quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous

consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i believe we are now on a motion to proceed to s. 3457, is that correct? the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk i ask to have reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 3476, a bill to require the secretary of veterans affairs to establish a veterans job corps, and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators as follows -- reid of nevada, kerry, sanders, conrad, franken, udall of new mexico, coons, begich, murray, nelson of florida, klobuchar, carper, menendez, webb, gillibrand, merkley and reed of rie. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived and the vote with respect to this motion occur at 2:15 p.m. on tuesday, september 11. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: i announce, mr. president, consent that we proceed to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that on monday, september 10, 5:00 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 664, that there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nomination. that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. there being no intervening action or debate and no further motion be in order. any related statements be printed in the record, and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session. we are in executive session, aren't we? yes. the presiding officer: no, we are not. mr. reid: then i ask that we move to executive session to consider the following nominations -- calendar number 450, 609, 709, 718, 719, 720,

723, 725 -- let's see. 720, 723, 825, 826, 827, 831, 837, 838, 841, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 868, 869, 872, 874 and all nominations placed on the secretary's desk in the foreign service. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: excuse me, mr. president. be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. there being no intervening action or debate, and that no further motion be in order to any of the nominations and any related statements be printed in the record and that president

obama be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent the following nominations under the privileged section of the executive calendar be considered -- president's nomination 1513, which is -- who is ingrid gregg of michigan to be on the board of trustees for the harry s. truman scholarship foundation, presidential nominee 1514, james l. henderson of kentucky, board of trustees for the harry s. truman scholarship foundation, that the nomination be confirmed, motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate and no further motions be in order to the nomination that any related statements be printed in the record and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the government affairs committee be discharged of consideration of presidential nomination 1731, kimberly

knowles to be a circuit giuliani in the district of columbia, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. there being no intervening action or debate, that no further motion be in order to the nomination and any related statements printed in the record and that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be darmingd from further consideration of nomination 826, james b. cunningham of new york to be the

ambassador to the islamic republic of afghanistan, that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and no further motions be in order to the nomination and any related statements be printed in the record, that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. nomination in case i misread it, mr. president, is nomination 826, james b. cunningham. looks like 1826. sorry, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i'm glad i got a little help. if the senate adjourns under s. connecticut res. 59 sconce -- s. con. res. all nomination nominations received during the 112th session remain in status quo notwithstanding the provisions

of rule 31, paragraph 6 of the standing rules of the senate with the following exception, presidential nomination 1727. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 458. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 458, h.r. 4240, an act to reauthorize the north korean human rights act of 2004 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i further ask the bill be read a third time and the senate proceed to vote on this -- passage of this bill. the presiding officer: all in favor say aye. all those opposed say nay. the ayes have it. the bill is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask the senate proceed to s. con. res. 58, to correct the enrollment.

h.r. 4240 submitted earlier today by senator kerry, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening, any statements be placed in the record as if read at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask we have the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 3245 and that we forthwith proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3245 a bill to permanently reauthorize the eb-5 regional center program and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is darmingd and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the leahy-grassley substitute amendment be agreed to, read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: and that there be no intervening action or debate and any statements appear in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to h.r. 1402. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1402, an act to authorize the architect of the capitol to establish battery recharging stations and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, any statements be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent the commerce committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3670. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. h.r. 3670 an act to require the transportation security administration to comply with the uniformed services employment and reemployment rights act. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i further ask the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and

any statements appear in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask that we proceed to calendar number 432. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. calendar number 432, senate resolution 402 condemning joseph kony and the lord's resistance army and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask that the committee reported amendment be withdrawn, the coons intament be agreed to --, substitute amendment be agreed to, the amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no no intervenig action or debate, any statements related to this matter be printed in the record at a the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the armed services committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 418. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. senate resolution 418 condemning the 80 brave men who became known -- commending the 80 brave men who became known as the doolittle tokyo raiders and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask the brown of ohio substitute amendment be dwroot agreed to, the amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the brown of ohio title amendment at the desk be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and if there are any statements in this matter they be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 528. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution

524, reaffirming the united states for conduct in the south china sea and so forth. the presiding officer: the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the webb amendment to the preamble which is at the desk be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, and any related statements be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed en bloc to the following resolutions, s. res. 545, 546, and 547. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate shall proceed to the measure. en bloc. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that these resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, there be no intervening action or debate and any statements related to these resolutions be printed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of h. con. res. 135. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. h. con. res. 135, concurrent resolution authorizing the resolution of the rotunda of the capitol for the presentation of the congressional gold medal and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate shall proceed to the measure. mr. reid: the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. con. res. 59. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 59 providing for congressional adjournment or recess of the senate and adjournment of the house of representatives. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, and any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for

its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 3519, a bill to require sponsoring senators to pay the printing costs of ceremonial and commemorative senate resolutions. mr. reid: i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar but i object under rule 14 to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the legislation will be read for the second time on the nebs legislative day. mr. reid: i ask notwithstanding -- i ask unanimous consent notwithstanding the upcoming recess or adjournment of the senate, the president of the senate, the president pro tempore of the senate, the majority and minorities leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two houses or by order of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the senate's recess, committees be authorized to report legislative and executive matters on

tuesday, august 28 from 12:00 noon until 2:00 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that from thursday, august 2, through monday, september 10, the majority leader and senators webb, reed of rhode island, conrad and cardin be authorized to sign dual enrolled bills or resolutions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent -- mr. president, we have just a -- one -- few more things to do. i want to just take a minute and express my appreciation -- and i speak for all senators -- that ashley mezek, who sits right here in front of us and has for awhile -- seven years. honestly, mr. president, it seems she just came yesterday. i really -- i really mean that. you know, it's -- it's -- she has added a lot of vibrancy to

this body here. she's always pleasant and nice. and she is -- she has always been available to me even though she sits on the republican side and i think to everyone else. so i really, i'm happy for her in one way. she's leaving because she fell in love and is married. and i'm very happy for her. but, mr. president, we are really a small group of people at this front desk that do so much to make this place run properly, and even though she's been here seven years -- this will be something i'm confident that will be with her the rest of her life. and i'm grateful to her for her attitude and her professionalism and i wish her the very, very best. we've had a wonderful group of summer pages, mr. president. i'm so glad we have these young men and women. as i've said a number of times

and i repeat tonight, two of my grandchildren have been pages. wonderful, life-altering experiences for them. and so i now, i've had another grandchild, my grandson is one of the summer pages and he's had a great time. so i'm glad we have the page program. they're helpful to us and i wish them the very best and i hope their experiences are as good as my three grandchildren's experience. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn and convene for pro forma sessions only with no business conducted on the following dates and times and the following each pro forma session, the senate adjourn until the next pro forma session. friday, august 3 at 10:15 a.m. tuesday, august 7, at 11:00 a.m. friday, august 10 at 11:00 a.m. tuesday, august 14, at 2:30 p.m. friday, august 17, at 11:30 a.m. tuesday, august 21, at 10:00 a.m. friday, august 24 although 10:00

a.m. tuesday, august 28, at 2:30 p.m. friday, august 31, 11:30 a.m. tuesday, september 4, 11:30 a.m. and friday, september 7, at 12:00 noon. that the senate adjourn on friday, september 7 until 2:00 p.m. on monday, september 10. unless the senate has received a message from the house it has adopted s. con. res. 59, which is the adjournment resolution. if the senate receives such a message, the senate adjourn until monday, september 10, at 2:00 p.m. under the provisions of s. con. res. 59. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that the majority leader be recognized and senators be permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. and that at 5:00 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, if pro forma sessions are necessary and it appears they are -- the house turned down the adjournment resolutions -- senators should be aware that starting tuesday, august 7, the pro forma sessions will be held in hart 216 while

repairs are made in the senate chambers. -- chamber. the next roll call vote will be at 5:30 p.m. on monday, september 10, on confirmation of the rose nomination. additionally, this evening, cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to s. 3457, the vets jobs corps act. that will -- vote will be at 2:15 p.m. on tuesday, september 11. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:15 a.m. tomorrow unless the senate receives a message from the house that it has adopted senate concurrent resolution 59, in which case the senate stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, september 10, 2012, under the provisions of senate under the provisions of senate

>> now, the house natural resources committee questions

react to interior department inspector general, mary kendall and her involvement in the administration's temporary freeze on deepwater join after the vp still appeared to 2010 interior department report claimed that outside engineer expect to freeze, even though they have. secretary salazar later apologized for the mistake. this is two hours and 45 minutes. >> the committee will come to order. the cherry notes the presence of a quorum, which undergo 3-d is to members. a appreciate your here. we are meeting to hear testimony in an oversight hearing on oversight of the actions, independent and accountability of the acting inspector general of the department of interior. under committee rules for s., opening statements are limited to the chairman of breaking member of the committee.

however, i ask unanimous consent that any members who wish to have a statement in the record have it bite close of business today, without objection so ordered. i now recognize myself for five minutes. two years ago, members of this committee called on the department of interior's acting inspector general to conduct an investigation in the departments may, 20 to moratorium report executive summary that was edited to appear as though the six-month drilling moratorium was supported by engineering experience, when it was not. after initially declining, the ig ultimately agreed to conduct an investigation, any page report issued five months later confirmed the white house officials were responsible for editing report executive summary, but the ig was unable to independently verify whether the authors intended to mislead the public. since becoming chairman, this

committee has been conducting an investigation into the editing of this reported how the moratorium decision was made. along the way, troubling questions have a prison about the thoroughness and dependency at the ig investigation as well as the ig's unwillingness to fully cooperate with the committee's investigation. the inspector general act of 1970 requires the ig to be independent, cooperate with and provide information to congress and protect whistleblowers. since then, ig is an independent watchdog of the executive branch. there are legitimate questions that this independence in this case is being compromised. this includes refusal of the acting ig to provide documents by the committee based on the perceived grounds that the administration may exert executive privilege to withhold these documents. this was done without the acting ig authors ever been informed by the administration of its intentions to assert actual

executive privilege or ever acquiring if the administration had any such intention. in addition, the documents by the committee raise red flags about the ig's investigation into the drilling moratorium report. the detail how they were not able to obtain all of the documents that may have been relevant to their investigation and they were not allowed to interview secretary salazar or white house staff involved in editing the report. to quote one such e-mail a lead investigator and directly quoting now, i am deeply concerned that this is yet another example of how a double standard is being followed in this investigation in granting great difference to the secretary's office that would not be granted to any other department boroughs are employees, end quote. another e-mail affiliate

investigator wrote and i again directly quote, i truly believe the editing was intentional. limited over again. i truly believe the editing was intentional by an overzealous staffer at the white house. in a fast, i is a case agent, would be happy to state that opinion to anyone interested. unquote. the thoroughness of the ig's investigation is very important. the ag report is used by the ovonic ministration is a defense in this matter has been investigated and resolved and in reality the department has never had to disclose documents or answer questions on why -- how is why this report was edited. it is important to learn more today about the acting ig's exact role in the participation in the board in the process that produced the drilling moratorium report. in ttimony before this committee in 2010, ms. kendall stated she was not involved in

the process of developing this report. however, this statement appears inconsistent with documents showing she attended meetings with senior department officials developing the report. receiving address of the report in advance of its release and accepted an invitation by the department to serve on the secretaries ocs the safety oversight board. i have to question the ability to be impartial and investigate a manner no one admits to having direct knowledge and involved with including direct interaction with the very political appointees on the matter be investigated. this does not strike me as a type of independent role that ig's are expected to serve. this raises a bigger question about the role of the night the ig. the question is whether an ig in an acting capacity can truly be impartial and investigate ministration, will open in expressing desire to be a permanent ig and of course th

position is nominated by the president. to be clear, these are not questions bradley about employees and investigators in the office, but rather about the leadership and administration of the office. britain and the testimony of the acting ig seeks to provide a defense and explanation of certain actions, but in several instances raises yet more questions. it is hoped that direct answers will be forthcoming, though we are prepared to take the necessary steps, including those that extend beyond today's hearing to ensure that we receive all of the facts. and with akamai recognize the distinguished ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. i am giving my remarks today while playing the bp's bill kim.

i'm not doing this not because i like watching millions of pairs of oil -- and to america's waters and pollute our shores, but rather to help my republican colleagues remember the year they now seem to have completely forgotten. it is bad enough that the republican house has not passed a single piece of legislation to improve the safety of offshore drilling. last week, republicans passed two bills that would put the american people at greater risk of another devastating oil spill. one bill would force us to rush new drilling off the beaches of california, maine, new hampshire, massachusetts, rhode island, connecticut, new york, new jersey, maryland and other

states, all without any new safety reforms. the other, the republican regulatory freeze act with block all manner of health, safety and environmental protections, including new safeguard being developed by the department of interior to improve the safety requirements for offshore blowout preventers cementing casing and well-designed. compared to these bills, the investigation we are dealing with today has the advantage of being trivial. but it's no less misguided. we should be thanking today's witnesses for helping to highlight important safety reforms at the interior department and prevent another catastrophic spill from ever happening again.

but the committee republicans aren't interested in looking up reforms to improve the safety of offshore drilling. instead, we are here to investigate the investigation of the 2-year-old copy and paste mistake. nearly 30 days after the bp's bill with oil still gushing into the goals, administration officials worked late into the night on a report from the secretary of interior site to be released to the next day that offered recommendations to the president on how to respond. between the hours of 11:00 p.m., 3:00 a.m., tax was moved around the executive summary in a way that created ambiguity about whether the reported external peer reviewers, many of whom consulted for the actual drilling industries supported a six-month moratorium on drilling in the gulf of mexico. the reviewers endorse an

undefined temporary pause in deepwater drilling, but did not review the recommendation of a six-month moratorium. when some of the external reviewers expressed concerns about the executive summary, secretary salazar immediately sent public apology letters to god, clarifying that the recommendation for a six-month moratorium was his alone, secretary salazar. congressional republicans including around as the office of inspector general to investigate whether the edits were intentional and politically motivated. the oig reviewed drafts of the report. e-mails exchanged between the department of interior in the white house an interview. viewers as well as department of interior employees involved in the editing. the conclusion, there was no

evidence of wrongdoing. not satisfied with this conclusion, the committee majority has responded a turning its investigation to the acting inspector general, mary kendall. but the majority's problem is not really with ms. kendall at some of the white house or interior department either. the majority's problem is with the facts. the facts don't show what the majority wants the show. so now, all that is left is to investigate the investigation. i want to close again by reminding the majority of what is happening at this time. look at these monitors. this is what secretary salazar and the others in the administration were trying to stop. this is what they wanted to prevent from ever happening

again. and this is what we in this committee should be working to prevent. this is under the jurisdiction of this committee, to put the safety measures in place to make sure it does not happen again. and this is what this committee has avoided doing for two years. i'm trying to protect against a repetition. instead, the majority is wasting the committee's time on this trivial and baseless investigation of an investigation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman for his statement and i want to welcome the acting inspector general of the u.s. department of interior, this mary kendall. thank you for being here. you've been in front of the committee before, so you know how the lights were, but let me remind you again. your false statement will appear in the record. we all have your extensive false statement.

when the green light comes on, the five-minute click start five-minute click start so many 30 seconds then i would ask you to keep your remarks within that timeframe if you could. so with that, welcome and you're recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, good morning thank you for holding this hearing today. as you know, designated without regard to political affiliation and selling on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in a number of fields pursuant to section three of the ig act. section two of the act establishes independence and object to be expectations. although neither appointed the designated generals are expected to conduct himself with integrity, independence and objectivity in a nonpartisan manner. for the past four months, i have weathered the scrutiny of this committee, which has used a unilateral approach to investigate me by requesting public documents from the office of inspector general, drawing

conclusions from those documents without all the facts and presenting those conclusions to the public via press release, challenging my integrity, independence and objectivity. therefore welcome the opportunity to testify today, respond to questions and present all the facts as we know them. the letter requesting my attendance at the series that i should be prepared to answer questions about my role relative to the six-month drilling moratorium in the gulf of mexico, following the deepwater rights in disaster. the oig investigation into perceived misrepresentation of the moratorium decision had been peer reviewed or her response to a committee subpoena for documents with the independence and effectiveness of an acting inspector general in my previous testimony before the committee. in short i can answer these issues as follows. i stand behind the oig investigation into the allegations that doi senior officials in an effort to help justify their decision to impose

a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling misrepresented that the moratorium was revered and supported by the national academy of engineering scientists and industry experts. the selection misrepresentation is contained only in the executive summary of report commonly called the 30 day report. therefore the executive summary was the focus of the oig investigation. the question of whether there was intentional misrepresentation came down to a review of e-mails exchanged between doi and the white house in the late hours of may 26 and early hours of may 27, 2010 in which the executive summary was updated. these e-mails revealed no evidence that the executive summary was intentionally edited to the readers to believe the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed. this committee is posted on its website a number of e-mails from the case agents who investigated the the peer review issue that suggests he was not allowed to conduct every investigative step he wanted to take.

none of the agent's complaint was made known to me during the course of the investigation. had they been brought to my attention that would've addressed them directly with the case agent, but in the yen, based on what the case is represented to me i was confident that our investigation was well done, thoroughly to the point which is precisely what i expressed to the case agent directly in e-mails. until this matter in my 26 years with the federal government, i have never experienced an instance in which executive privilege came into play. we've since learned that the process by which such differences are positioned between the legislative and executive branches are resolved is both links and complex. i reiterate my position that the dispute between this committee -- is between this committee and the department. documents are not the oig's. neither is the privilege the oig to either assert our ways. as acting inspector general i have to exercise all the

independence and objectivity necessary to meet the oig mission. i have elected to exercise this independence and objectivity in a way that maintains a healthy tension between the oig department we oversee. i believe however that independence and objectivity are not compromised by respect a relationship with both the department and the congress, the two entities are your church is keeping fully informed pursuant to the ig act. as a result we have affected a great deal of positive change over the past three years by working with the department in the spirit of respect to achieve such change. although i testified before this committee numerous times, i assume the questions relate to my testimony on june 17, 2010. about which the committee has said it has serious questions. i address those questions my literature and 27, 2012 to the committee and in my formal statement today. mr. chairman, i hope we can

adjourn today have been addressed all the questions the committee may have about me. although the questions you've raised about me reflect on the oig has been clear if they are about me if nothing else from the title of this hearing today. mr. chairman, i have been an attorney and member of the berkeley standing approaching 30 years. i've been a public servant for over 26 years, all but three of those in the law enforcement arena, where without blemish to my record. i was born and raised in the midwest overruns on her and word are sacrosanct. the past 17 weeks have been the most painful and difficult of my entire career, not only because the attacks on my personal integrity, but because this has eclipsed all the outstanding work at the oig has done and continues to do. this concludes my remarks. i request my corrected formal statement be accepted into the record and i am prepared to answer any questions the members of the committee may have.

>> thank you or do much for statement. your false statement will appear in the record. i too hope the outcome you express is an outcome that we can have with the members here. there are concerns i mentioned. i may recognize myself then first for five minutes. you know, ms. kendall that i significant concerns about the how the ig's investigation was handled and about your conflicting participation on the safety oversight board. the ig was designed to be an independent watchdog. your involvement in the safety oversight board, a policy body changes that roll in my view. cannot roll you you became an appointment policymaker. in this capacity, you're repeatedly interacted with political appointees who wrote the report and executive

summary. you were the first-person witness to that process. it is very difficult to understand how you cannot see how good dual roles are in conflict. you were supposed to be the independent and objective investigator. you stated that your statement. but when you are participating in meetings or conference calls are receiving draft documents on this very same issue that your office may be asked to investigate and of course then did investigate, it is clear your primary function was compromised. do you do not see this participation as an apparent conflict of interest or something that would raise questions about your independence. is that action are those actions have troubled me the most. so my question are why didn't you decline the administration's request to serve on the state he oversight board when it was clear that he would place the

integrity and independence of the ig's office in question? >> mr. chairman, i recognize the potential for an apparent conflict of interest at the outset of my acceptance as a member of the safety oversight board. but the department was responding to a crisis. i did not think it appropriate for me to say no, you go ahead and do with this crisis and i'll just stand by. >> i have a short time here. but by your own admission, by your own at nation you are unfamiliar with the details of what is the reason that she wanted to be involved in the whole process to bring yourself up today. is is that correct? >> i participated in informational meetings to bring my cell phone today. >> on issues he didn't know anything about. >> get your accepting a policy

position within the administration. let me ask this. >> i did not participate in policy decisions. >> it was not a policy board, sir. it was a board asked to bring safety recommendations. >> right, which is policy. that is policy. can you provide an example of when -- prior times the ig's have participated in policy groups like this? >> i do not have an example on the top of my head, but i would like to note that the ig became one of the most effective tool is the department head because of my participation on this board. and our massive evaluation of the outer continental shelf operations, we served as the basis of both the ocs board report in september -- >> exactly. that is exactly the point. you are working side-by-side. in other words, you are working

on policy. as soon as they arise questions raised on this summary, which we ask you to look at, and considering that she worked right alongside the people and investigate it, why didn't she recuse herself after we had asked you and knowing that your participation -- why didn't she recused herself from the executive summary in the editing and so forth? >> i did not participate in either the 30 day report. >> i know you didn't, but there are people that were involved with that. i'm asked this question then. did you -- did the people that were investigating, you're ig inspectors, did they know you had participated prior to the executive summary and had conversations and documents? today know that? >> i don't know that.

i do know that, sir. i actually had an e-mail that i received from the case agent to send in your role as a member of the safety oversight board if there's anything i can do to help i'd like to. >> have you provided back to the committee? >> i would so. >> but you don't know? >> i don't know. >> my time is running out, but it appears there's conflict when the role of the ig has expanded to a political policies, which i think is happening. congress they believed in me the ig be an independent watchdog of the administration. that is the intent of the law. but a query they shored raises more questions in my time is clearly expired come as i recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

ms. kendall, this committee voted yesterday to subpoena five interior department officials. your office interview two of these officials as part of your investigation. steve black and neocon car. do you have any evidence that mr. black or mr. kam kar were being untruthful when they told your office that there was no intention to mislead in the editing of the report? >> no, we do not. >> the remaining three individuals voted to subpoena on meerkat to a sheet cruickshank and kaylee hanley. is there any reason to believe that any one of these people is important information related to this investigation? >> i have no information to believe they were involved in either the 30 day report or executive summary. >> the core function of ig is to

improve the effectiveness and efficiency of department programs and to uncover fraud, waste and abuse. in many ways, ig has looked out for the taxpayer to make sure they get their money's worth from the federal government. how much of your offices time and resources have been concerned responding to the majority's investigation of this one issue? ..

related to the bp spill, including cases labeled halliburton and bp scam, testing, a blowout preventer and bp safety failures and policies. can you tell the committee about your investigations into the deepwater horizon spill and what you have found? >> the criminal investigation continues to be ongoing, so i cannot comment on that. we have also -- >> did you say criminal? >> criminal. that is the investigation being conducted with the department of justice. we also conducted an investigation with the department of justice on the civil side. the three that you mentioned are not familiar to me. i am not sure that those are ones that came from our office,

but they sound like some that have been conducted by some other agencies. >> could you expand a little bit on what this criminal investigation is looking at? >> i really can't, because it is ongoing, but i am hopeful that it will come to fruition in the fairly near future. >> you served on the outer continental shelf safety oversight board. can you describe the situation when you join that board? >> the board was passed with basically overseeing the investigation into the deepwater horizon defense, and to provide the secretary with safety recommendations to improve the outer continental shelf's operations in oversight by the department. >> so can you describe your role in the role of the office of inspector general in carrying out the mission of the board? >> i offered, and then cast

minds tire central region to conduct a comprehensive review of the outer continental shelf operations that are overseen by the department of the interior. some 60 people spent three months, very short timeframe to conduct this comprehensive review and they provided findings and recommendations as we do as an in the yag, to the safety oversight board, which adopted them for themselves to issue their september report and then the oig issued almost an exact but a little more detailed report of its own in december of 2010. >> thank you. now in this role were you in any way called in the drafting or editing of the 30-day report or the exec summary xpi was not. >> do you think your independents were in any way compromised with respect to your subsequent work looking into the editing of the executive summary?

>> i do not. >> we thank we we thank you in e thank you or your work. your comments about the ongoing criminal investigation involving all of those companies and we saw the pictures of what they did in this crime against the environment, the greatest in history of our country. that is where the work should eat on this committee. we should find out who did it. we should have them sitting here under oath, the ceos of each of those companies. that has not happened in the year and a half and we are waiting for that and the american people are waiting for this committee to do their job. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado, ms. lamborn. >> ms. kendall and want to take us back to june 17, 2010 oversight subcommittee hearing we had in this room. i asked you as he investigated general was -- moratorium report. use the gnome on to add that you were not involved in developing

reporting i would like to show a video clip. would you please show exhibit six? number six. >> i was not involved in the process of developing that report and i think it was -- would be inappropriate for me to comment on it. >> i don't want to make any suggestion that you were involved so you could be a disinterested objective observer because there needs to be an investigation. >> so i think you would agree and the inspector general needs to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. since that hearing there've been significant questions raised about whether you cross that line and in turn whether you're june 2010 statement might have been misleading. for example a number of e-mails and calendar entries have come to light showing that you have access to drafts of the drilling moratorium report in the days

before it was finalized. you also attended meetings with both the peer reviewers and the same senior department officials who were later subjects of the ig's investigation but only three weeks after the report was issued you sat here in that clip we just saw that you were not involved in the process of developing the report. after these questions were first raised in may of this year, you wrote to the committee to say that you did attend a number of these meetings in order to learn about offshore drilling in your role as a member of the secretaries ocs safety oversight board and that quote and none of these information gathering meetings that i attended was the substance of the 30-day report discussed. so i'm curious what happened in these meetings. for example there was a meeting on may 17 of that year that you were invited by, that you are invited to steve black, concert to the secretary and lead author of the report. he was one of the people who was

part of this investigation. could you show exhibit seven, please? so on the agenda you will see in the red box to the right, document to be reviewed and also discussion on documents. and then there is a follow up e-mail from mr. black to you and other sending a draft of the reports recommendations and asking for comments and suggested changes quote raced on your own work to date and today's conversation. exhibit eight, please. and then thank you for participating in a call today with the nat identified experts. i am grateful for your coents and any suggested changes by close of business tomorrow based on your own work to these conversations and lastly, there's another e-mail from mr. black to you where he thanks you for your participation. exhibit nine, please.

and thank you for your own kind words mary and for your participation in so many of the meetings and interviews leading up to this report. your effort has been enormously impressive, by the way. okay my questions, do you still stand by your june 2010 testimony that you were not involved in the process of developing this drilling moratorium report? >> i do. >> and would you agree that an inspector general needs to avoid any -- this is just a rhetorical question, any appearance or actual conflict of interest and lack of independence? >> i do. >> okay. considering or significant role in working closely with members of the safety oversight lord, do you think you should have recused herself from investigating the moratorium and the editing of the report to avoid any suggestion that the investigation was compromised?

>> to this day i do not. >> when you testified before the committee that you were not involved in the end i quote process of developing the report unquote do you believe that the process of developing the report includes meeting with the peer reviewers, which you had done before your testimony? >> i attended that meeting for informational purposes as i did with very many others where he learned about deepwater drilling, blowout preventers, drilling pressure testing, negative pressure testing, complexities and orchestrating rates worldwide. these were the things i attended these meetings for. i did not participate in developing the 30-day report or the executive summary. >> i would have done it differently. i would have met with experts that were not subject to investigation gotten briefed by them on the technical issues. do you see finally, do you see

how people could raise questions that you have been too close to the department to be objective and that you were actually able to aggressively investigate the moratorium decision and editing? >> in the context of the crisis in which the department was responding at the time, i do not. >> thank you. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chairman recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. whole. >> evidently the majority here does not, did not like the conclusions of the report, and so they turned this into an investigation with a number of subpoenas and now the testimony of the acting inspector general. as i said here yesterday, it is ludicrous. it must look really silly to

people outside looking at this. so here we are spending committee time subpoenaing people, calling them in because in the preliminary edition of the report, the word pause was used and in the final report, a more official sounding bird, moratorium, was used. you know yesterday i went through at great length. synonyms for moratorium, which would include pause. i don't see anything that varies here. it's simply that the majority did not like the conclusion, and they'd want to discredit the report. and unfortunately try to discredit some hard-working, conscientious, all touristic public servants, and i thank you

for coming ms. kendall and i'm sorry you have to go through this. let me run through a few questions. been the case agent finished a draft of the report, you reviewed that and with an eye toward editing it. is that correct? >> i edited almost every report that left our office. >> and so this was standard as you always do? >> absolutely. >> after you finished editing you sent your editions back to the case agent and asked him if he had any issues with your changes and he responded quote your e-mail language about the exchange between the department of the interior and the white house was far simpler than my own yet i believe it clearly captured our findings. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> if the case agent had concerns, she didn't communicate them to you at that time, which

was the obvious opportunity for him to do that. >> the case agent never committed any concerns during the course of the investigation i met with him at the very and to talk about his findings. he did not express any concerns at that time. >> okay. do you think -- and so, there is now discussion by my colleagues and others about whether the editing was intentional by an overzealous white house staffer. do you think that there is evidence to be gained if we conduct a more thorough investigation? is there more to be brought to light or do you think that all the facts that are out there have been considered in your investigation? >> we got and reviewed the e-mail exchange in which the editing was done where the

moratorium appeared to have been been -- we have reviewed those. they did not indicate anything that it was intentional. the case agent has an opinion apparently now that it was. the evidence did not show that. >> the case agent has actually stated that he has an opinion, and that his opinion -- yes, and that he calls his position and opinion. >> i don't know that he calls it an opinion. he states it. >> again few more questions. did you review the work with the case agent? >> i did not. >> w the investigation your opinion.? >> it was. >> did you find any evidence of wrongdoing? >> we found no evidence that the changes to the executive summary to make it look like it was

peer-reviewed, the moratorium was peer-reviewed was intentional. >> in the preparation of the report, were you pressured, asked, directed in any way influenced to go easy on the administrative? >> i had no conversations with the department about the report until it was issued. i mean i let them know that we were doing it that i did not talk to the department about the report itself until it was issued. >> in your 26 years as a public servant is this the first time anyone has questioned your impartiality or professionalism or completeness? >> yes. >> well, i wish i had little more time now to let you say what i think you are entitled to say about these allegations that your work is not reliable or without integrity. i hope this committee will give you a full opportunityes work ai

yield my my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. >> thank you mr. chairman. we have had a question asked a couple of times, why are we here? so that my colleagues will understand why we are here, and so they understand from somebody that ent down all around the coast area after this disaster. the biggest disaster to the coastal area came not from the oil that was escaping. it came from the order of this president to have a moratorium on shallow-water drilling that put thousands and thousands of people out of work, put thousands and thousands of people into poverty, put thousands and thousands of people into needy situations because this president acted on the recommendations of experts who did not make those

recommendations. so i think it is critically important that we find out more about the process, and i appreciate the inspector general's position. but it is sufficient to ask individuals if they were involved or if there was a problem, and i think it would come as great news and comfort to investigators all over the country, including the criminal investigators that we have been told are moving forward. if they knew that all they have to do is not gather evidence, not look at hard drives as people were directed not to do in this case, as we see from the e-mails, and as they were directed not to review e-mails of people who were involved, and as we have seen from the e-mail by richard laramie, where he says in a letter, as you know i

was directed to not ask for secretary counselor steve blocks e-mail that contained the actual drafts returned by the white house, even though he told us he had them if we wanted them. so let me ask you, who directed mr. laramie not to request those e-mails and not to review hard drives? >> i don't know. >> but did you investigate who might have directed him not to acquire those e-mails? wouldn't that have been important from an inspector general standpoint? >> he did receive the e-mails. these are the e-mails we are talking about. >> the question is who directed him not to? >> sir, i don't know that. >> so would it be important to know why richard laramie was lying if he received e-mails that he said he was not? with that cause you concerns with his inconsistency? >> if i may, steve black's first

interview with the case agent, he offered the e-mails to the -- >> key points that out and i have covered that. i am asking you who directed at? he points out that he was told by black that he could have them and he was directed by somebody not to give the e-mails. who directed that? >> he chose not to accept them at the time. >> so he lied when he said he was drafted not to ask for them. wouldn't that be worth investigating, why you are saying richard laramie glide in this letter that he wrote and where he said i was directed not to ask them? >> i would be interested in knowing who he said that to. >> don't you have the authority to ask that question? >> sir, i have not done anything to put this case agent in jeopardy, because he is -- >> mama would submit to you that you have done nothing to put anybody in jeopardy and your job

is to investigate the fact, and if somebody is worthy of being put in jeopardy you do so. man, heard you say that in fact he said, gee, i recognize my potential for a conflict of interest but we were in a crisis, and i could not sit by and do nothing, so that tells us he did participate. you couldn't sit by and did nothing whereas mama would tell you that as a judge in chief just as there were times i saw lawyers not doing an effective job or an investigator not doing what he should have, but i've knew i could not compromise my position because it was too important. so i didn't jump in and do those jobs. that is what an inspector general is supposed to do. make sure, as you said -- i recognize my potential for conflicts of interest and you should have protected that. so as a result, we have a report

that costs thousands and thousands of people more misery than the oil that was coming out of the floor did or could we can't even find most of that now and i would submit to you that you should first do no harm and you could have avoided the harm if you had help this get the inventory. you have complained about how long this is going on but i would submit to you that if you are consistent, it didn't go on long at all and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes gentleman from georgia, mr. broun. >> in march 2009 president obama president obama issued a memorandum expressing how important it was for the public to be able to trust policy decisions being made and clinical appointees should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings or conclusions. i am very troubled that the moratorium decisions -- and

political officials at the department or the white house altered the 30-day report to incorrectly suggests that peer reviewers have endorsed the moratorium when they scientifically did not. to the contrary the obama administration's own scientific integrity policies aggressively investigated scientific integrity violations of the past administrations. but it seems to have -- been less aggressive in pursuing this investigation. so do you agree that it's inappropriate for a political appointees to alter or suppress scientific findings or conclusions? >> i do. >> a are there ever any situations where it would be appropriate for a political appointee to alter technical or scientific information? >> i can't think of any.

>> ms. kendall, it has happened. this administrations transparency seems to be another word for their transparency is opaque. miss candle part of the purpose of this hearing is to get a better understanding of how the office of general inspector has operated in the last three and a half years with an acting inspector general. one topic i would like to discuss is the role that the ig plays in inspecting ethics complaints. the ig office conducted a number of investigations on officials in the previous administration including its own secretary and deputy secretary and i hope your office is pursuing its complaints against officials in the current administration just as aggressively. is interesting as understand of the epics program provides ethics advice and tracks conflicts of interest and financial disclosures from

department officials which offices are the ones that handles the investigation into whether department officials have violated ethics laws. this is one area where i can see the importance of a strong working relationship between the department and the ig. does your office get referrals from the departments office of ethics programs for further investigations? >> we do. >> when a complaint is received, what is the process and investigating an ethics complaint? is it the same for other program integrity investigations meaning you review the complaint and decide whether an investigation should be opened? >> yes. >> what is the process? >> the process is almost every case but we reviewed allegations and determine whether or not it's something that falls within the scope of what we have

defined as the high-risk cases and if it does, we will accept it for investigation. most ethics cases to fall within that. >> and you can let me know how you make that decision about which you do or do not. how many ethics complaints does the ig receive any given year for an investigation how many of these referrals from the departments have these programs compare to whistleblower complaints -- complaints? >> i don't have that answer but i can get it to. >> i appreciate that. how often are these cases referred to the department of justice for criminal prosecution and having made any referrals at all within the past three and a half years? >> to the department of justice? not that i'm aware of, no. see how often are these cases referred? >> quite rarely and -- >> how about in the previous administration how many were referred to the department of

justice? they would have to get back to you on that. >> i appreciate that but you have automate almost zero referrals in the last three years, is that correct? >> i think that's correct but i'd like to be able to confirm that. >> how come you haven't referred any? are there no ethics violations in this administration at all? >> we have had several ethics cases that we have investigated and actually as i'm thinking about it, most of the time we will referred them usually expecting declination so we may have heard some of those. i would have to get back to. >> please do. my time is running out but if you can follow up and provide for this committee it was the complaints of the ethics violations, you have it referred to any, but have been referred to you, or otherwise been received by your office in the past three years as well as the status of any investigation of any complaint or referral, would you do that for as?

>> we can do that. >> can you do that within the next two weeks period of time? >> two weeks? i think we can. >> the time the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes dr. fleming. >> thank you mr. chairman. ms. kendall, the underlying question here is this 30-day report and whether or not it was manipulated to show something that really didn't exist which is the blue-ribbon panel as though to make it appear as though they agreed that there should be a moratorium. now it lacks credibility. the reason why is because after this came out, but president still issued a moratorium and then beyond that, it got into court and the president failed in court. and then, once the moratoria

ended, the moratoria period ended, then we had have it period of what we call -- foot-dragging and even today we have seen tens of thousands of jobs lost, rakes that have gone elsewhere and i would argue have been at more risk environmentally because they are going to countries that don't have a level of regulations and oversight that we do. but i agree with mr. gohmert. the real damage here has been done by the administration itself to prevent people from maintaining, keeping and acquiring good jobs and we have lost that in many cases forever. my question for you is, you are acting inspector general as i understand it. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> you wish to be appointed to be, to actually actually be an appointee of the administration in this position?

>> i have expressed an interest, yes. >> okay, so in effect you have the role of investigating potentially the same administration that would be potentially selecting you for the job. is that correct? >> he essentially, yes. >> okay. than then have you not been really in an auditioning kind of position to audition for the administration, and would that not be a conflict of interest? >> i have an interest in being nominated and confirmed, but i want to do this for the oig is an organization. certainly not because i'm having a really -- >> a but what it makes sense to make the president mad at you? is that correct? >> you know, there's a potential for conflict of interest perhaps here but i have seen many of my colleagues rise from the position of ig without conflict. >> but not under this president.

>> under this president as well. >> can you give me an example of? >> i would say the department of -- well he went to a different agency but the department of justice deputy ig. >> and if that person before being promoted or transferred, to this person come out with some negative finding finding or investigate the frustration with an adverse finding? >> i'm guessing, yes. >> yeah, sounds like pure speculation so i will accept that. we don't have a good example of that occurring at all. also when it makes sense that since you were co-opted to be in the policy arm of this, and really disengaged from the investigation, that really you were part of the policy from the get-go, what we learned in fact and a lot of the facts that we have come out with now shows that the lead investigator was the one who had the concern, although we didn't know about

this until we uncovered e-mails. so it really appears in your testimony and they documentation that we have, is that while you were engaged in the policy side of things, but the lead investigator below you was not in good communication with u.n. certainly and you admit that you didn't even know about that. ..

from the department of interior, is that now? >> also to improve the operation. >> primarily to investigate anything fraud waste and abuse, any legal obligations going on. you have investigators on a good indications. >> and improve operations of department of the interior. >> ever see the answers are unsatisfactory. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mrs. kendall, i'd like to focus on the climate basis studies. according to your letter, used a quote given the comprehensiveness of the governing agreements, the transparency given to the process and the complete absence to date of the manner in which the effort is proceeding, the oic does not have plans to conduct reviews at this time.

>> correct. >> we have not received any. >> the scandal, on february 24, 11 page complaint complaints out of the loop executive secretary and regulatory affairs and department of interior. the simpleminded, scientific and scholarly misconduct relating to river dam removal. secretarial determination process. it was dr. paul howser at george mason university was at the time the bureau of reclamation science advisor in science integrity officer, specifically documented intentional falsification of results contained up to september 21, 2011 summary of the draft eis and related scientific anticircumvention that ensures integrity of science and scholarship and scientific and

scholarly integrity. given the well-documented complaints of political tampering with scientific data made by the official directly responsible for overseeing the scientific integrity of the studies. there's been a complete absence of any complaints about the manner in which the climate basis that he is proceeding absolutely stunning. i ask you again, have there been a complete absence today because of the preceding? >> perhaps i needed to be more complete to the inspector general's office. if that complaint was referred to it, i was not aware of it. >> wouldn't that be a prime interest she inspector general's office? wouldn't they be somewhat concerned that such allegations by an official responsible for the scientific integrity of the

studies? >> yes, sir. >> mr. chairman, i has to insert in the record a letter to july 20 and the complaint filed by dr. house february 24. >> without objection. >> has a department of interior complaint in the plains by others alleging scientific integrity removal of the dam's? >> i would not know what the department has received necessary. usually i would have to go back and check. >> one of the concerns expressed at this hearing and elsewhere, ms. kendall, is a complete lack of focus on the principle responsibilities and inspector general. this report, these allegations have scientific falsifications, scientific data were not exactly a secret. they are mr. chairman i ask

unanimous consent to insert into the record the capital price than the daily caller. >> no objection to appear the record. >> did you not consider -- you have said she would consider this adventurous but you have not looked into it. >> i think it is something you should look into it. >> why haven't you looked into a? >> i'm not aware of it, sir. >> had few or anyone in your office to your knowledge, any discussion of the secretary's office, including chief of staff about dr. house's complaint or your investigation of it?

>> none that i'm familiar with, no. >> in the list of complaints you have provided to the committee, there is one accurate thing clear. is that correct? what was i regarding? >> i don't know. >> in this doctor houser's boss at the bureau of regulation. her response was to fire him. she's also the person is overseeing the restoration agreement and she was employed by trout unlimited, but did not recuse herself from the project even in light of this apparent conflict of interest. i ask you again, a complaint regarding her missing are the other complaints provided to the committee. what is that about? >> he provided me enough information now. i do remember we received this

complaint. i don't have detailed information about what happened to it. >> this is absolutely stunning. this is a significant matter that involves proposal of a huge environmental fiscal and economic throughout the entire region and you seem oblivious to it. i find that remarkable. mr. chairman, i would like us to further this inquiry at a later time. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> the gentleman from florida, mr. sutherland. >> i'm sorry, i didn't see the distinguished subcommittee chairmen coming. i'm sorry about that. mr. grijalva is recognized for five minutes. >> and only distinguish, but a promotion on one sentence. [laughter] my wishful thinking by the way. anyway, ms. kendall committed an act for being here. in listening to this, it is

kindness confusing -- not confusing, but astounding to me that as we debate with what i think is the point, a semantical point of moratorium and recall the process right now the worst of the catastrophe itself, even though that causes lives of millions of billions of dollars in cost to clean up in the economy of the region. we seem to skirt that issue by two somehow no doubt differences being the root cause of everything that happened in the day. but anyway, ms. kendall come to see come the safety oversight board you issue to the secretary states that the oil industry must take a widespread long-term commitment that sets a high

safety standards and consistently meets them. ultimately where you are by safety culture must not only follow the rules, you must assume he means a leadership role. it has invited the ceos to testify. changes they have made as industry leaders to improve the safety of usher drooling following this though. in fact, be pco has never testified before congress is assuming that position. don't you agree that the heads of the largest oil come they should come before congress so that the american people can hear what actions they've taken to assume that meaningful role in developing a new safety culture that is called for in the report? >> i would certainly like to know if i safety cochaired has been instituted. i think was very important to the safety oversight board at the time that some of the response will be placed on

industry is supposed to primarily government oversight and a poster of responsibility. >> ms. kendall, in the report, it recommended to also evaluating the recent structure of civil penalties and possibly initiating the legislative process to ensure they are appropriately tied for the severity of the violation. right now the maximum fine the inter department could that be for oil companies to commit violations of short as $40,000. that is a slap on the wrist for most companies operating not sure. for instance the maximum fine the department of the interior could not be would be 21 million. former director of the agency and the director of the oem have both said congress should

provide a sufficient financial deterrent to companies who violate the law. which you agree congress or the caprice in this penalty significantly as stated in the report? >> yes, our recommendation was to work with congress to review how these penalties are imposed and that the caps are. if i recall correctly and i don't have perfect recall at this point, but there were some restriction that the department could not do this unilaterally needed help from congress. >> thank you. and the yield to the gentleman. >> thank you. i'd like to bring this discussion back to earth. the other side has said the question has come under the department of the interior deliberately agreed that there should be a moratorium?

well, there's no question he deliberately said there should be a cause, so we should spend all month herbology are investigating whether pause equals moratorium and ruined people's careers at the department of the interior because of that difference. but it is all based on this really sad misunderstanding on the other side of the aisle is worse than the oil spill disaster. this moratorium -- remember we have 50% working in the bp spilled during this delay caused moratorium and because of this bill, because of disbursements used and the enormous environmental damage, we know there is enormous economic damage of lives lost. don't tell me that moratorium is

worse than the disaster. we should investigate the disaster and the effects of that disaster and the steps to provide safety into the future rather than thank you people before this committee to talk about whether they find the word positive moratorium. come on. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. we have a vote to recognize mr. sutherland and after that we will break and we have two votes and we will reconvene. we will reconvene 10 minutes after the start of the last vote. after the second those tennis center will reconvene. the chair recognizes mr. sutherland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have to say, mr. chairman, i

am someone disturbing that some of my colleagues claim that those of us who live on the gulf of mexico have completely forgot this disaster. i think it is grotesque when i live each and every day with people that have been affected by this. my family has been affected by this i think it's a coming of their position, especially the ranking member. i would like to say to mrs. campbell, i am concerned that in the past government officials have used a personal e-mail account as a way to avoid scrutiny by congress and the public. i am also concerned that sensitive investigation and law enforcement will be treated so casually that would be sent through a secure means such as yahoo! or gmail or whatever. does the ig has secure way to access e-mail remotely?

>> yes. >> what is the policy rather than your official ig account? >> i cannot do we have a policy on that. >> okay, then obviously you have a personal e-mail account as members of congress to and we all have our official e-mail account as well. they ask you how often do you use your personal e-mail account to contact personal business? >> i use my personal e-mail fairly regularly to send myself reminders from work i've worked on at home, but i do not send any sensitive information that would need to be encrypted or have any other protections we do have a policy on that. >> so you limit your e-mail and

use -- or personal e-mail account to personal business or as a reminder from you to your personal e-mail account to your business e-mail account to remind you of stuff that needs to be done. >> yes, or to transmit, for instance, draft letters back to this committee. >> i know is a part of the e-mail sister of a service provided, there are a number of official ig e-mails that appear to have been sent from your personal come as you stated, your yahoo! e-mail account as opposed to the ig account. i would ask at the desk, you can clearly see from the exhibit we have on the screen an e-mail that was sent from stephen hargrove. was it from you, but he was a reminder sent from stephen with the ig's office, obviously to your personal e-mail account.

down at the bottom, the statement i have no problem working closely with the department on this. the whole purpose of the e-mail, discussion of the safety oversight board that has been the center of discussion today. the statement i have no problem working closely with the department on this or other issues. i probably did not release the majority of our staff is not yet prepared for it or understand it. so based on this individual, who sends you an e-mail account, was he in violation of the ig policy-based name and corresponding with you on your personal account and is it fair for us to be curious as to the use of your personal account of the ig policy you claim you do

have? >> quite frankly i don't buy the details of the policy other than for sensitive information needs to be encrypted, i don't know in 2010 that we had the capacity to access work e-mail from home. we do now, but i'm not sure we did at the time. >> can you provide any internal policies or conduct official business? >> if we have it, yes. >> you claimed a few minutes ago you do have it. >> we policy governing e-mail. i don't know for a policy governing personal e-mail. >> whatever you have regarding e-mail policy would be helpful for us to see. i think that would be obviously you can understand ark is there if there are personal e-mails

being used because when we need to do searches and certainly a person in your position could and should understand the conflict they are. i mean, is that fair? you understand my concern? >> i'm not sure that i do. >> that's even a bigger problem. the reason that the bigger problem because a person in your position, you are paid significantly in your position. you have tremendous authority. people under you. i find that the leader, which you are in a leadership position, you must at all times crack this discretion and i think it to minimum that has been brought into question. >> the time of the gentleman has expired good >> if i may, i did not have an opportunity to finish my answer.

>> were quickly because we have two take a break. i give you 30 seconds. >> i do not understand the concern because we did provide them everything the committee in response to your request. >> i appreciate the gentle ladies answer. we will recess again and reconvene 10 minutes after the start of the second vote. the committee stands in recess. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> i think chairman. i was in my office and watching a bit of the hearing. i've got to say i am a bit puzzled at sort of the demeanor of the members here is that some crime has been committed. it appears that the question is the difference between the word pause and the word moratorium. and i looked upon as and the word moratorium. there's no limit on a pause. a pause could be six months, 12 months. a pause could be a decade. moratorium has slightly different meaning, but again there's no duration attached to the word in this report the number six is attached. the number -- you could have used the word posten said were going to pause for a year.

in the past for good reason. the blowout preventer didn't work. i didn't know where? is critical to know why the blowout preventer didn't work since that is our last line of defense against catastrophic oil spill. it appears the blowout preventer wasn't capable of cutting a 10% and their other problems with the maintenance. that has all come out. it was very prudently taken a little time to figure out, will come with better feel safe here in the failsafe field. so anyway, i would like to just feel from time to the acting inspector general achieves anything to say because she said very little opportunity to respond to this been going on here. he is anything you you would like to add? was i an accurate in anything i just said? >> i have not looked at the difference between moratorium. i appreciate the time.

seeing i would like to come back to is the investigation be conducted. primarily because of the words come back team that how the executive summary was edited to suggest that the moratorium was peer-reviewed. we have the information, documentation we need it came down to these e-mails that have been sent in the early morning hours between 11:38 and 2:13 a.m., where the editing had been done. and that is where the editing was changed by the white house person i'll were suggesting the

moratorium was the secretary's decision to the moratorium had been peer-reviewed and that was the only focus of our investigation. we got all the information we needed to make that determination and we did so. i thank you for the time. >> so some overzealous politically appointed white house staffer probably junior level that dayside padded up some emphasis to the executive summary. >> no evidence to suggest that was done intentionally. >> distillate was done over the white house by some sort of editing. >> the editing changes occur to make this distinguished loss essentially what the audit said the white house. >> and perhaps are not an expert on this, but as i understand. do they did recommend a pause, which i mentioned earlier. >> which i watched.

>> i believe they did. that's why feel the focus is on the difference between six-month moratorium and pause, which could be dramatic. could be nonexistence. a pause could be longer. so i appreciate the fact we've had how many documents now you provided are e-mails? >> i couldn't even begin to count. >> hundreds, thousands? >> and yeah, it seems there is a thirsty spend more time on this issue. again, i remain puzzled. i appreciate your service and hope that we move onto more important important subjects. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the time of the gentleman -- recognized the dog from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ms. kendall for being here. a much respond to a couple things said earlier. number one, mr. holzer said the number of deepwater rigs is that

50%. that is false. it's down 15% still come us the jobs are being impact did that the moratorium purgatory of slowdown, whatever you want to call it. the second thing is the ranking member called this hearing trivial. this is not a trivial hearing in light of the administration's lack of transparency. this is not trivial when you have another cover-up called fast and furious. it's not trivial when you look at the department rewrite of the foreign mac outside the statutory ill obama administration of the welfare laws contrary to the president and it's not trivial when you look at the abuse happening to taxpayer dollars with gsa. i wanted to pass that off the table. in new britain stamey you review the ig's editing up to november 2010 moratorium report. i would like to take you up on that invitation. if we can bring out exhibit 11 -- excuse me, exhibit five.

exhibit five. okay, in exhibit five you struck out the original draft language that stated the ig could not independently validate that the e-mails provided by steve black were complete and unedited. why did you strike out that sentence? >> in now, i don't have a recollection specifically of actually addressing that issue. but my question would have been to the investigating agent if i were asking the question today, what is it that we need to validate? we were provided the documents that focused on the question at hand. and now is how did this >> let's talk about this. one of the things we need to know about the ig's investigation and one of the things the american public needs to know about the ig's investigation is what is the

scope so inherently reduced that it's not worth the paper it's written on? and in this case if they didn't review the white house e-mails. i think that's the case. is that correct? >> we didn't review the white house e-mails. >> the ones internally? >> one's exchange between department of interior and the white house with the editing took. >> that none of the ones internally, is that correct? internal to the white house? >> would only have access to those provided by steve black. >> them inside the white house. that's what i'm getting at. >> our jurisdiction does not extend to the white house, sir. >> don't you think the statement that guster could be informative when you look at the reports that the peer review languages unintentionally edited to suggest the review of the moratorium? >> what is your question, sir?

>> don't you think it would've been informative informative when it says that the oig could not independently verify whether the e-mails had been edited or not? >> i don't think is a question of the e-mails edited. e-mails were provided to us. there is nothing to indicate they were there when complete. >> this kind of a sentence from what i understand is common in ig reports. each had to come back and clarify that you were able to independently verify the witness statements. don't you think it would have been -- if you left offended that he would have had to come back and clarify, correct? >> i'm not sure what you're asking, sir. >> okay, let's move on. let's move to exhibit 11 if we can. i'm running out of time. in the last sentence of

mr. larrabee's report, he says we simply were not allowed to pursue the matter to the white house, but of course that is not mentioned in the report. toshiba think that sentence would've been more transparent and would have prevented the secretary for being able to incorrectly claimed the ig's report confirms there was no intent to mislead or avoid confusion about the report and what it found or did not find? >> the secretaries try to hide behind your report and say nothing but wrong. the watchers that are saying is that i couldn't verify that. >> well, what he's saying this he could not pursue the white house because the jurisdiction does not extend to the white house. >> it would've been better to say in the report the scope was so reduced that it was in question. i yield back. >> if i may respond to this, mr. chairman. i will be brief.

but the case agent wrote the first draft of the report. and he did not include any reference to this. so it was not as if he was excluded. he did not put it in. i just want to make that clear. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if you could be concise in your answer because i do have quite a few questions. after you've finished editing, you said your revisions back to the case agent and asked him if he had any issues with your changes. he then responded coming or e-mail language about the exchange between diy on the white house was far simpler than my upcoming and i i believe that still clearly captured our findings. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> via conservancy didn't communicate when at the chance. get your surprise when you read the case agent e-mails that have come out in the investigation, weren't you? >> rematch so.

>> the case agent speculated in an e-mail to an oig collect the editing was intentional, but he also recognized that there were facts to back up his speculation in fact, he wrote to you that the jury will always remain out, unquote, on this question. and also, the reader of the oig report will have to make their own speculations on that topic. is that correct? >> that is correct and that is what surprised me the most. >> albright appeared going on, you've been acting inspector general for the last several years. is that correct? >> are you in half. >> three and half years. what work is the oig done during that time you were proud of? >> i would say all the work the oig has done, that perhaps the most important particularly relative to this list of review we did on the outer cop until shells, the comprehensive review, which today still implemented by what used to be

the nose management is now three beers in the apartment. >> did that work achieve benefits for taxpayers? >> it was one of the most comprehensive and impactful documents we've issued in a good number of years. >> very good. i feel this is that the office of inspector general should be doing without being distracted by baseless document requests from this committee and members of this committee should understand the important work that you do and what's at risk if we continue to consume your time on this frivolous investigation. i want to thank you for what you've done. i yield back. >> the gentlelady -- with the gentlelady yelled? >> yes. >> thank you. maybe would be possible for you to elaborate more on what the benefits were from the work you've done in the last three and a half years, overseeing the department of interior said

there can be a fuller understanding of the comprehensiveness of that. >> well, i'm going to be at a loss to sort of site chapter and verse right here, but i went back and took a look at the last five semi annual reports that the oig issued, the first under my signature up to the last. i was pleasantly surprised, the surprise nonetheless with the incredible amount of work that our office accomplishes every six months and the breadth of the work that we do. as you know, the depart in his anger is not the says has very diverse machines. we go from indians to minerals to answer geological survey. and every day isn't a new.

part of what is the reporting about work and in the office of inspector general for the department of the interior is the breath. >> how much of a distraction as this investigation but this committee is trying to conduct with no avail at all from the other work you're doing, which sounds like it's critical in making sure that we do read up wrongdoing that goes on, the inefficiencies that exist. >> it is the late than a distraction to me. i have kept my eye on what else we are doing, but it is also taken a considerable amount of time for me and my senior leaders and senior advisers. i can't quantify beyond that, other than has been considerable. >> and again, thank you so much for your work and your contributions to our country. thank you for the job you and your staff play in providing oversight for this agency. and again, i can't raise enough

time, and at times this problem we have come of this debate over whether or not there was a pause called for or a moratorium called for. secretary salazar is saying he called for the six-month term. we should bring them here. you know, but it proclaimed that his judgment was pure but were not going to hear about this bill and damage in vp or halliburton or transocean. not that we'll ever come before the committee. that's not part of the republican agenda. they don't want to talk to the ceos. they are talking here about the semantic difference at terminological in exactitude that is built into this discussion that went on at the agency as though that is the real issue, rather than this historic climate tends the crime committed here in the country. >> the chair recognizes the tournament from the louisiana,

mr. landry. >> if there is anyone here u.s. constituents affected by the moratorium because we have many here who have been affected by this bill. but if there's anyone affected by the moratorium it is my constituents. it's the constituents i serve. and you're allowed about whether there were no playoffs or big summer goals. the reason they're not as many laughs as you would think is because people got in south louisiana, they are not lazy. they don't want the government to say anything to get off their back. when you killed the jobs in the gulf of mexico, they have to leave their families and traveled to africa, to the north sea, to montana because they know one thing the country they grew up in his guide, family and work. okay, so they'll sit there waiting for the government to give them a check or to feel sorry for them. they go to work and they leave,

but it's sad when it goes to africa inside of the gulf of mexico. i don't understand. are you an investigation from the investigative branch? or your policymaking branch? >> we are on the investigative branch. >> if i close my eyes, when i answer members on the other side, i would you'd answer your questions on about policy. not about investigation. they ask you whether or not you have the standard industry was implementing. that is not your skull. your scope is whether or not. i'm just not you answer to talk about how proud you were the work work that was done for an mms to be a web to bassi. that's not your job either. fortunately i believe your testimony today hasn't impeached you, has impeached your

character because earlier you said that sure you're interested in the job of the inspector general because of the interim entity president to appoint them if you want that job. i simply did you not see know what i'm interested in taking this job. maybe you should appoint someone in the interim. why go out and i'm sure in our lobby for that job? then there would have been. i'm sure you are a bright lawyer. there would have been no question. this committee does not have to question your character or your actions. why didn't you just say step aside and say what you want for this job and apply for this job and less appoint another interim who have no biases to whether or not they want the job. >> when i was asked to become

part team inspector general, they asked me to the oversight board, at the time i was thinking about becoming the ig. i didn't know what was going to happen with mr. devaney is appointed to the recovery act board and it was the natural -- >> natural progression. you know that as well. it becomes a conflict of interest. let me ask you a question. if someone incited the irreparable harm to an industry, is there a criminal statute that you can use to go and intentionally cause harm in an industry? to you by the criminal statute that we could use to go after them? >> i hope there's a criminal statute for that. >> you think we should have one?

>> unintentional harm by itself may be a criminal violation. >> is an e-mail here from a case manager that says, and i read, the statement that includes them as they mistake as a clear attempt to spin a reporter. i truly believe the editing was intentional. now, the american academy of science said look, a 30 day pause certainly would've been suspicion. a six-month one did not stand by. so, what you say that anyone who in turn should only alter the document, caused irreparable harm to an industry? >> let me be clear that was the case agent's opinion.

the evidence did not support that opinion. >> that is why we are here because no one will give us the rest of the evidence. >> i understand now. >> the time of the expired. mr. lujan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. inspector general, i appreciate the care of their you show with the type of questioning your having to go through. i think words matter that is why we are here today because the change of the word is what elucidate today's conversation. and when we tell you that you've impeached your own character today, i'm sorry. i'm sorry that was that because words matter. and because words matter, i have a dictionary here. i have webster's new dictionary. anyone is welcome to borrow it. as a matter of fact, i've added tabs to save everybody time.

where pause and moratorium are in your period there for anyone to use. they are the minority's books, but it was on the same additions in the majority's offices, they would raid the same things. i would hope they would. maybe we should subpoena whoever is working for mr. webster, to ask them why they define pause the way they did, moratorium that way they did, to get to the bottom of this. but we should be talking about today in the future is the moral question. 11 people's lives were taking. if that's your understanding come inspector general? >> yes, sir. >> do you know how many gallons of oil were spilled in the gulf? >> i don't know. 8 million.

>> i think the number have here is 4 million. look, if there was a nice bill, we wouldn't be here today. if the blowout preventer had worked, we wouldn't be here today. if that hadn't failed, we hadn't lost 11 lives, 11 others, 11 brothers, 11 sons. that is a catastrophic event. and mr. chairman, i know sometimes whom are trying to get to the bottom of some pain, words matter. but why are we here? and when the president asked for a 30 day report to be compiled and put together in 30 days,

given the magnitude of what was talked about here, i think we'll wanted to get to the bottom of this. there is not one of us who didn't want to plug that. and make sure not another drop of oil cartel. picture not another one life is put in danger. we'll wanted that. and i appreciated the congeniality we all have during that time. so i hope that is where we can concentrate some of our efforts and see what we can do to get to the bottom of this as well. now, inspector general, one of the gentleman from texas today asked you earlier when he didn't mr. larrabee were presented to your face while criticizing your work to the others. if you investigated mr. larrabee, with some others, attack you for retaliating? in other words, are you in a catch-22 with having to respond to this? >> well, i certainly feel that if we were to investigate

mr. larrabee, they would be repercussions from this committee, yes. >> i appreciate that. inspector general, you know, mr. chairman before i yelled back, words matter and i know sometimes the words we use matter. the words we use to describe our friends are those that we don't agree with necessarily matter. i just hope we truly understand the magnitude of were some times with a kind of work people are putting forward to sacrifice for themselves. so at that, mr. chairman, i'm not sure of the ranking member needs anytime, boycott, yield that, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. they ask what are we here today? part of a 30 day report led to the detrimental effect on linux.

the gentleman talks about the impact and creating jobs or working those jobs are biting the families that now have to go out there they says for employment. a 30 day moratorium on energy needs. why are we here today? president obama promising new area of openness in government. we worked together to ensure the public trust and transparency in public participation wrote in one of his first memos to the federal agency companies that openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government. but ms. kendall, i look at your written statement and you say this is a unilateral approach to investigate me by requesting select document from the office of inspector general, drawing conclusions from those documents without all the facts.

we subpoenaed you and your agency because we want the facts. we are asking for the facts and we can make interop are a potions from the documents and those facts. that is what we are trying to do today. that is what we are trying to do is get to the bottom of what led to this moratorium that affected the lives of louisiana and along the gulf coast and the lives of people in my district in south carolina paying higher gasoline prices today to drive to and from work. that is what this meeting is about here today and i appreciate the chairman holding this hearing. the gentleman from florida was really delving into something before we ran out of time, so mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time to mr. sutherland from florida. >> i would like to thank the gentleman from south carolina for yielding me time. i know that i was asking you questions regarding e-mails before we went to the floor to

vote. i've asked you about providing siig policies and guidance and one time he said the you weren't aware of those. you said you were aware of those, but she would find those forests. if they do exist and provide those forests. i was going towards a more important issue your desire to move forward. you claimed that you are seeking the opportunity perhaps of a more permanent position. and i think what we see here as throughout the testimony today that it has been -- you've either know what is going on through many of your answers and you have not perhaps insert those in the way that i find acceptable, or you are not aware of perhaps being the case of

policy or you are not aware of things that have been referred or not refer to the attorney general. you do not have memory and say i do not remember. i am bothered by the fact that she may not seem to be on top of these issues. but me just say i have a very, very talented staff that takes care of, for instance, the case review work the refusal of the allegations that comes to the office of inspector general. i do not personally participate in that group. i do not personally decide what should or should not be investigated unless it is right to my attention. so no, you are right. i do not know everything going on in terms of referrals or investigations. once they're investigations,, i do know about them because i read regularly by a very calm and staff.

>> you claim there have been zero referrals made to the attorney general in the last three years. >> i said i think. when you said zero referrals for ethics violations. we have made many referrals. >> i apologize if i misunderstood. zero referrals for ethics violations. >> as far as i know. >> jupiter report on those? i seem to have weekly staff meetings and your team is communicating on those with investigainvestiga tions and ethics probes. >> yes, i do. >> would like to thank the gentleman from south carolina and i yield back. >> there has been an interest on having another round. i think that interest should be observed. and so we will start another round. i just have a few questions and i will recognize myself. first of all, this established

established -- let's establish again what this is all about. the bp's bill w-whiskey potter. that that was ndp water. the consequences of the moratorium had a huge effect on the economy and individuals lives. so let's make sure that distinction is made. now, i want to ask ms. kendall, you had no jurisdiction and i agree with the white house. is that correct? >> yes. >> anything prevent you from asking a question at the white house? >> i don't think you would prevent me from asking the question. >> if it prevents you and you acknowledge that the edit happened in the white house, wouldn't you at least -- logic would suggest he would ask the white house and they make the

determination whether they should advance or not. >> no, sir i did not for instance walk on the white house. i inquired of the deputy secretary who is in regular contact with the white house, saying it would be helpful for us. >> no way. you're independent. but would you go through the deputy secretary? if you thought it was important and clearly the evidence said that because you said it was decided, why didn't you just ask? why did you have to ask permission to ask? >> i didn't have to ask permission to ask. >> why did you even go through the points you make that inquiry? nothing prevents you from asking the question. why did you ask? by was not asked? >> there was a decision i made at the time, sir. >> i respectfully think that was the wrong decision. but me ask you this, do you think the 30 day report was a policy document? >> i'm also embarrassed to say

this, sir, but i've never read the 30 day report. >> do you think a 30 day report was a policy document? >> the 30 day report was much like a wedgies report -- >> if you can't say -- if you can't say he was not a policy document, do you think the moratorium was a policy? >> i think the moratorium decision was a policy. >> at the 30 day report tries to the moratorium, would it not suggest -- would it not suggest 30 day report was a policy document? >> the 30 day report did not contain the moratorium representation. >> it came from a document. >> i don't know that, sir. >> you don't know that? >> i don't. i don't know where the moratorium decision came from. >> it came from the 30 day document. euro reports suggest that they came because of editing for the white house.

ms. kendall, i find it hard to believe that you can say or suggest or agree that the moratorium was a policy decision, get you can't say that the 30 day report, which led to the moratorium was a policy document. i find that hard to believe. >> i can't say what the 30 day report was or that it led to the moratorium. i did not read the 30 day report. and i know that the moratorium recommendation was contained only in the negative summary. >> is done that report. the deadline and the reason this came in the middle of the night was because of the 30 day deadline of the 30 day report. i have some real -- i have some real problems understanding your logic on that. i said that in my opening statement and frankly that has been confirmed to me. i just want to go on one last --

i will yield the balance of my time to mr. landry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for being here. on may 23rd article this year in "usa today," you were quoted as saying i was an active listener. i was not an active participant in these meetings. is that a correct quote like >> yes, it is. >> what is the difference >> my distinction here as i did not ask any questions in these meetings. i was there to hear what was being said, to learn as much as i could about deepwater drilling in the things that attend to a selected them for myself as a member of the safety oversight board and leave the team that we had conducting the outer continental shelf of valuation.

>> so you were an active listener? >> yes, sir. >> .net to participate? >> no, sir. >> and allow comments a distinction without a difference. at least in my opinion. exhibit number nine -- >> the time of the decision is expired. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the majority has claimed that the economic impact of the six-month moratorium or worse than the economic impacts of the spell itself, worsen the impacts of the worst environmental disaster in american history. but the reality is they were not significant layoffs in the oil industry from the moratorium. the web is that you might ask? why were there significant layoffs? president obama secured $20 billion from bp to aid the goals and its people.

because president obama got bp to put up $100 million significant to aid in the oil-rich workers affect did. it was expanded to help any oil service and support companies. it was because the oil company do that drilling in the gulf would resume in a safer manner under president obama. that is the reason why we now have 50% more floating rigs working in the gulf of mexico that before. these rigs did not leave. these rigs kept their employees. those employees were compensated by the fund for president obama exacted from bp. despite that the majority may claim, these are the facts. president obama and secretary salazar took action to protect the workers.

but golf has to be protect it. best of president obama did to ensure that we are jelling again now more safety. so, the majority says they just want to get to the bottom of this. they have gotten to the bottom of this and there is no evidence of wrongdoing. the majority has gotten the answer. they don't like the answer. secretary salazar will sit here if you ask him. he will tell you he made the decision. this woman should not be here today. you should have secretary salazar here and he will tell you he made the decision. you should have the ceos of halliburton, bp, transocean sitting here because what you

should be doing is getting to the bottom of the ocean. you should be trying to find out what happened. ..

mid to keep all of the loan guarantees. $18 billion for nuclear and zero out all of the loan guarantees for wind of and solar. each of you voted for that. solyndra made an example of why the united states and the richmond corporation will continue to get $450 in a loan guarantee exactly equal to what solyndra got. it's already in the junk status. when is the republican party going to have the hearings on what's really going wrong here? and this woman, like the solar industry, is just part of not dealing with the real issue. and that is the oil industry recklessly, indifferently, came very close to destroying the

livelihood of the people in the gulf of mexico. by far that $20 billion that president obama extracted from that industry, there would have been devastation down there. and solet bring them in. let bring in secretaries he'll tell you why he imposed moratorium. the difference between a moratorium and pause is temporary inaction, temporary delay, it's the same definition. you want to fight over that. you do that. it's o'so clear, the inyou window, the attempt to defer it because you don't want to get to the central issue of what this committee should be all about. >> time has expired. >> please put exhibit nine on the screen. okay. and we talked about the this a little bit earlier, it says

there in the red box to the left this is steve black sayings an e-mail dated may 28th and thanks for the kind words, mary and for your prarption in so many of the meetings and interviews leading up to this report. why should we not believe steve black when he says that you participated in the process? >> i attended. i did not participate in the process at the thirty-day report. i did not participate in the development of the executive summary. i don't know how many times i can say that. it's just -- that's the . >> steve black was not being accurate when he said this? >> he was talking about my attendance at the meetings, y. i told him that putting together those meetings wasn't was a enormously impressive effort. >> excuse me. my time is limited.

we have to go on. exhibit 8, please. okay. this is steve black again e-mail decaded may 17. thank you for participating on the call with the aig e identified experts. he thanks you for participates. why should we not believe him? >> it's his word of the word participate, i listened. he thanks everyone for participating. >> you participated on the call today. how did he know you were there on the call? >> i don't remember this call. i don't know that i participated in this call, quite frankly. but i was probably one of the invitees, he thanked them for participating. and i honestly couldn't tell you if i was a part of that call. >> okay. i'm going switch gears now to the role of the department to

turn over documents when there might be a privilege. if the department tells you or the i.t. officer not to disclose documents to congress, is it policy of the inspector general to air hair on the side of the department and go along with the request without question? >> not without question, sir. the committee has requested these documenting are -- from the department itself. the department has said they decline to provide them. they complicate important confidential interest. it is a precursor to the claim much executive privilege. previous administration used this phrase in 2007 when the house committee on oversight and government reform requested documents relate to the 2004 death of army ranger pat tillman. i this is a process i knew

nothing about. its a long standing process that goes back, as i understand it to the nixon administration. >> in 26 years you hasn't heard about it happening. >> i've heard about it. i've . >> okay. did did the department ever exert executive privilege? >> no the department has used this term, which i understand it implicates executive privilege in the process that is a long and complex process that i believe the committee is engaged with the department in and should continue to engage the department in. >> is it not true, that only the president of the united states can exert executive privilege? >> the president himself must exert the privilege. it is usually done through a department head. >> was it done in this case? >> no, it has not been done yet. >> you went along with their position and did not disclose the documents to congress?

>> i explained as best i can to the committee my letter response to the subpoena. the reasons why we did not turn over the documents, they are not our documents, the privilege is not ours 0 to assert and the pronch is not ours to wave. >> you said in a april 18th letter promises of confident issue to department -- abade by the projects of confidentiality. they needed a promise of confidentiality to work with you better later? >> i'm saying in with regard to documents like this, i don't believe that if we released these documents, we would ever see them again if we were investigators something.

we back before probably this committee saying we can't get these document, and we'd be in the same position as the committee is right now relative to the department. we would not have had the benefit of seeing the documents ourselves as the oversight body. >> okay. thank you for your answers. >> gentleman's times has expired. we recognize the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, the impugning of the witness' character, the truthfulness in front of the committee as he said is not the way to be conducting, and this hearing, and more importantly, no basis for those accusations. but we're doing all this based on the opinion of a caseworker

who praised the within first, and then communicated to other members of the department whatever concerns he had, and well, the majority wants us to accept this as a fact questioning the witness' character but the caseworker the makety wants the rest of us to believe it has to be a pillar of integrity. that there's no hidden political agenda and that the motivers of the case work is pure as a driven snow. that the caseworkers is a -- truth and the premise by which we are here today. i don't want to impugn the caseworkers' character. imd do that. but to ask us to proceed on that assumption, i think, is asking a

lot. and, you know, this here has been kind of like, when i was learning english in psychological. when we had to get the distwinings between you know what a pause, what is moratorium. what would help us with our diction and those understanding what an active participant, what is an observer, that was english class. that is nothing do with the hearing. and the gentleman brought up what's the difference between active observer, active participant. i would suggest that the audience at the hearing are active sobers. i would suggest that the members of the committee are active participants. i think that's the distinction and that's the difference. i want to ask one issue, if i may. according to the safety board report, since 192, they have

increased by 200% and oil production increased by 185% staffing resources have increased by 26%. the independent bp commission 10 million per year the oil and gas paid in inspection fees significantly in order to fund department regulators. despite the majority of to block an increase in the inspection fees charged to offshore oil and gas companies in the appropriation bill for the current fiscal year. the department was provided -- collect up to 2eu6d million to fund the agency. that authority will expire at the end of the year unless it is extended. do you think we should give the department permanent authority to collect inspection fees on offshore operates to provide a study, robust, and funding stream for offshore regulators?

because at the end of all this, we are still dealing with possible with the worst catastrophe environmental, human, that this country has seen. and we should not lose sight of that in the english lesson we're having today or in the attacks on the witness. do you believe that funding has to be permanent so that processes are in place and processes will be in place until the staffing and procedures can continue to provide the safety oversight that we need? >> congressman, i'm not familiar with that particular authority. i don't know when the safety oversight was looking at issue with, there is a need for more federal presence in terms of oversight inspection and enforcement of the regulations that are in place. and this is one of the vehicles by which that can be done, then

i would agree with you, yes. >> thank you, and thank you mr. chairman, i yield back. >> can i ask . >> did you yield? >> i have one question quick. the case agent in one e-mail to oig colleagues saying he was dismayed that the final report did not requesting interviews with the white house, in fact, the draft that you edited did not include language about interviews the white house. you said this before, but i want to underscore it. the case agent was complaining about things did not happen. is that not true? >> that's correct. >> okay. thank you for saying it again. >> recognize the gentleman from louisiana mr. lane drink. >> we find ourself in precarious situation. for the record, there are two things that need to be fact checked. number one, many of the victims

who died, their families came here and begged for that moratorium not to be implemented. i think that's important because that speaks volumes we like to make victims out of victims out of victims families there's a reason for it. number two, no one in the oil and gas industry has access to that $20 billion fund. that's it. that is a incorrect statement by the gentleman from massachusetts, in fact, they're prohibited. if you're in the oil and gas industry. you have prohibited from taking part in that $20 billion and that is a fact. and i yield balance of my time to the gentleman from colorado. >> i think -- i thank the gentleman. can we show exhibit one on the careen? screen are you aware of the e-mail dated december 17, 2010 from the general counsel from

the officer of the inspector general to mr. hard hard grove? >> i need to take a look at it, sir. i don't recognize it. >> let me quote the highlighted portion there, however, i did take the opportunity of explain quote, our position they do not have a valid basis to keep the requested material from us as it could not fall under the executive privilege doctrine. and then the e-mails goes on to explain there was no decision pending for the president to make as the moratorium decision had already been made. the only issue discussing is how to word an executive summary. are you familiar with either the e-mail or thinking contained in this e-mail? >> i am -- at the moment, no. i don't -- i honestly was not

recipient of the e-mail, and i'm not sure what the e-mail refers to. >> what is the role of mr. hardgrove? >> he is the chief of staff. >> does he work for you. >> yes. >> he knew this apparently. >> apparently. >> did you know this? >> i told you, i don't know what this e-mail is about. >> well, if you look at the high lighted portion, according to mrs. dell plain, the position is that they dot not have a child basis to keep the requested material from us it could not fall under the executive privilege doctrine. >> i don't know what the requested material is he's referring to. >> i believe it's 13 documents that are at issue. >> i don't know that.. this was back in 2010, and i

don't believe that the document the 13 documents had been identified at that point. >> i believe these are the steve black e-mails. >> they may be. i don't know. >> but are you aware of the doctrine that after a decision has been made there's no ability of the executive branch to make -- to assert executive privilege. >> no, i'm not. i don't know what -- i don't know what the e-mail means, quite frankly. >> did he talk to you about this e-mail and the contents of it? >> i don't remember our discussing it, no. >> did this man ever talk to you about the e-mail or the contents. >> we've had so many discussions with i don't know if he talked to me about the e-mail or the doctrines relating to. i can't tell from this e-mail what it's about. >> do you agree with this privilege? excuse me, with this explanation of executive privilege this is

the general counsel of the office and inspector general. >> i don't think it's making -- i don't think it's talking about executive privilege. honestly, i'm looking at it for the first time, and i'm not sure what it's talking about. in -- decision had already been made. >> e i see that. again, i don't know what documenteds we're talking about here. >> we've had access to this for months. and -- is this the first time you believe you have seen it. >> yes, i believe it is the first time i have seen this e-mail. >> and you don't know the discussion that's going on here about executive privilege of when it ends once a discussion has been made? >> no, i don't know what this is

talking about. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. the time has recognized. recognize the general lady. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mrs. kendall, the case agent also wanted to interview secretary salazar. but that would be very unusual, is that correct? >> it would be. >> many uh-uh. the secretary was willing to be interviewed? >> i don't know but there was no indication that the secretary had anything to do with the editing of the executive summary. >> i see. mr. chairman, i want to followup a little on what our ranking mark key was commenting on. i certainly grow, if we want to get to the bottom. we have to go to the top. we can't keep bringing in people -- i admire your composure. you've been sitting here before us being grilled under fire,

since 10:00 this morning. and, you know, i don't know. i essential don't like to see anybody harass like that. but, i'd like to hear from you, mr. chairman, did this committee -- did you ever request testimony from secretary salazar? and why aren't we hearing from him? >> will the gentle lady yield? >> yes. >> if anybody believes i wouldn't want the secretary hear. we have a hearing a week before last when i asked the secretary to come down on the -- and the secretary did not. i advise the the secretary if he wanted to come, he should expect to be open for questions on a number of issues, not only

confined to this issue, but other issues because we have subpoenaed him, and there are, many including me, feels there has not been a a response from the secretary. i advised him, i said you can come down. but be prepared to potentially face questions regarding why you haven't supplied the subpoenas and potentially issues of maybe going into contempt why you should not be held into contempt. there was a conversation i had with the secretary. that ended the the conversation and there was no other discussion regarding his coming here. but yes, there was a discussion, and as i just described to you, thank the gentle lady for yielding. >> unofficially you had a conversation with him. it wasn't a official request to

come before the committee to be subpoenaed to speak on several issues. >> the gent the lady yield? >> yes. the secretary offers that suggestion to me, and i responded to him just like i -- as i just mentioned. and that was the end of any further discussion on his coming in front of me. >> well, i have a comment. i just understand here, we have not issued a subpoena as you'd said fur the secretary to testify. so it is my understanding that he is willing to appear. so can we call him in? >> like i said, the conversation that we had in the exchange and we had with the secretary, was that he wants to come he should be prepared to have discussions far beyond here this issue only it would probably go to the surface mining issue. it would go to the issue why

there there hasn't been a response to all of the subpoenas that have been issued by this secretary and a discussion -- and a discussion on whether he would want to face questions that may lead to why he should not be held in contempt. those are all issues that i suggested to the secretary when he suggested that he may come forward. i left the conversation at that. and that has been the end of that conversation. >> well, as a member of the committee, i'm suggesting that we ask him to appear. he apparently is willing. so if i could make that request, and secondly, we could ask the ceo of oil companies to appear as well. have we done that >> i find it ironic the gentle lady would yield. >> yes. >> i find it ironic that the issue keeps coming up.

i mention to memberrings of the committee, we have had executives of those companies in front of this committee. in fact going back to the last congress, and in the same vain maybe not had the -- although we have in front of the committee, we have not gotten the coopers, i might add. if you compare the information that we got from those democratic national -- committees those companies compared to the information we have gotten from the information, there is a huge divide as to what they have provided to us. so i thank the gentle lady. >> mr. chairman, one quick question here. you said the top people. i'm talking about the ceos. >> we had the presidents. >> we had the ceos. >> of companies that have come in here. >> well, i suggest we get to the bottom of this. >> the time of the gentle lady

has expired. i will simply respond to this. the issue we're pursuing is because of a moratorium that dealt with shallow water not deepwater or the bp is. there's a distinction between the two. the chair recognize the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. >> identified like to get back to the climate based. it's not visually as graphic. it's the hydroelectric dams. loss of a fish hash i are. billion dollars of taxpayer cost all driven we are told by the best available science. now we spent nearly all five minutes allocated to my first round of questioning in with you denying that you knew anything about a client by the bureau of reclamations scientific integrity officer dr. carol housing documenting intentional

falsification of scientific data related to the climate basis all to drive the decision to -- in the final second of my a lotted time, you appeared to have a rex when i asked about a scientific integrity case provided on your office's own manifest entitled -- so with your memory fresh restored. i'd like to know first and foremost we have established the scientific entitled case final report not available. lifted on the officer's man test involves dr. houser in. >> i know it involves dr. houser. i don't know if it involves . >> can you tell me the officer of -- jury present -- attorney general.

what did the inspector general's officer do to investigate this most detailed complaint by the scientific integrity officer of the bureau of reclamation? >> congressman, i'd are have to get back do you on. i simply don't know the answer to it. >> but you tell me that you obviously you can't tell me what you discovered from the investigation. which is not an insignificant or insubstantial matter. who is name is on the manifest was doctor houser's boss when dr. houser raised these concerns internally, her response was to fire him. she was an employee of trout unlimited com is an interested party. she not recuse herself from being involved in these discussions, and in fact, fired the whistle blower hire bid the bureau of reclamation to assure

the scientific integrity of the data that is driving the entire proposal her response was to fire him. don't you think that -- doesn't it strike you as significant that the official who fired dr. houser was precisely the same official that he accused of official misconduct in faults if iing the data and had a of and glaring conflict of interest. >> congressman, i'm listening to what you're saying. it dpunt help me. i don't know about the case. >> you're the watchdog. you are responsible for assuring the integrity of the scientific data that is driving these policy proposals. >> congressman -- >> you know -- i have many . >> where is the outrage. >> i have many people on the staff who work the issues on the behalf of office inspector general. i apologize i don't know the details. >> well, you have a row of folks behind you do. any of them know? >> we'd be glad to get back to

you and provide details about this. i simply don't know them today. >> i'll tell you what i would ask for is all of the documents related to dr. houser's complaint. i would like to know why was the case closed, why is there no report available, i assume you cannot provide me information on any of these questions? >> i don't have the information today, no. >> well, mr. chairman, i think this is significant enough, and this mission is glaring enough to call for a separate hearing on this subject. as i said, it is not an insignificant matter. it has huge fiscal and economic and environmental ramifications for the entire pacific northwest. it all hinges on what we're told is the best scientific data when the science integrity officer has been blowing a whistle warning us that data has been deliberately corrupted and the inspector general so far as i can tell, at this hearing has done precisely nhi