've got two people that are hard -- they're saying opposite things, I'm looking for an independent source to help me to look to try to figure out which side to believe. And I've got tot tell you, one of the most interesting things, and Mr. McNamee said it, and it's been borne out in the depositions, is that when McNamee gave testimony about Knoblauch and Pettitte, those allegations were borne out to be true.
And for some reason, your guy, who you admire, who you think that is one of the greatest guys, an honest guy, and everybody says he is a religious guy, when he -- although he -- when it comes to you, it's a whole other thing. You follow what I am saying?
So you are saying that Mr. McNamee lied about you, but he didn't lie about the other two.
How do you explain that?
CLEMENS: Again, Congressman, I am certain that when Andy Pettitte -- when Andy Pettitte used HGH, why didn't he tell me that he used HGH? I never learned about any of this?
I am -- Andy and I are close friends. We were playing travel mates. If he misheard me on a subject that I was talking about, some gentleman using HGH for quality of life, like I stated, then he misunderstood that. I am telling you, again, that he should have had no doubt in his mind when he came into the locker room when the Mitchell report was -- the "L.A. Times" report was released about having us implemented in that ordeal, he sat down and looked at me. I still at that time did not know...
CUMMINGS: My time is running out. I hear you, but my time is running out.
CLEMENS: ... that I -- again, he looked at me wringing his hands, white as a ghost, and asked me, "What are you going to tell them?" And I told him, "I'm going out there to tell the truth. I didn't use any of this stuff."
That alone should have taken Andy off any kind of wavering, or whatever he's had.
CUMMINGS: Well, again, as I said before, I have listened to you very carefully, and I take you at your word. And your word is that Andy Pettitte is an honest man. And his credibility pretty much impeccable.
Your lawyer says the same thing, but suddenly -- and the committee gave him time after time after time to clear up his testimony, and he consistently said the same thing under oath. Not only that, his wife.
He goes and tells his wife everything, and then she does an affidavit saying the same thing. But suddenly he misunderstood you.
All I am saying is it's hard to believe. It's hard to believe you, sir. I hate to say that as -- you're one of my heroes, but it's hard to believe you.
Thank you.
WAXMAN: The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Shays.
REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS (R), CONNECTICUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, and Mr. Ranking Member, for beginning these hearings in 2005.
I felt that the initiation of these hearings were spectacular in the sense that we finally got Major League Baseball to wake up, and the other sports as well. They originally refused to come in, in 2005, and they said we don't have -- you know, we have our rules and requirements, but they are not in writing. We found out they were in writing.
Then they said it was only a draft. We found it wasn't a draft.
They said that the standard was tough. And we looked at it and it was -- you were either suspended or fined, and it was 10 strikes and you were out. And so major improvements have happened since then.
I think the value of the Mitchell Report was that it said that things were pervasive. But this was not a document where the players had been, for instance, tested. Is that correct? You had no test results of any players that had had performance-enhancing drugs, is that correct Mr. Scheeler?
SCHEELER: It is correct that we did not have any test results prior to 2005. In 2005, test results became public, but prior to that, we did not.
SHAYS: Right. But my point is, most of these players, it's accusations and slips, and so on. I'm not suggesting where there is smoke there isn't fire...
SCHEELER: Sure.
SHAYS: ... but this is not a document that sends people to jail.
And my recollection of Mr. Mitchell's report was, he was saying, we've got a problem, we need to clean it up. And to start to go back and see about who you prosecute and so on. And his judgment, I think, was, you know, you would be going down in a wrong direction.
So now we have a player here, one player. There were 89 players. One player is here. And he is here, because...
LEMON: All right. You're listening to hearings in Washington, on Capitol Hill, into the steroid problem plaguing baseball. And Roger Clemens, of course, the star pitcher, testifying there, as well as his former trainer, Brian McNamee.
We're going to continue to follow this. If you would like to see this, you can go to our Web site at CNN.com.
But I want to tell you this -- the testimony is live and uninterrupted. Again, CNN.com. Or you can go to CNN Headline News.
Both of our sister platforms will have this. As a matter of fact, it's CNN.com/live. And then, of course, your local cable will tell you where you can find CNN Headlines News.
And we want to ask you this question as we go to break -- Who do you believe? That's the question we're posing today with a "Quick Vote" at CNN.com.
Is Roger Clemens telling the truth, or is the former trainer's account more credible? Or are neither of them telling the truth?
Log on to CNN.com and cast your vote.
Here is a voter breakdown as it stands right now. Nineteen percent of you believe Roger Clemens. Thirty-six percent of you believe Brian McNamee. And I guess that the rest would be neither.
We're back in a moment. You're watching CNN, the most trusted name in news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: All right. Obviously, this is the big story of the day, the testimony going on,on Capitol Hill and joining us now is attorney Stan Brand. Brand served as legal counsel for major league baseball back in 2005 during the congressional investigation into its steroid policies. Well, let's talk about the man at the center of all of this. Obviously there are two people, because his former trainer and him, Roger Clemens.
In the beginning and this is just my assessment and many people's assessment here in the NEWSROOM. He's a little bit shaky. They weren't exactly sure. He didn't appear to know exactly where he was going with the question. His attorney or his counsel had to sort of guide him on it, but appears he is kind of holding his own right now. Is that your a assessment, Mr. Brand?
STAN BRAND, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, these hearings are part theater and certainly an impression that you can get. I think again, at the end of the day, what people are going to focus on in the Justice Department is, can they discern who is telling the truth in a way that allows them to charge somebody?.
LEMON: You are sitting there, you're watching, you're watching the body language, you're listening to the testimony, who would you think is telling the truth right now? We just had our quick vote. Most of the people on that vote, they believe it is McNamee.
BRAND: You know I am a trial lawyer, by trade. I, you know, I put my stock in evidence and in jury verdicts and so I really couldn't speculate as to who is telling the truth. I don't think there is any way to know. Someone would have to marshal the facts and present them in a way that allows a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that someone isn't telling the truth.
LEMON: Yeah.
BRAND: That is a harder proposition than sitting there in a committee hearing with questions that are asked from, you know, all over the spectrum. And a lot more, a lot heavier burden.
LEMON: And Mr. Brand, I want to get back before we went to the president, I cut you off and you were making a very great point. We were talking about the report there, the Mitchell report and we were talking about how him, Roger Clemens voluntarily giving information and talking to people during that report may come back to bite him.
BRAND: Well, he declined, like all the players declined to talk to Senator Mitchell for obvious reasons. He couldn't be compelled to do so. Congress obviously can. His jeopardy here is again the Justice Department looking at this, deciding that either he or Mr. McNamee are not telling the truth and trying to marshal the evidence, circumstantial as it may be, to charge one of them with perjury. And that is the risk he runs.
LEMON: The risk is perjury.
BRAND: Yes.
LEMON: And as a trial lawyer, and what by what risk that means going to jail, obviously.
BRAND: We witnessed Scooter Libby and others who have been convicted of lying to Federal investigators. It is similar, it's a maximum five-year penalty and you know, serious jail time can be served by people who are convicted.
LEMON: OK. Mr. Brand, we are going to go back to the testimony. Stand by. Thanks.
CLEMENS: I understand that you are a student athlete, not an athlete student and then I put this man out in front to also say that same message to them. I want the kids to know that, that with hard work that you can achieve your goals, whatever it might be. Yes, you are going to fail. You are going to fall down. You are going to stumble and that is the message I try and preach to these kids, but you got to pick yourself up and go.
I want the kids that are out there listening, that they understand that, that there are no shortcuts, that steroids are bad for the body. Everything that we have heard about steroids, they are bad for you. They break you down. I believe it is a self-inflicted penalty. I want the children to know that.
REP. DIANE WATSON (D), CALIFORNIA: Mr. McNamee.
MCNAMEE: Yes.
WATSON: What did you think about the Mitchell report?
MCNAMEE: I think that it was a document that needed to be done, and it is not really up to me on what people's opinion of that is. All I know is I told the truth in that document.
WATSON: As you know, all of you were sworn in. That is what happens in this committee and if you don't speak the truth and there is evidence that showed that you were not telling the truth, you can be found guilty of perjury. And so what would you like to say to the public? This is all on C-span.
There have been at least 100 press people out there if not more, so this is going out across the nation and probably abroad as well. What would you like to say, not in your own defense, but about that report and about baseball to young people?
MCNAMEE: You are addressing the question to me?
WATSON: Yes.
MCNAMEE: I think that the report is maybe the first chapter in maybe a bigger document that would have to disclose more information on how much this really was involved, the drug use in baseball was involved and as far as young people, we really need to address that deeper in the roots of the younger peoples' coaching staffs and the parents. We need to educate parents what to look for. We need to educate high school coaches, youth ball coaches. We need to educate the college coaches.
Major league players, they're adults. They are going to make adult decisions. You have to get to the root of the problem. All the Mitchell report did was to scratch the surface of a much larger problem, but a least it started it. It is chapter one. So it is up to you guys. We are sitting here now.
Let's go back down to the grass roots of where baseball started if you want to get into the high school and the colleges and the youth balls. Let's educate the trainers. Let's educate the fathers, the mothers, the baby-sitters. Let's educate everybody about the signs of what to look for and what is going to be encouraging to these people as alternative methods.
WATSON: Let me just ask you this, because my time is running out, there is some pretty harsh things said just a few minutes about you. And what would you say about your own involvement in all of this? As a trainer, how would you describe your involvement?
MCNAMEE: Well, my involvement as I mentioned in my opening statement. I am not proud of it and I wish I wasn't here, but I am, so there has got to be something good to come out of this and hopefully it will start happening after this meeting.
WATSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D) CALIFORNIA: Thank you, Miss Watson. That concludes our questioning and our testimony. I want to recognize Mr. Davis for a concluding statement.
REP. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the witnesses. It's been a long day and I sure there were other things you would have preferred to have done today, but let me just say that the underlying report by Senator Mitchell I think remains largely intact. There is this bone of contention on this particular item that I think that we have tried to give some focus to today that I think we will have, doesn't in any way, shape or form I think take away from underlying recommendations that the report has made.
As far as this goes today, this has been I think a robust discussion, a lot of questions at issue and I guess history will judge that. Mr. Waxman and I will talk about how we handle it from here, but I want to thank both witnesses for being here, and I think that -- you know I have my own opinions on this, but I think sort of probably the viewing audience.
Our goal starting this was to send out the message that steroid use was dangerous, it was wrong, it was illegal and yet a million kids take it. Major league baseball has changed their policies and we are hoping they will change them again in light of the Mitchell recommendations and it's good to hear. The one thing you agree on is that you agree with that underlying recommendation, so I want to thank you both for coming here today and Mr. Chairman thank you for holding hearings.
WAXMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. We have worked together on this whole issue from the very beginning in 2005 when you were chairman and now that I am chairman and this is not anything that separates us as Democrats or Republicans. We all care about this issue. Each member and perhaps everyone in the audience who watches this hearings will reach his or her own conclusion, but this is what I think we have learned.
Chuck Knoblauch (ph) and Andy Pettitte confirmed what Brian McNamee told Senator Mitchell. We learned that conversations that Andy Pettitte believed he had with Roger Clemens about HGH and even though Mr. Clemens says his relationship with Mr. Pettitte was so close that they would know and share information with each other, evidently, Mr. Pettitte didn't believe what Mr. Clemens said in that 2005 conversation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it does not mean he was not mistaken, sir.
WAXMAN: Doesn't mean that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It does not mean that he would make mistake sir.
WAXMAN: Excuse me, but this is not your time to argue with me.
Evidently, he didn't believe it in your second conversation, because he went ahead and issued a statement to us as did his wife. Mr. McNamee, you have taken lot of hits today. In my view, some were fair and some were really unwarranted. There will be some members who will focus on your inconsistencies, but as Mr. Solder (ph) pointed out, that may not be unusual in these types of situations.
I want you to know that as chair of the committee, I appreciate all your cooperation with our investigation and I want to apologize to you for some of these comments that were made. The rules do not allow us to comment on each other when we have time that is yielded and a member can say whatever he or she wants in that five or 10-minute period of time.
I think people who look at this whole question will not just look at the conflict of testimony between the two of you, but others who have expressed views on this matter as well. But let me end by saying that we started this investigation on baseball to try to break that link of professional sports and the use of these drugs and we don't want to look at the past any longer in baseball and we didn't even want this hearing today as I indicated in my opening.
We want in the future to look at making sure that we don't have steroids, human growth hormone and other dangerous drugs used by professional sports who are role models to our kids, because they are seeing the culture of the clubhouse becoming the culture of the high school gym. That concludes our hearing today and we stand adjourned. Thank you.
LEMON: All right. Perhaps there, Mr. Waxman, talking about the reason we're having, he's having those hearings is because he doesn't want this to transfer really onto the little league field or into the high school baseball arena. So we will see where this goes from here but you are listening to testimony all day from star pitcher Roger Clemens and also from his former trainer Brian McNamee.
It has been a very interesting hearing and a very interesting day on Capitol Hill, one that concerns all of us. A lot of contentious moments, some moments where they both -- one was saying one thing, one was saying the thing and he was saying, you are not telling the truth and you are not telling the truth and they were sitting right next to each other contradicting each other. So very interesting day.
We are going to continue to follow this. Our Larry Smith has been following this all day. He is standing by for us and we will get to him in a little bit, as well as other experts who have been following this for CNN and we'll get some analysis from them, right here in the CNN NEWSROOM.
KEILAR: And in other news, as you know chlorine is a critical component when it comes to purifying drinking water, but in the hands of terrorists, it is a weapon of potentially deadly consequences.
Let's go now to CNN's Deborah Feyerick. She's joining us live for New York where an undercover investigation by the NYPD is highlighting a possible vulnerability.
Hi, Deb.
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey there, Brianna.
Well, indeed it is. What the NYPD did is they set up a fake company, a fake water purification company and an investigator went online and using a plain old credit card bought three 100-pound cylinders of chlorine. They were able to do this very easily.
The conclusion is that there were no barriers to prevent this kind of sale from taking place and clearly, that is a big concern to the NYPD especially because last year insurgents in Iraq used chlorine attaching it to explosive devices in at least 10 different attacks. I asked the police commissioner whether in fact he planned to crack down on these companies who are able to sell chlorine over the Internet.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAY KELLY, NEW YORK POLICE COMMISSIONER: Really is a Federal government issue. We need a national approach to this. That is what we are proposing and that is what homeland security is moving forward on doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: And the police commissioner has been lobbying the Department of Homeland Security to try to get some sort of rule which, in which the seller would have to ask and then check the identity of anybody purchasing chlorine. At least this way, they know who is actually buying it in the event sort of terrorist may want to use it in a potential attack.
And now chlorine gas can be very, very deadly. The NYPD has a very aggressive counterterrorism program, especially because they view New York City as such a high-value target and even though there is no new intelligence to suggest any possible chlorine attack here in the United States, clearly, something that the NYPD is looking at. They want to see where the holes are and how they might be able to tighten those loopholes. Brianna.
KEILAR: Definitely, just a mind boggling loophole there. Thanks for that report, Deb Feyerick in New York.
LEMON: Four masterpieces stolen from a Swiss museum, how and where can the crooks unload them? Insight from an expert in the NEWSROOM.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: You have just stolen $163 million worth of art from a Swiss museum. Because you like profits more than portraits, you need to get them out on the market, but cops are hot on your trail. And if there is a science to catching art thieves, well, Bob Spiel would know.
He's a stolen art investigator, also a former FBI agent who focused on these kinds of crimes and, Bob, the first question especially when you are looking at art that has been stolen this week, Degas, Cezanne, Van Gogh, why steal this art? A lot of people would think there really would be no buyers for it, that you really couldn't off load this onto someone who would buy it. Is that the case?
ROBERT SPIEL, STOLEN ART INVESTIGATOR: Actually that is one of the most common myths we encounter in our type of work and especially when you have the impressionists and the post impressionists who did so many versions of everything, it is hard to be sure what you are buying is not actually legitimate.
KEILAR: Now is it a matter of maybe unwittingly acquiring this, paying for art or is it possible that a buyer could complicit in these thefts?
SPIEL: It is possible, but most of the time it is unwitting.
KEILAR: So who would buy it? I mean, you run the risk of, if you buy it and you show it to your friends and maybe one of them notices that it is stolen. I mean obviously you're running a real risk. Who might purchase this?
SPIELD: Well, that would be true, it would be a risk, but if you buying it unwittingly, you don't care about that anyway and if you are buying it knowingly, then yes, it is a risk.
KEILAR: But what happens if unwittingly if you buy it and you acquire this art, no doubt you paid millions of dollars for it and then the next thing you know you are stuck in this situation with stolen art on your wall. Is there any recourse? SPIEL: Under our legal system, you don't have any except to find the person who stole it presumably and sold it to you.
KEILAR: But obviously, the -- I mean the safe way to do it right would be to go through an auction house. You are not going to be maybe purchasing it directly from the owner. Would not be as safe of a bet?
SPIEL: Not necessarily, I am afraid. Auction houses in very recent years have started doing some basic checks to see if the objects that are brought to them are stolen, but those checks are by no means 100 percent of what is stolen out there.
KEILAR: And I know that back in 2004, in Norway Edvard Monk's "The Scream" was stolen. However you know, obviously as you know, because I know you had some insight and some involvement in the case. It was recovered, but what about this most recent theft, the Cezanne, art by Degas, Monet, Van Gogh and also last week two Picassos that were stolen. What do you think the chances are that these works are going to recovered or are they lost forever?
SPIEL: No, as I say the odds of recovering them are about 20 percent which is better than most things, but not as good as some. For example, that is nowhere near the odds that you would get with stolen cars.
KEILAR: So I mean, talk about really what is being lost here. In a way this is history that is being lost essentially.
SPIEL: Yes, that is true. In the Boston area, if a student or a school child wants to see a true Vermeer they're not going to find one.
KEILAR: And that really begs the question, I mean, I think when we heard about this here in the newsroom, a lot of us talked about that movie "The Thomas Crown Affair." I mean there was amazing security in the museum where that heist took place, but I wondering, obviously, that is not the case in museums. It's sort of baffling that someone could run in and steal something as has happened before in the last week.
SPIEL: I have never seen a museum secured as well as it was in "The Thomas Crown Affair" and in this case, when you are dealing with an armed robbery, a lot of that security doesn't help.
KEILAR: Of course, no, of course, this is not "The Thomas Crown Affair." This is real life for sure but just a tragedy that these things have been lost and we really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. Bob Spiel, really appreciate it. Thanks.
SPIEL: Glad to help.
LEMON: The writers strike is over. What does that mean for your favorite TV shows other than the CNN NEWSROOM of course? We have to get that in, but first, where do all of those plastic soda bottles go after recycling trucks haul them away? Well, we end up walking all over them, a lot of them. CNN's Miles O'Brien explains.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN CHIEF TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It is getting harder and harder to sweep our environmental problems under the rug. So, why not weave them into the fabric? Here at Mohawk Carpet, they are turning plastic drink bottles into carpet.
TOM LAPE, PRES., MOHAWK RESIDENTIAL: This product by using recycled polyester gives us the opportunity to really use an alternative to an oil-based product.
O'BRIEN: Mohawk uses 14,000 plastic drink bottles every minute, about a third of all the recycled bottles in the U.S. to make Everstand (ph) carpet. Mohawk buys the old bottles by the bale. They are broken up, sorted by color, then chipped, cleaned, melted, molded into threads and spun into yarns.
JENNY CROSS, MOHAWK: This becomes the basis of your carpet. This is what you walk on. It doesn't look or feel anything like a plastic bottle now.
O'BRIEN: Plastic bottles are a huge environmental problem. The bottles used for water alone consume 47 million gallons of oil and generate 1.5 million tons of waste, but the bottles are high quality plastic. They make great carpet at the same cost.
LAPE: So think we are getting the best of both worlds which is environmental solution and an economic solution to the waste issue.
O'BRIEN: But Americans only recycle about one in four of the plastic bottles they use. Sadly, our landfills are carpeted with the solution that is going to waste.
Miles O'Brien, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Are they writing? It looks like they are writing. Do you see any pencils there, Brianna?
KEILAR: I do. I don't know if they are writing our favorite television scripts though. That would be nice.
LEMON: Let's hope. They are probably using like little keypads or something, but back to work they go. The Writers Guild of America voting to end its 100-day strike after finally reaching a deal with studios and producers. The agreement covers the writers share of profits from new media like the Internet and mobile phones. It doesn't resolve the union's issues with animation and reality fare, but leaders say it is the best deal they have been able to achieve in about 30 years. CNN covers the Oscar race. Who do you think will win? Who is nominated? Choose at cnn.com by playing our inside the envelope prediction game. You can win some great prizes and challenge your friends as well. That's at cnn/ite.
KEILAR: The most decorated pitcher of his generation under oath in the hot seat on Capitol Hill. Highlights from Roger Clemens' testimony straight ahead.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxantshop.com
