my state of minnesota welcomes more of those refugees than almost any other state. i want to thank you especially for what you do for refugees and asylums. but doc. i want to talk about the time it takes four family members of green card holders and the distance. right now green card holders wait for for five years to bring their husbands and kids to the u.s.. they wait about six years to bring their unmarried adult children here. it is even longer for some countries. from the the ratee philippines,

can be up to 16 years. some troops overseas to not see their families for over a year. i cannot imagine waiting 16 years to see your family. do you think these long waits are creating a disincentive to enter the country illegally or a disincentive to enter the country legally rather. >> i appreciate the question. we have heard a great deal of family members of legal permanent residents, and that is a function of the set availability. i have not given thought to the long waiting times having a connection to the illegal

immigration in this country. i would be hesitant to suppose in answer to such a serious question. >> what can we in the senate do? and there you are operating under the laws that we passed. what can we in the senate do to help reduce the backlog fact >> the issue of of these the availability is something that is within the purview of legislative reform. >> that is what i meant. what i want to know is what can we do? i am not asking you to make recommendations, or maybe i am.

what can we do to reduce these backlogs? >> i did not mean it to repeat your question. if the senator is interested in our best thinking on the subject, i would like to speak with subject matter expert in our department and circled back with the senator. >> that would be great. in 1996, congress barred people from applying for asylum after one year after their arrival. that was unless they could show extraordinary circumstances to prevent them doing the prevent them from doing so or circumstances that changed within their country of origin.

they just did not have an extraordinary excuse. do you think we should change in do away with this standard? >> i know there is legislation that has been proposed to eliminate the one-year waiting time frame. >> id is a time after the chicken not apply after -- it is a time after which you cannot apply for asylum. >> i would welcome the opportunity to brief you on their thinking subsequently. >> of k. an advocacy group told me a

story of want to share with you hear it a woman recently came to them from nepal to seek asylum in the u.s., because insurgents had kidnapped her son. she decided not to apply, because other current law, she would be inadmissible, because she paid her son's ransom and is considered a supporter of terrorists. is there a place for the rest exemption for exception in such a case? >> i cannot comment on that case specifically. i had a privilege to visit our office in st. paul. i met with the efficacy

committee there to understand their concerns. there is a supreme court case that leaves it to the department to exercise its discretion in finding a arrest exemption that may not otherwise apply. i believe we are utilizing that exemption on a case by case basis. >> thanks. >> can you comment about the use of parole?

some use it on an expansive basis to legitimize the presence of people who have entered the country with a visa and overstated the visa. i guess the correct term is deferred action. the use of some loans to allow those that come into the country legally does have overstayed or some other category of a person who is here without proper authorization. when do they use deferred action to change the status of people in any of these categories? >> our use of deferred action and humanitarian parole is used on a case by case basis, when a

significant public benefit or extreme hardship would so warrant. i am not aware of any sweeping+ determination to move the case by case analysis to a categorical framework. i am not exactly sure of the concern that underlies your question. we are particularly focused on using a discretionary authority when it pertains to the spouse's of service members in military by virtue of the public benefits. >> i appreciate your answer. if i can summarize, the use of deferred action in humanitarian parole on a case by case basis.

>> that is my understanding. >> i understand senator durbin and another senator wrote a letter to you about this topic. do you recall it? >> i do not. >> maybe you can take a look at that. i believe you would be interested in a response to the letter. we are not aware of a response. we can learn of your views. you are not aware of any discussions or deliberations with regard to the categorical use of humanitarian parole for the process you described. is that correct? >> i may have misunderstood your

question. are we utilizing those mechanisms on a categorical basis as opposed to a case by case basis? >> are there any discussions or plans to do so? >> i do not know of any plans. we have discussed the tools available to us. we could have achieved a more efficient use we are not considering the use of deferred action on an expanded basis of humanitarian parole. >> children that may benefit

from the dream act for immigration legislation, have there been specific discussions that you are aware of, with the use of deferred action with regard to those categories or individuals? >> we have discussed those and just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system when it comes to the tools available to us and the application >> it would represent an unprecedented use of those authorities. would you agree? >> whether it is unprecedented or not, i cannot comment.

>> by the use of unprecedented, it has not happened before. in as never been used for that purpose before, correct? >> i have not been aware of that before. >> very well. i learned that as a result of the managed care in parole practices of the united states government, in number of individuals, i think about 150 individuals who have been injured as a result of violence have been paroled to be treated in the united states medical facilities in el paso. that has resulted in uncompensated care provided by the hospitals. that is in the $3 million range. one has written to the president about that. secretary in an apology, has been asked about that.

i know there are additional compensated care issues that medical doctors have provided in additional hospital facilities themselves. if it is the policy of the united states government such that these individuals are going to be given humanitarian parole for purposes of medical treatment, what should the financial responsibility be of the federal government to pay the bills rather than the local taxpayers of el paso county? >> i understand the concern. it is a concern that we confronted following the earthquake in haiti. we were in collaboration with border protection, our sister agency. we were bringing in people for emergency medical care. we have questions regarding

funding for that care. it is a bit outside my area of expertise. i know there are in some instances, programs in place to provide funding. i cannot speak of whether any such programs exist to address this situation that has been identified. >> i told you i am a comprehensive immigration reform to help make your day for your job easier. it is to discourage illegal immigration. i think it would be a mistake to the administration to use administration action on a basis to deal with a large number of

people who are here without proper documents to recognize their status without the participation of congress. thank you for being here. >> thanks. >> good to see you again. i think i of the had the pleasure of suggesting the someone in los angeles years ago. he had much more here then. that is what i can say. [laughter] >> when i came to the senate, did as well. >> it is my understanding within five years of nationalization,

any affiliation that would have precluded the citizenship like membership in a terrorist organization is evidence that the person can have their citizenship the vote. in the absence of countervailing evidence, a terrorist affiliation with enough to authorize relocation. a member has introduced legislation that some of us believe is not really necessary. here is the question. i am not going to ask you to go into this case, but i am going to ask this question. you have an attempted car bombing, a connection to the taliban, a guilty plea, all of which could certainly be

construed that the man was not attached to the principles of the constitution and therefore should have his citizenship revoked. it is my understanding that within five years, this section of nationalization, this would allow such a relocation. >> thanks. you recommended me back in 1998. that was a source of pride for me. i remember that each day. >> for me as well. >> thanks. i am studying, the application

process. [unintelligible] it may speak to in eligibility at the time of the application itself. >> i would call your attention to a section, subsection c.

if a person shall have been naturalized after december 24, 1952, within five years become a member or become affiliated with any organization, with which at the time this, will be precluded from nationalization, under a provision of this title, it should be considered evidence that such person was not attached to the principles of the constitution and was not well disposed to a good order of happiness with the united states at the time. you can -- it seems to me that he is in death --

>> that speaks to a different case. >> i am not asking you to get in this case. it seems to me that any citizen within five years of nationalization commit or associate with terrorist with the intense to do great harm to the people of this country and plead guilty is covered by this section. you do not have to say anything if you do not have to.

it is clear for it seems to me. >> me as well. >> i am concerned about specialists that misrepresent themselves are attorneys to defraud individuals seeking assistance. last year i introduced a bill that would penalize and prevent this. how does this detect when a phoney immigration specialist files an application? >> thanks for your question and also for your work with respect with that act. as an agency, we will be

launching an initiative to address the unauthorized practice of law and other efforts to prey upon been vulnerable immigrant population. that is going to consist of a robust communication with the advocacy community that they serve to raise awareness and to discuss with them other accreditation services and what we can do as a confidence and the government to stand this out. this is a real problem. we recognize it and we are developing an initiative to address it. >> please be vigorous in that regard.

i hate people taking advantage over very vulnerable people. there is no excuse for this. i would welcome your most vigorous approach. >> we will employ it tonight. when i was a united states attorney, we had a very significant investigation of fraud that was the largest of its kind. >> i wanted to ask this quickly. my time has expired. the mind? >> not at all. as far as i'm concerned, you can ask whatever you want. >> i wanted to talk to you about a paragraph in your written statement that is on paid seven. you mentioned you were working hard to protect the identity fraud.

in this paragraph, you make the judgment that a photograph of first a biometric comparison. i really do not agree with that. i think the only real file manager if offers full fraud prevention. you and i, i am sure that you're a fan to a street in los angeles, you know the quality of documents that can be produced within 30 minutes fraudulently, and how easy it is. seems to mean the picture is very easy to falsifying. i happen to believe that people have a responsibility to be could they really are, not to pretend they are somebody else, particularly when they are in this permissive and fragile state of a work visa in this

country. i think the government and the people who hire them are entitled to know that they are who they say are. therefore it seems to me that a place to start with true biometrics is in the green card. it also seems to me that if we are going to do a comprehensive immigration bill, and i very much hope we are, that the criteria will have to be positive identification. >> i think that my written testimony to which you refer speaks of the use of photographs as an improvement. while photographs are not as accurate as fingerprints, they are an improvement over the lack of photographs. with respect to the legal hermits used as the green card,

we are unveiling this week for the first time in years a more secure green card that has stayed of the art security features that is more difficult to counterfeit and more easily to protect fraud. >> can you say that it will not be counterfeited? i will not do that if i were you? [laughter] i think based on my experience, that being within the jurisdiction of california, i dealt with counterfeiting of permanent resident cards. i think this would be difficult

to counterfeit. i did not say impossible, but i think it is much more difficult. i wonder if the one-stop shop on a street corner that used to counterfeit the green cards have the level of sophistication to counterfeit this card. >> may we see one of those cards when you have them ready for distribution? square. >> thanks. >> thanks. >> thanks. a couple of weeks ago, a conceptual proposal was released as an invitation to the

other side of the aisle to come negotiate and enact bipartisan legislation. one criticism that is repeatedly made is that it does not have the resources to effectively process immigration reform legislation, because it typically receive millions of applications each year and millions of more when the legislation is enacted. fisher agency prepared to handle comprehensive immigration reform? can you show your plan for how you would process these applications in an efficient manner and the work that has gone into developing your plan? >> thanks. i welcome the question.

let me say that our agency will be prepared to implement immigration reform and the legislature passes it. we will require not to implement the plan. these efficiencies will serve us in the implementation of any reform legislation that is passed. the best example is with respect to the anticipated volume of applicants following the earthquake in haiti.

because of the operational improvements remain in trying to improve our system, we were able to take on that unanticipated volume of applications. we have addressed it with tremendous dispatch. our security mechanisms are as robust as they ever were with respect to that population and that that comes before us. i say with confidence that her this will be ready to be implemented. we will need the opportunity of finding and time to implement. >> thanks. the record will be kept open for a week. this meeting is adjourned.

>> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tomorrow morning, on "washington journal", kathy mcmorris rogers. -- cathy mcmorris rodgers, jeff

merkley, and william frey. that is tomorrow beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. and health-care reporters look behind the scenes on how president obama's health-care initiative came together. this is a little more than one hour.

>> welcome to the barbara jordan foundation. i hope i can convey to you tonight, just how pleased i am to be hosting this event and to introduce this special effort by the washington post and the staff to do something to explain health reform say the american people. if anybody appreciate the complexities of this law or explaining it to the american people, it is the kaiser family foundation. that is what we did. i am happy to be the host for tonight for many reasons. we have run the leading internships and fellowship programs to launch the first

national nonprofit service completely dedicated to in-depth coverage of health care. many are here tonight. .'m very happy to be hosting we are longstanding partners of the washington post. we have conducted 22 projects 1996 cents or 1997. nell the post and kaiser health are working together to produce content. the reason i am most pleased to be hosting this event tonight is this 15 i will show you. it is why this book is so important. it shows you some americans are

confused about this. we found over half of the american people told us they are still confused about this. 56% told us they are trying to figure out what it means for themselves and their family. they are still struggling to do that. some like this and some did not. we are trying to figure out what it means for me and my family. that is why this is such a big contribution. i think the post coverage of health reform shows at a time when journalism is a challenge that in depth the journalism is possible when there is a commitment to do it. i was talking to a group of journalists just a few weeks ago.

he told me what a great job was done in covering health reform. i agree with that assessment. let me say before we get to a congratulatory that there are obvious challenges ahead in covering health reform. we want to be the watchdog of the people as implementation continues. it will be a challenge for the media. let me present the man who has made a commitment to the kind of in-depth coverage of health reform that you have seen from the post, the executive editor

of the washington post. thanks. [applause] >> thanks. thanks for coming tonight. it is always a pleasure to meet our readers. i would like to thank kaiser for their support both on this and in general. reworks close together on coverage. in our science and health section, a lot of coverage is provided by kaiser. the last few years have seen a number of ethical shift in washington. the big economic swoon, different levels of joblessness, and questions about competitiveness. a health-care overhaul has been in this.

there was a universal consensus that something had to be done. we engaged because we love the big story. we like endeth the journalism. this was an opportunity to go into a subject of great importance. healthcare is a subject we will continue to cover. there is a great deal of confusion about what it means and how it should be implemented and how we should continue our coverage. i will hand over the control of the evening to this person. >> thanks. >> good evening. thanks for joining us tonight. i will introduce our wonderful panelists. david is an investigative reporter at the post. he has written extensively about

health-care. he wrote about preventive measures in landmark. amy is a staff writer for the post. she writes about policy issues. she has written about expanding coverage to the uninsured. cc has been a national staff writer since 1997. she has covered the political story behind health care reform. that is our contribution and the beginning of landmark. this has been on the national desk covering a range of issues. the insurance industry, individuals that currently have insurance he has covered

medicaid and abortion. david has been a staff writer for almost 20 years. he has the added perspective of being a doctor of internal medicine that still practices once a week. he covers how medical practices may change. cc.s start with what additional reporting did you find out that the law could have done one way or another? there was one pivotal moment that could have sent it from failure to success. >> thanks to the kaiser foundation. it is a treat to be here. it is fun to be here tonight. to say that this law went through several near-death experiences would be an

understatement. it begins before it began. i want to taking back to march 2007, late on friday night. as senator name barack obama land in las vegas nevada for an early morning appearance with almost the other democratic presidential candidates. it is a topic that many cared about. obama bombs. he is terrible. he is flat. he did not have any specifics to say. he has a health care reform -- proposal. one person in the audience called him out and says, i have been to your web site and there is hardly anything there. he does not state or shake

hands. he immediately leaves. he gets on his cell phone with his campaign manager and says, i did horrible up there. we have to get a plan. in three years, he accomplishes what no precedent in almost 100 years attempts and cannot do. that is a complete overhaul of the u.s. health-care system. the closest that we have come to universal coverage in this country. the way in which he did it is the fascinating story. we tried to address it in this book. what is so interesting is that obama is someone in health care who learns. he is constantly learning and tweaking the way in which he operates. when it came to health care, we watched through those years and especially over the course of the past year the way in which

he kept tweaking his plans to make it work. the initial strategy did not make the mistakes the clintons made. he had to adjust. his prospects were almost dead. they were in such a problem that rahm emanuel called a very secretive group of advisers including his brother who is a physician and said, we have to write our own plan. we have to do it to jump-start this thing. we sought a series of critical moments when obama and nancy pelosi readjusted their plans in order to get this piece of legislation through. it is a complex law and very controversy over. the matter what they think of

the final outcome, if you are a student of american government, a political junkie, or somebody who likes to follow what happens in government, it is a remarkable accomplishments that he of all people, largely because of closely ended the way in which she dealt with believers in the house of representatives. you mean been nelson's and joe lieberman. >> this is a theme that returns throughout this narrative. it is interesting, because we think of the president and everything that comes with it. in the health-care battle, there were other players that had unique moment and opportunities to leverage their power. joe lieberman is one example.

they became individuals that exercise outside individuals on the process in shape legislation in that way. for pelosi, what was striking about the way she used her power was the way in which she looked at some of her closest friends in the eye, right down to the wire in november and betrayed her closest friends and allies in the house. the supporters in the abortion rights movement. she had to cut a deal with the catholic bishops to move that bill through the house. that was a striking example of the way in which she used her power, not only to cut a very difficult deal, but to sell it to her allies who are very betrayed by this decision, but

she convinced them to go along with it. >> it was policy made the argument that they have to stay with a big bill and not go small as she put it. they had to man up. >> he said while the law is complex, you said, this is made complicated. >> what do you -- people say it is so complicated. if you really wanted something simple, you could blow this up. single payer is very simple.

the government-run health insurance. there are fewer rules to right. that is simple. we were not one to do that. we were going to take a moderate approach to this. that means ending up with something that is more complex. you are not starting over. it really is a moderate approach. this is modeled on a plan passed in 2006 as a republican governor in the time. it is the republican alternative to the clinton plan in the early 1990's. it is modeled on a plan in the 1970's.

it is an intent to build on what we have. the main elements are not that complicated. we are requiring that everyone get coverage. that is how we are expanding coverage. they have to take heed. if they have to get it. that is it. >> this is why we have reporters to get this down into

a 32nd sound bite. that is wonderful. you wrote a chapter about the coverage expansion you pose some of the questions that need to be answered so we can discuss -- determine if it works well. the law had just come out. there was not get an assembled version of the law. we're reading everything we can find. we were saying, what you think this means.

there was not a complete consensus. it is going to take a long and how this plays out will be a long slow answer. thinking about why it is there is such centrality on getting people covered. having health insurance is not having -- is not the same thing as having health care. there is a lot of evidence over a long time frame that they have much worse health issues when they have diseases that are chronic.

it is not the same thing as making sure everybody has released an essential start. this does not set out to do completely universal coverage. this is the closest if this works, -- there is a lot of people. what determines how this works is several factors. will people actually get covered. the law says you have to do it. there are penalties. for the most part, people have to do it. some think it is a ways to get them covered.

that is a big unknown question. for the first time, this law will give money to people to help them buy private insurance. this is the first big investment in private coverage. there is a lot of debate starting already. we have to see if those subsidies are large enough and whether the subsidies will keep pace with the rate of inflation or fall behind in the times. >> before we came downstairs, we were talking about the condition that any just raise the people

that you were going to that might have known the answer, did not always. >> very true. we have complicated -- translated these into comprehensible times. it is often difficult because the very people who wrote the slot and shake it for hard pressed to explain what these provisions meant. whether the promise that people can obtain preventive services and screening for diseases such as cancer, whether they can contain those with no out-of- pocket expense or co-payments. whether that promise extends to employer-sponsored plans that

grandfathered by virtue of having been in existence when the law was enacted. it is also true of the question, what happens when health plans lose their grandfather status? when they have to begin to combine with this legislation? which once deal with which rules? even the experts were not sure. >> this legislative battle was the beginning of the process. another reason it is difficult is it now falls to government officials to write the rules, translating this legislation into more specific provisions. >> students can stay in maine --

children can stay on their parents' health insurance up to the aid of 26. >> this is one of the more popular provisions in the legislation. >> it is something that can show benefits they will -- they will provide this coverage in the coming weeks. the government ruled out the regulations. some families will pay a price to take advantage of this provision. if families obtain this through the individual markets and to add their adult child up to the age of 26, they can pay the

price in a couple of respects. if the adult child has a pre- existing condition, when the legislation prohibits insurers from charging extra in pre- existing conditions, they could charge the entire family a higher premium to include the adult child with a medical problem. >> what is also interesting is the administration's signal that will try to cast it as wide as possible such as dependents who are married, would be eligible for this. is that a surprise? >> we did get clarity. their children, the grandchildren would not be

entitled to this coverage. >> he wanted to jump in. there was a question as to whether kids with pre-existing conditions could be kicked off with denied coverage. the children with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage. we can deny them coverage on the outset. but once said, that is not so. but they did write it that way. >> quickly.

>> this is the extent of the battle. you will see the obama administration continued to be tough on the insurance industry. it is a very widely accepted villain. i think the more inches in thing to watch is who are the innovative -- innovators in the private marketplace. they will try to get out in front creatively. somebody is going to get the money. i think the smart players will get out in front, the creative, innovative and figure out how to see this new world order. >> there are many things.

whether it is affordable, but there is a big question that remains unanswered. that is whether we've been the curve on health care,. the question is, are we changing the trajectory of health care spending in this country? >> david, i mentioned before, you are a medical doctor. you wrote the chapter on medical practices. with the flood of the newly insured seeking care, given the current shortage we have of primary physicians, what did you find out about the incentives that will induce people to go into that practice? >> that is one of the many unanswered questions, if you

build it, will they have anyplace to go back is there a shortage of primary-care physicians in united states? there is a fair amount of evidence of people in primary care where there is a structure that dominates such as fee-for- service, a little bit of ancillary care. this whole model, many people think it will be replaced with a team model, but not necessarily

sell. .

.

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we have four other senators who have not asked questions of this panel yet. let me call on senator lincoln. >> thank you for holding such an important hearing on the thranled has taken place in the gulf of mexico. while i think it is clear to many of us that domestic oil production is critical to our domestic security, so is the safety and that's what we're

here to talk about. the it is imperative that we get some answers as to what happened and what the response has been and how another accident like this one in the gulf. we appreciate you gentlemen being here to answer some of those questions. we appreciate your expertise. i'm not sure how many of my questions have been addressed. dr. beck, in your testimony you said it was operated by hydraulic pressure and that applying hydraulic pressure at a water depth of 5,000 feet can be a complicated task and is an engineering marvel in itself. what is the difference how they are installed and more importantly tested as well as operated at deep water levels. do you believe they are less reliable in deep water than shallow water? what is the testing for that? >> senator, as i said in my

introduction. i do not portray myself as a deep water drilling expert. the issues, i have not dealt with in my career so i would decline to speak about specifics that are going on in the testing and the installation of those. there are much better experts than me. >> are they tested at those levels? >> repeatedly on 14-day intervals. >> at 5,000 feet? >> on the sea floor i believe but once again i'm stretching out of my expertise. it is a very difficult task to retrieve it off of the sea floor. maintenance and testing work should be done. >> right. but you don't know that it is. >> i don't know the specifics of how that is accomplished. >> i think it is important for us to know if these were the technologies that we depend on that they are tested in the circumstances they are used.

mr. danenberger. as you know, a report recommended deep water drillers be installed with remote control shutoff device but m.m.s. decided they were not essential and not required. some reports claim that m.m.s. based decision on complaints from some of the drilling companies in terms of cost. too expensive. not always reliable. in your testimony you dispute thats were discussed in that decision. do you believe a remote controlled shutoff switch would have made a difference in this accident and do you believe that m.m.s. should are you review this decision and make remotes necessary as they do in norway and brazil? >> they had the backup capabilities that should have actuated the blowout better.

so i don't think the problem was the absence of the backup, however i think that is something that merits further review as to whether it would provide any advantages in the future. the r.o.v. system has been reliable when tested. >> the remote shutoff? >> with remotely operated vehicles. which is presently used by most of the rigs in the gulf >> so you're not necessarily saying that it would have been a difference in this but you do think it should be further reviewed? >> yes. >> thank you. just in the testimony as well you state that 18-39 blowouts from the year 92-2006 should involve cementing. you go on the say that a industry standard should be

addressed for cementing problems. how they can be taken. what role dow do you believe that cementing may have played in this accident? >> well, possibly played a significant role. we don't know what happened yet. that should have been a secure -- with no influx possible at that point. so there was some failure and quite possibly -- the system. just think the record on integrity points to some problems with cementing operations that require further review and perhaps standardsizeation. >> there are no asked currently? >> there are for the makeup composition. not the if this happens, i'll do this. that type of analysis. >> thank you, mr. chairman, in

the interest of time i will just ask one question but i will first say we all think that was terrible disaster. 11 lives were lost, as well as economically and environmentally. you have some requirements, to streamline regular layings to focus more on safety and spanning training. theven you said we need -- then you said we need standards for best practices. i'm very surprised that we don't have standards for best practices. are you suggesting we don't have standards for best practices? >> there are many standards for best practices over 100 incorporated in the m.m.s. regulations. there are a couple where more work should be done. maybe more work on certain

b.o.p. come opponents. >> i think, mr. chairman, probably the american people would have assumed we would have had standards for best practices in all of these areas. if we don't, we need to. thank you. >> senator udall. >> i will be short and ask one question. i associate with all the remarks from all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i appreciate your comments and written statements. i look forward to reading it more exhaustively. there have been a couple of cases that i think you're aware of where m.m.s. has demonstrated its close and sometimes inappropriate relationship with the denver office. m.m.s. collects billions of dollars in royalties every year.

it is also regulating the safety and environmental practices of the industry. those two roles you can ark contradict each other and come into conflict. can you comment on this role m.m.s. plays as the regulator for the oil and gas industry? >> i think it is something that is probably going to be looked at and that's a reasonable -- something that is reasonable for your committee certainly to look at, whether we should have a truly independent safety regulator. that concept might merit further attention. >> senator shaheen?

>> thank you, mr. chairman . i would also like to thank our panelists for being here. especially you, mr. danenberger. my question is for you. i would like to follow up on the issue raised by senator lincoln. she was asking about the cement used to keep oil and gas from bubbling to the surface and exploding during drilling. it is my understanding in 2000 m.m.s. asked the industry for advice how to deal with problems. and i guess i would like to ask you do you think it should take a decade or longer to fix a problem m.m.s. has identified and in your experience with the agency, are these types of delays common or have they occurred more recently since m.m.s. has began relying on industry self-regulation. >> yeah, i think that the issues

associated are under discussion for a while and there have been some changes made in practices and in the regulations. i think clearly more needs to be done and that should be a focus of attention right now. >> and can you just -- do you know what the regular slation governing that cement use and how the industry was involved with developing that regulation? >> yeah, it was developed by the m.m.s. that regulation tells when you the cement. how much cements you have to use. how long you have to -- how you pressure test the casing after the cement is set. so that is well covered. it is just from my experience and looking at the montero blowout and what the situation is with this one there wasn't a good understanding on the part of some of the workers as to

what actions the station could take and certain signals were given and maybe they didn't have a good cement job. >> and given the training is now done by the industry, is that something that should be incorporated into the industry training? >> yeah, i think there should be -- there are certain specialists that do the cementing but i think the primary operators, representatives, drilling contractor people should have a pretty good later in with those operations. cementing is not -- a well controlled training program. >> thank you. >> i believe everyone has had a chance to ask questions. we appreciate both of you testifying today very much. we may call on you in the future

for your expert advice on this issue. >> our sect spaniel composed of witnesses from the three companies involved in the operation on the deep water horizon leading up to this catastrophic failure. contractor in the deep waters of the gulf of mexico providing rigs to many of the deep water exploreation and development wells. its representative is steven

newman. its chief executive officer. hall burtson the oil field services provider that was subcontracted to provide a range of services on the deep water horizon including the cement encasing program of the well that experienced the disastrous blowout. its representative on this program is the chief safety and environment officer. we are asking all witnesses to please be sworn today. if each of you would stand and raise your right hand, i'll administer the oath to you. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? please be seated. as with the previous panel, you entire written statement will be made part of the record and we would ask that each of you take

five or six minutes to make the main points that you think we need to understand. starting with you, mr. mckay and then mr. newman and then mr. proburt. >> thank you. members of the committee, i am the president and chairman of b.p. mesh. we have experienced a tragic series of events. three weeks ago tonight 11 people were lost in an explosion and fire for the transocean deep horizon. 17 others were injured. my deepest sthiss go out to the families and friend who is have suffered such a terrible loss and to those in the gulf coast communities whose lives and livelyhood are being impacted. over the last few days i've seen the response first hand and talked with the men and women on the front line. there is a deep and steadfast

revolve to do all we humanly can to stop the leak and contain this bill and minimize the suffering of the people on the gulf coast. as a responsible party under the oil pollution act we will carry out our responsibilities to mitigate the environmental and economic impacts of this incident. our efforts are part of a unified command that was accomplished within hours to have accident that provides a structure for our work with the department of homeland security and interior as well as defense, energy, osha and other federal organizations. we are grateful for the involvement of president obama and members of his cabinet and for the leadership, directions and resources they have provided. we are also grateful to the governors, congressional members, state agencies and local community of mississippi,

alabama and louisiana, texas and florida. i want to underscore that the global resources of bmbs p. are committed to this degrees, of b.p. are committed to this effort and v have been from the outset. nothing is being spared. everyone is working to deliver an effective response at the well head, on the water and at the shoreline. before i describe our around the clock efforts, i want to reiterate our commitment to find out what happened. figuring out what happened and why it happened is a complex process. we are cooperating with the joint investigation by the departments of homeland security and interior and investigations by congress. in addition, b.p. has commissioned an internal investigation whose results we plan to share so we can all learn from these terrible events. i want to be clear. it is inappropriate to draw any

conclusion before all the facts are known. as we speak, our investigation team is locating and analyzing data, interviewing available witnesses and reviewing and assessing evidence and today i think it is important to give you and the american public an idea of the questions we are asking. there are really two key sets of questions here. we're actively exploring both of them. first, what caused the explosion and fire on the rig. second, why did transocean's blowout preventer, the key fail-safe mechanic niff fail to release the rig? with respect to the first question, the key issue we are examining is how hydrocarbons should have entered the well. transocean, as owner and operator to have deep water drilling rig have responsibility for the safety of drilling

operations. we don't know yet previously what happened on the night of april 20 but what we do know is there were praur test readings prior to the explosion. these could have raised concerns prior to the operation. through our investigation, we hope to learn more about what happened and what was done in the hours before the explosion. apart from looking at the causes of the explosion, we're also examining why the blowout preventer did no not work as the ultimate fail safe to sell a the -- seal the well. control until s sealed with a cement plug and is temporarily abandoned. we will continue full speed ahead with our investigation, keeping all lines of inquiry open until we find out what

happened and why. at the same time, we are fully engaged in efforts to respond to these events. our subsea efforts to stop the flow of oil involved four parallel and concurrent strategies. activating the bop would be the preferred course because it would stop the fow at the source. this proved unsuccessful so far. we are working on a containment system wch will place largemé could take. three months. a

fourth effort northern as a top kill uses a tube. with more than a million more feet available. we are also attacking the spill area with coast guard approved biodegradable dispersions which are being applied from planes and boats. we have a technique to put it on the seabed. to protect the shoreline we are implementing what the u.s. coast guard has called the most massive shoreline protection ever mounted. 13 stages areas are in in place and over 4,000 volunteers have been trained. we recognize there are both

environmental and economic impacts. b.p. will pay all necessary clean-up cost and is committed to paying legitimate claims to other losses and damages caused by this spill. was, we must not lose sight y bp and other energy companies operating in the gulf. the gulf provides one out of four barrels of oil produced in the united states. ifhat is a resource our economy requires. bp and the entire energy industry are not under illusions about the challenges we face. we know that we will be judged by our response to this crisis. we intend to do everything in our power to brg this der control and mitigate the environmental impact of the oil spill and to address economic claims in a responsible manner. no resource available to this company will be spirit. i cn assure you that we and the entire industry will learn from this terrible event and emerged

from a stronger and safer. thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. i would be happy to answer questions. >> thank you. mr. newman, go ahead. >> members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. my name is steven newman. i am the chief executive officer with transocean ltd. it's a leading offshore drilling contractor with 18,000 employees worldwide. i am a petroleum engineer and have spent years working with and on drilling rigs. i've worked a transocean more than 15ears. i am incredibly proud of the contributionsre company has made to the energy industry during that time. today i sit before you with a heavy heart. the last few weeksave been a time of great sadness and reflection for our company and for me personally.

nothing is more important to me and to transocean than the safety of our crew members. our hearts acheor the widows, parents, and children of the 11 crew members, including nine transocean employees, who died in the deepwater horizon explosion. these. were exceptional these we are committe -- these were exceptional men. over the last few weeks we ha seen great acts of courage and kindness in our colleagues and in our communities. that was embodied by the 115 crewmembers who rescued from the deepwaterorizon and were as worried about the fate of their colleagues as they were about their own safety. it was embodied by the brave men and women of the u.s. coast guard who provided on-site response and search and rescue efforts, and by medical

professionals and family and medicalwho received the injured crew members when they arrived on shore. it is embodied by our friends and colleagues at transocean and across the industry who have rallied to help the families of those lost. this has been a very emotional time for all of us at transocean. it has also been a time of intense activity in effort who. immediately after the explosion, transocean began working with bp and the unified command in the effort to stop the flow of hydrocarbons from the oilwell. our finest engineers and operational personnel have been working with bp to identify and pursue options for stopping the flow as soon as possible. our drilling rigs are involved in drilling a relief well and the drillship called the discover enterprise is standing by on location to carry out the unique oil recovery operations in the gulf.

we will continue to support to bp and the unified command in all of these efforts. at the same time we have been working hard to get to the bottom of the question that this committee and the american public want and deserve an answer to. what happened on the night of? april 20 how do we assure the american public it will not happen again? -- what happened on the night of april 20? transocean has assemble an independent team that includes dedicated transocean and industryxperts. they will be interviewing people who have potentially helpful information and stuing the operations and equipment involved. because the drilling process is a collaborative effort among contractors, and subcontractors, the process of understanding what led to the april 20 explosion and how to prevent such an accident in the future

must also be a collaborative. our team is working side-by-side with others, including bp and governmental agencies, and the investigative efforts will continue until we have satisfactory answers. while it is early to know exactly what happened on april 20, we do have some clues about the cause of the disaster. the most significant clue is that these events occurred after the well construction process was essentially complete. drilling had been finished on. april 17 the oilwell had been sealed with casing and cement. for that reason, the one thing we do know is that on the evening of april 20 there was a sudden catastrophic failure of the cement, the casing, or both. without a failure of one of those elements, the explosion could not have occurred.

it is also clear that the drill crew had very little, if any, time to react. the initial indications of ouble and the subsequent explosions were almost instantaneous. what caused that sudden violent failure? was the oilwl properly designed? were there problems with the casing and the fuel assembly? was the casing properly cemented? and the oilwell effectively sealed? were all protts run on the cement and the casing? nor the blowout preventers damaged by the surge that emanated from the well? did the search put debris into the bop, which prevented them from crossing the pipe? these are some critical questions that need to be answered in the coming weeks and months. until we know exactly what happened on april 20, we cannot determine how best to prevent

such tragedies in the future. but regardless of what the investigation uncovered, ours is an indtry that must put safety first. we must do so for the sake of our employees, for the sake of their families, and for the sake of people all over the world who use and enjoy and rely on oceans and waterways for their sustenance. thank you again for the opportunity to speak today. i am happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much. mr. probert? >> members of the committee, thank you for inviting halburton to testify. we will continue to work with you and your staff to collect the factual data that will enable an understanding of what took place and that we can -- and what we can collectively do to ensure domestic oil and gas production is undertaken in the

safest and most environmentally possible manner possible. if the catastrophic blow out and spread of oil in the gulf of mexico or tragic events for everyone. on behalf of the entire halliburton family, we extend our heartfelt sympathy to the families, the friends, the colleagues of the 11 people who lost their lives and those workers injured in the tragedy. as we hope you can appreciate, neither halliburton or any other party can make a judgment or offer any credible theories about what happened until at a minimum the oilwell owner has interviewed everyone on the deepwater horizon to recreate the daily log of activities on april 20. in absence of that, we should t be making a rush to judgment. the weber, two things can be said with some certainty. -- however. the casing was put in place. had the it bop functioned as

expected, the catastrophe might not have occurred. for more than 90 years holabird has provided a variety of production -- halliburton has provided a variety of products and services to ensure the life cycle of reservoirs. with respect to the mississippi canyon to 52 well, halliburton was contacted by the owner to provide cementing, directional drillin, real-time data acquisition and data delivery services for t personnel on board the oil rig and on shore. since the blowout, halliburton has been working at the direction of the owner to assist in efforts of bringing the oil well under control. this includes intervention support to help secure the damaged oilwell and assistance in dealing one or more relief wells. at the outset i need to

emphasize that halliburton is a servi provider and is contractually bound to comply with the oilwell owner's instructions immolated to work activities. the construction of a deep water well is a complexperation involving the performance of many tasks by manyarties. while the owner has ultimate responsibility for planning and approving, much of the daily activities are directed. cement can be used to prevent movementof fluids between formations and to bond and support the steel casing. there are many external factors which affect the design. and the execution. these include variability of the geometry, the relative location of hydrocarbon reserves, and hydrocarbon content of associated drilling fluids. the centralized replacement on the production casing, the

drilling fluids, a conditioning program, and the cement replacement design used for the well were implemented as directed by the owner of the oilwell. as shown on the diagram which is attached to my prepared remarks from a design so there was no continuous cement column throughout the entire well board. 24 hours prior, halliburton had completed the cementing of the ninth and final if production casing in accordance with the program. following the placement of the slurry, the casing ceiling was done in the tazing hangar. as required by mms and as directed by the oiell owner, a pressure test was conducted to demonstrate the integrity of the production casing strength. results of the positive test were reviewed by the owner and the decision was made to proceed with the well program.

the next steps include the performanceof a negative pressure tests which tests the integrity of the casing assembly. it is conducted under the direction of the owner and mms requirements. we understand halliburton requires a pressure applied during the test. after the negative test was completed, halliburton cementing personnel were placed on standby. we understand the drilling contractor replaced the dense drilling fluid in the riser with seawater prior to the planned placement of the final cement plug. if the drilling fluid being transferred directly to a workload standing by. the final cement plug would have been installed inside the production stream and enabled the planned temporary abandonment of the oilwell. but prior to that point in the oil well construction plan, the halliburton personnel would have

set the cement plug, the catastrophic incident occurred. as a result, the final cement plug was not set. halliburton is confident the cementing work on the mississippi the252 was completed in accordance with requirements. thank you for the opportunity to share with you. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much. i just note for all senators we are in the middle of a vote. i guess we are halfway through a vote. so we will plan to keep the hearing going. if senators want to go ahead and vote and then return to ask questions, you are encouraged to do that. let me start with some questions. mr. probert, in one of your last statement said you understand the drilling contractor proceeded to displace the riser

with seawater prior to the planned placement of the final cement plug. is that standard operating procedure? >> that is an operating procedure ich is commonly used. >> there is no safety problem in doing that as a normal matter? >> what that effectively does is it reduces the density of uid in the riser. as a result of that, it reduces the hydrostatic head which is bearing down on the well head. >> i would have thought that you would want as much pressure in the oilwell, tao would pressure, as possible until you have the plug in place. am i wrong? but there's no question that question hydrostaticshead would of been reduced during the

course of that process, but it is a process undertaken prior to the setting of the final cement plug. >> ok. let me ask a very general question about it. i think you make reference to the need to recreate the daily log of activities that occurred on theil rig. i think that was your comment. is all of the data that was available on the oil rig prior to the explosion, all of that information -- has that been preserved and is it information that is being made available to the government investigators at this time, mr. mckay? >> as in the stand, there's quite a bit of data located on a remote server from the oil rig onshore. that data has been preserved. all data, everything we can get

our hands on and turnover is being turned over, yes. >> mr. nman if, is that your view? but that there would be some amount of written data that would've been on the oil rig at the time of the event, obviously that data iso longer available to us. whatever there was has been transferred electronically or sent into our offices prior to the event is being preserved and provided to the government. >> did you have a remote server that was pturing this data away from the oil rig just as mr. mckay indicated bp did? >> te only distinction i would draw is that bp data would have been real time. our data has some delay in the replicion of our data, so are sequence of events ends at 3:00 in the afternoon on the 20th. >> do you have all that data preserved? >> yes, all that data has been

preserved and made available as requested. >> ok. one of the issues that is going to be focused on probably when we have secretary salazar next week is whether there were efforts made to improve or to strengthen the safety requirements for this type of drilling operation that mms made that were not successful, that the dustry resisted. are there any aspects of this that you are aware of, mr. mckay, where the mms was urging additional safety precautions to be taken that the industry was not in compliance with? >> no, i am not aware of any. some people of reference to a letter that went to comment to

the mms about saty regulations where we were providing comment as to the nature of, a prospective nature of regulations. we suggested that performance standards should be set off, companies should be made to adhere to those performance standards. we made recommendations for on how we thought regulations could be made better, but we have not submitted anything that would try to slow down or limit safety regulations. >> mr. newman, do you have any knowledge of circumstances where your company or industry more generally has been resistant to efforts by mms to impose stricter safety requirements? >> senator, i would draw a distinction between discussions with regulatory authorities and regulation. we have participated in discussions when the topic being discussed would have specific plications to our business or where we would have expertise that we could bring to bear on those discussions .

when regulations are passed, we stand in fl compliance. >> did you have a comment? >> we also work closely with the mms in developing standards for certain processes which e undertaken. >> ok. thank you all. senator mikulski? >> thank you, mr. chairman. in reading through thetestimony of each of the three of you -- anthis was alluded to by senator menendez, that he suggested there is the transference of liability or finger-pointing. i have stated that there is going to be plenty of time to try to figure out who is to blame. that will go on. i think we appreciate and recognize that. you suggested, mr. mckay, that, as the owner and operator of the deepwater horizon, that

transocean -- not suggesting that the liability is there, but you are transferring it. mr. newman is suggesting it is not the bop at all, that that was not the cause. and that we should be looking to something that could cause a catastrophic failure such as the casing or cementing. mr. probert take all the way back to the owner of the oilwell at bp. i would suggest altria view that we are all in this together, because this incident is affecting -- it will have an impact on the development of our energy policy for this country. if we cannot continue to operate and convince people that we can perform safely, then not only willp not be out there but the transoceans will not be out there to drill and halliburtons

will not be there to provide cementing. mr. mckay, i wa to ask you some questions about what is happening right now. we have been watchi with fascination the containment dome and whether it's going to work. it's not encouraging. it's disappointing to many. we are now watching the ongoing efforts with the drilng of the two relief wells, recognizing th is two months away. now discussing the nowhitop hil. we're not certain how much volume is coming out on a daily basis. the issue with the disbursement, i would like to understand from you whether or not we have the supply of dispersants that we need, whether we are getting them out there not only at the

surface but at the seabed in a manner that is aggressive. when the exxon valdez incident happened, we delayed some ctical methods that we've perhaps could have contained it, whether it was burning or dispersants. i would like to think there have been no delays, th. can you give me some assurance we are moving aggressively to break up as much as we can't? >> yes, we have two levels of dispersant that we are utilizing. one is that the surface. it is phone every day when the weather permits. that has been very impact will so far. >> did you have enough of that? >> yes. what we have done is worth the supply chain such as our chemical supplier, which

suppes 75 thousands a day sustainably. that amount should cover the amount using at the surface on the water as well as what we hope to do. we have just done a subsea test yesterday. it ended at 4:40 this morning. bp is making sure the correct monitoring is in place or will be in place. we hope to be getting approval pretty soon for further dispersant. >> is this the first time epa has done this testing and the deep water levels, testing dispersants for safety and effectiveness? >> i believe this is the first use at 5,000 feet and the first test. >> it stuns me that we know we need to use dispersants in the event of an oil spill, but we have not put in place the testing necessary.

we have probably lost days where we could have been acting while we are waiting for the testing to play out. that's more than frustrating. itani ask you, -- let me ask you, you just indicated the final cement plug was not yet placed prior to the blowout. this is contrary to a certain media accounts out there. the question is why is that significant? i want to make sure i am cle. the we --was the oilwell case and completined when the blowout occurred? but there are conflicting reports in the media. i can confirm the final plot was not said. as we heard this morning, the concept of multiple barriers is very important.

that blood would have been the final barrier before the oilwell would have been temporarily suspended, as was the plan for completion at a later date. >> be have a vote that we have to get off to, but there's one question. what tests were conducted what kind of maintenance logs are in place for the cement works? >> in fact there is no direct test that was performed on the cement. >> do you usually do a direct test? >> the direct tests were to be performed would be called a temperature log or a cement bond log. that's the only test to determine the actualhe b d between the cement sheets, the formation, a the casing. when is that typically conducted? >> that is conducted after two prior tests. the first test is a positive

pressure test which is conducted to test the integrity of the sing itself. the second is a negative test which is designed to test the integrity of the casing hangar seals or the seal assembly which contains the casing. . >> will you be able to gain in data? >> there is information on the positive test, though, i do not believe there is information available from our data screen on the negative test. >> but is it fair to say, though, that somebody has that? >> i'm afraid i can't comment. it is certainly not collected on our everybody isers.

i would have to defer on that particular point to these gentlemen. >> it would seem to me we would want to know whether or not the tests were conducted and what the results of those tests were. that seems to be pretty key to what could have taken place. >> i think everyone is working hard to make sure the data is available so a reconstruction of events can take place so that that determine makes the -- >> do you have that data? >> i have not had a chance to review any data. i believe we do. >> you do believe you have it? >> i believe there should be some data from interviews. digital data. that will be a large part of the investigation to understand that sequence. >> we're going to take a short recess until we can return from these votes. we'll just stand in recess a few minutes.

>> thank you all for coming back to order. we'll go ahead and resume and other members of the committee will arrive shortly. i missed some of the questions. if i'm covering territory that has already been covered, please let me know. mr. mckay, one of the things that i have found troubling and i know in talking to others, they are also concerned is that

there didn't seem to be an emergency plan in place that could address how to -- how to deal with the spill once it happened. i know that there is a lot of investigating relative to what actually happened. but as you said, this is -- someone from b.p. said this was a spill that was unthinkable, but once its happened, the strategy around the containment dome seemed to be not a plan that had been thought through in any significant way prior to the accident, and so i guess i would like to ask what kinds of measures b.p. has had in place to address this sort of a spill and why did it take the actual spill before the company came up

with the idea of the containment dome and had tested that to see how it might work? with it ? >> spill responses have heretofore concentrated on dealing with oil at the circ surface. there has been a contingency plan that has worked conditionally well. the point you bring up is about intervention. we have not dealt with the situation like this before. obviously, it is a specifically difficult situation, 5,000 ft. of water. i think after this is under control and thought aut in

hindsight, there will be some ideas about how to make the response better. we are learning as we go. it is something that needs be looked at. >> how much research and development does your company to on the deep waters bills -- deep water spills? is this an area of any focus? can you quantify how much money is being spent on research and development in this area? >> i cannot quantify how much is being spent. >> are you at bp doing research in that area, how to respond to deep water spills? >> we're working very hard on our spill response. intervention is something that

needs to be looked at further. >> and you? >> we are not currently engaged in any research or development in regards to a deep water spille. >> halliburton's focus has been around intervention in the form of relief wells. >> are you aware of anyone in the industry who is researching how to handle a deep water spille? anybody at universities, for example? >> the question is, in a specific situation, we are dealing with fluids and depth of water that have not been debt -- and not been dealtith before

in actuality. there are 160 companies working on this as well as government agencies. i really do think that what we learn from here is going to impact the industry and how well we do this. >> i appreciate that, and i think we all understand the enormous response and the commitment that bp now has to respond to this accident. my question really is, should we not be more proactive about recognizing that when we are drilling at these depths, that despite all precautions, there is the potential for disaster, and therefore, we should have research under way that would show us how to respond in case of the disaster? you can take that as a statement rather than a question.

>> i guess the normal routine is to go back and forth. senator sessions? >> thank you. deang with is exceedingly important. if wdo not get this oil from off our shores, we will have to get oil that is produced off- shore somewhere else. it is important to the economy. it is important to jobs. it is important to our nation's ability to be competitive in the world marketplace, but it has to be done safely. maybe we have become a bit too colacent in the work that we are doing re. first, let me follow up. it is a bit odd to me that

immediately after this blowout occurred and we began to see the leaks, the idea came that we needed a containment think it could go over the leak -- thing that could go over the leak. but several weeks to construct. -- that took several weeks to construct. why is it that something like that wasn't already constructed, and those sorts of things already examined when you are dealing with a deep water? >> it is extremely hard to predict the specifics of the situation.

the emergency system disconnect did not activate or released the disconnect. that then impacts what type of solution we have to use to address the problem. this is a situation where we had a riser bend over the seabed. is impossible to predict that. the intervention we have been doing has been focused on trying to get the blowout preventer activated. >> always basically asking was, should you not have anticipated that these kind of things could occur, and that this kind of dam would be needed and have

something already constructed? >> what i would say is that as we learned from this incident, we will understand what type of capability -- it would have been difficult to have predicted what would have been needed. >> there was an article today about the removal of the mud. did bp direct that the reverse procedure would be undertaken and ask the middle management service to alter the normal requirements and to displace the mud before the plugging operation began? >> i have not read that artie so i cannot comment directly.

>> do you work for bp? >> i do. >> according to this, bp asked permission from a middle management service to displace the mud before the final plugging operation had begun. mud weighs about 50% more than water. as the heavy mud was taken out and replaced by much lighter seawater, that is when the well blew up. that is what the workers said pierre >> i am not filiar with the individual procedure on the well. the investigation will look at the procedure, the directions, the decisions and the process but we used. but not under review of that yet. -- process that we used.