this bill. during our committee's four markups we accepted 25 amendments offered by the minority. in addition, many additional changes have be suggestion of the minority. i believe this is a good bill, both on substance and on inclusive procedure, and is a better bill because of the contributions of our members. i specifically want to thank my friend, ralph hall, for the cooperation and the spirit with which this bill has been brought before us and the way it was handled within our committee, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hall: i rise today to speak on h.r. 5325, a bill re-authorizing the america competes act. i believe long-term investment in science and technology, coupled with policies that

reduce tax burdens, streamline federal regulations and balance the federal government are very vital for our nation to remain competitive in the global marketplace. however, we must put our fiscal house in order to make sure we're not leveraging the future of our children and grandchildren. while i remain coitted to the underlying goals of the america competes act, the bill before us today continues to take us in a much more costly direction and authorizes a number of new programs which have little to do with prioritizing investments in basic science, technology, engineering and math research and development. on may 12 and 13, the bill was considered by the full house of representatives. republican attempts to offer amendnts to reduce the spending levels in the bill and reduce the length of the authorization from five yrs to three years were denind. our attempt to ensure schools serving the disabled and

disabled veterans was also denied. because republicans were denied the opportunity to even offer these amendments on the house floor have a -- house floor, have a meaningful dialogue about them, we tried to help this through our motion to recommit. our motion, as you well know, encouraged education opportunities for the disabled and disableveterans, language to reduce the authorization levels to fiscal year 2010 levels and to authorize threes levels from three years to five. the motion also included provisions to eliminate programs. overall spending levels were reduced to around $47 billion and the motion to recommit must still remain above the $24 billion in the house-passed 2007 version of competes. in addition to the reductions in spending, the motion was

addressed concerns about federal employee's misuse of time and government property. when given the opportunity to consider these issues, the house of representatives supported them overwhelmingly by a vote of 292 to 126. -- 292-126. i believe these changes made the bill better. the spending levels reported by the motion showed that we could be fiscally responsible while still supporting important investments in scoins and technology. it was disappointing when the majority made a decision to pull this improved bill for full consideration by the whole house of representatives. i'm glad that this bill includes a few provisions in the motion to recommit. such as reduction in the authozed length from five years to three years. as well as a prohibition on paying the salaries of workers who misused government time and property. these were sensible, good government provisions.

unfortunately, the bill before us today contains new and duplicative programs, including some that were added in floor consideration last week. it includes language establishing energy innovation hubs at d.o.e. which are duplicative of those already at d.o.e. there's also a new program to pursue commercialization of clean energy technology, which is duicative of the hubs program. several of these new progms fund activities beyond basic science research and development and will divert money away from basic research. at a time when government spending is out of control, we need to be streamlining the prioritizing programs. any public university receiving funds under this bill would be required to maintain an information policy wherein failure to respond within 15

days would result in the threat of losing federal funding. this places federal agencies awarding funding in the role of administering state labor laws. this is an inappropriate provision that will place added burdening on our university system and certainly does nothing to advance e main goals of thcompetes legislation. also i remain concern of the overall funding in this bill. at almost $48 billion, the bill represents $9.5 billion above the f.y. 2010 baseline extended out three years. it's also important to note that the core agencies in this bill received an additional $5 billion in the american recovery and reinvestment act already. given the current state of our national economy and our budget deficit has increased 50% since the last authorization three years ago, we must be mindful of our spending if america is toontinue to compete globally. finally, i'm dess appointed that the compromise -- i'm disappointed that the

compromised language of disabled veterans contained in the motion to recommit is not in this bill. this is the second time that disabled veterans language was overwhelmingly accepted by both sides of the aisle and it is the second time it's been stripped out of the bill. every one of us will run into these fine young men and women back in our districts in about 10 days when we speak to them on memorial day. i think we ought to be telling these wounded warriors who are returning to civilian life after making life-altering sacrifices in defense of our freedom that we just ensured that t colleges and universities they attend will get the same special consideration as other -- as other schools that are afforded special consideration so they, too, can take advantage of stem opportunities and contribute to the competitiveness of this great nation that they so ablely defended. unfortunately, this is no longer the case. in my opinion, this is really shameful.

if we were denied this small opportunity show our appreciati, not only to them but to t schools that are reaching out to them. mr. speaker, i yield -- i certainly se today to urge us to not to approve the present bill and i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and the language they all agreed to and agreed to include by a vote of 292-126 to put back in this bill the will of the house and the members should be as followed. i as a veteran of world war ii would hate to go back 10 days from now and look in the faces of those that we are addressing on memorial day at a time when we should be remembering them that we do stop here and pray for them and drop our heads for a minute and i think that's a wonderfuthing for the speaker to do, but i think today is a day for us to raise our heads, lift up our thoughts and remember them. if we can spend this kind of money and ignore the needs of a very dedicated few, i think we'd be making a dreadful

mistake. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the geneman from tennessee. mr. gordon: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gordon: i wi take the time a little bit later to try to respond to some of mr. hall's concerns, but i want to get to the veterans right now. i want to assure mr. hall when he goes home for memorial day day he can look at -- for memorial day he can look at those veterans and say i fought for you. i will read the language so there will be no misunderstandinabout this issue. we don't need red harings here. i want to read the language of the bill. for purposes of the activities and programs supported by this act and the amendments made by this act, institutions of higher education offering stem research and education activities and programs that serve veterans with disabilities shall receive special consideration in the review of any proposals by these institutions for funding

under research and education programs authorized in this act. so let's be sure that we know that has been addressed. now, let me also point out that there's 435 members of congress. and if we each wrote the bill we would probably write it a little bit differently. this is a matter of trying to bring folks together, develop consensus and that is what we did with 49 different hearings, a bipartis vote through four different markups so i think that we've addressed that. i will address other issues later, but i'like to now yield two minutes to my friend from wisconsin, mr. kind. th speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. kind: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my good friend and colleague from tennessee for recognizing me. and, mr. speaker, as one of the co-chairs in the new democratic coalition and as a co-chair,

along with representative rush holt, heading up the innovation task force, i rise in proud suppo of the america competes act. and i do commend our chairman, bart gordon, on the science committee for the work he's put into this bipartisan bill. we may be losing him to retirement, but he's leaving a legacy and that is to ensure stng and robust job growth in e short term, the mid term and the long term. that's what this job is about. this job is about making crucial investments to ensure our nation remains the most innovative nation in the world on the cutting edge of medical and technological discoveries. we do that in investing the tem fields of study, science, technology, engineing and mathematics, where the growth is going to be occurring. by investingn basic and applied research in bh the private and public sector. by creating innovation clusters around the nation so that we can partner with the private sector to create the jobs of the fure. and ensuring that all americans

ful participates in the 21st century global economy. that's what the america competes act is all about. and i would encourage my colleagues on the other side who m be playing this political got you game to stop. stop playing the game and do the rht thing and support this underlying bill. if you think that we ought to be prohibiting federal dollars to be used for lobbying purpose, that's in the bill. so support it. if you believe that veterans should be full participants of thprograms being offered in the bill, including the stem education programs, that's in the bill. . if u believe we should prohibit federal funds from paying child rapists, that's in the bill. if you think we should fire any federal employee who was looking at pornography on their computer, that's in this bill. what's in the political gotcha games that delayed passage of this bill, i hope it's not something that's going to come up on the floor today, because this is the right thing to do for the future of our economy.

it's the right thing to do for the american people. let's make sure that we remain the most innovative nation in the world. that's what the american competes acthat should pass with wide bipartisan majorities as the first authorization of this bill did a coupleears ago with roughly 360 members supporting it. they should support it again today. i urge its passage and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. hall. mr. hall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hall: i recognize that we all write language differently, however once the house has voted on and passed that lanage, i think it ought to be included in the bill that the house has coidered. and that's happened not once but a couple times. regretfully i disagree with chairman -- with the chairman, there is no assurance that an underlying bill that a single institution helping disabled

veterans would benefit. let me say this. i don't say that the gentleman from tennessee doesn't support disabled veterans or anybody on this floor. i think we are all mindful of the debt we owe those people. it's a matter of trying to get together on something that really gives them that that we are intending that we indicate that we are giving them. and they just d't receive that under the language that's proposed in this bill, but it can be fixed. i worked with the chairman. the honorable, decent, very good chairman, a good friend, and has worked hard and has iroved this bill. and improved it. he knocked it down from five years to three. and that knocked off down to almost $47 billion the cost of this bill. still $11 billion at leastoo excessive. but he has made an effort. and we are so close. the language that he just read to youif we can change two words in it. and sit it on the sixth sentence of what the current bill is that

we are looking at today, they put -- that they serve veterans, change that available to veterans. we are that close to settling this and probably giving at least the veterans something. not giving them everything they need. i just think that we ought to give some special conderation to schools that are chartered for disabled students and those serving disabled veterans. it's not a consideration that's consistent with other schools with underrepresented populations today. i say based on that creating yet another tier or class of institution versus playing them on the same and putting them on the same equal playing field is just not quite enough. i yield back my time, sir -- i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee, mr. gordon. mr. gordon: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemais recognized. mr. gordon: we have all heard the story of two people seeing

the same accident and with their best intentions viewing it differently. i think this is what we have here today. this really has become something of a red herring on a much bigger bill. let me once againddress this veterans isse. mr. hall said he wants to make these programs available to the veterans. i want to require it. we require it. so let me read the language again. for the purpose of the activities and programs supported by this act, and the amendments made by this act, institutions of higher education offering stem research, education activities, and programs that serve veterans with disabilities shall receive not made available, shall receive special consideration and review of any proposals by these institutions for funding under resech and education programs authorizing act. shall receive not made available, shall receive.

i yield back my time -- i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: i yieldo dr. ehlers two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. ehlers: i want to thank chairman gordon and ranking member hall for all their hard work on this legislation. it is a complex bill. it has been from the start beginning in 2006. when president george w. bush developed the idea the american competitiveness initiative which is a three-pronged approach as strengthening research at n.s.f. and nist. we must continue that effort. we heard a peech this morning during the one-minute segment from theentleman from texas, mr. johnson, about his concern

about our debt to the chinese. it's going to get worse and worse unless we generate more wealth in this country. and any economist will tell you that one of the best ways to generate wealth in this nation is through manufacturing. we must restore our manufacturg operations in this nation, we must work together to put our country in a more stable fiscal basis. we must stop overspending. and we have to restore manufacturing and other wealth building mechanisms such as mining and farming. this bill goes a long way to do that and i support this bill. it's not everything i wanted. none of us ever get everything we want, but at least we can move it over to the senate and at the very least we can go in the conference with the senate and try to resolve the issues such as the veterans issue. i believe we are in total agreement on what we want to achieve. i just encourage us to pass this

bill, get it into conversation where all the viewpoints can be heard and debated. i hope my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will support the bill before us today. national association of manufacturers supports it, all others who are involved in wealth generation through manufacturing support it. we absolutely have to restore our manufacturing sector and the president we have now is trying to do that through the department of commerce and to the council he has appointed in nist. we have our work cut out for us but i think we can come together and continue the work with the senate and nally develop a really good bill we can all vote for. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. gordon: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. johnson.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is cognized for two minutes, ms. johnson. ms. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 5325, the american competes re-authorization act of 2010. it was once said when the lord says, give up, hope whispers. try it one more time. america cannot afford to give up on science, education, and innovation, i want to applaud my colleagues, and leadership on science and technology for their hard work on this legislation. our nation is being outpaced by our competitors and graduating with scientists and engineers. it is so important to invest wisely in programs that truly make a difference in achieving -- in the aievement of our young people. america competes is about our future. it's about ensuring we are taking the right steps towards increasing american competitiveness and innovation.

it is also about strengthening diversity in our nation's scientific enterpriseo that all americans can compete in the 21st century. we have an obligation to the fure of our nation to ensure every segment of our population has equal access and opportunities to perform these careers in stem. the bill was put together in a bipartisan fashion and represents a concerted effort to create a more competitive science and engineering work force. this is the goal of america competes and i am pleased that the provisions are in this bill for all americans. i will fight for innovation, justice, parity, and equality for all americans as long as i can. i thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. hall, is recognized. mr. hall: i thank professor

ehlers for his good explanation, his position on the bill. that's been his position from the word go and there were others on the republican side in mmittee who differed with those of us that were addressing the bill. and we all have a right to disagree. i respect that. this bill got better, it didn't get better out of rules because it didn't give us a rule, didn't give us a shot at it, but it got a better as it had the vote yesterday, it's a little better as the chairman brought it to us today. i must say this that the chairman has improved the availability for the veterans to benefit and we are very close. the chairman has said he wants to continue to work on this. and along three or four paragraphs we are two word away from it. i certainly take bart gordon at his word and will work with him.

i think we should have the words available to instead of that servehose to veterans. what's available tothem is very important. we'd like to have that in the bill. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. gordon: as my friend from texas says, we have worked tother long and hard on many issues and we are certainly -- we are going to continue to work to try to get this language exactly where both parties are seeking it in gd faith can agree. to me it seems shall receive is better than make available but we are going to work to get that together. i yield two minutes to the chairman of the research and science education committee, dr. lipinski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. lipinski: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of this bill. as chairman of the research and science educatiosubcommittee, i want to thank dr. ehlers not only for his support of the competes act, but also all the work that he has done as the ranking republican on the subcommittee in all the years he has put in on these issues in congress. i firmly believe that this bill is critical to maintaining america's global competitiveness. ihank chairman gordon for all s hard work on this bill and also his work through the years on these issues. passage of this bill will help produce a brighter future for our nation. and our nation's workers. simply put, this bill creates jobs. as a former college professor, eng near -- engineer, i want to focus on the national science

foundation title. this act keeps funding for the n.s.f. on its doubling path and it significantly increases support for basic research, graduate education, stem educatio and turning research into jobs. america is at risk of falling behind in all these areas. we cannot stand still while our competitors move forward. if we do, we will see the jobs created on their soil not here in america. this bill also contains a number of critical programs to support innovation and manufacturing. these provisions could not reverse the outsourcing of american jobs. in addition, the competes act also includes provisions to address the serious deterioration in the state of our research infrastructure which threatens america's competitiveness. our competitors, especially china, are stealing scientists from our country. i hear that all the time because they are offering better opportunities, better research

infrastructure for the scientists. this means they will create the innovation, they will create the jobs over in their countries. the competes re-authorization act takes a proactive bipartisan approach to securing america's position in 21st century global economy and putting americans to work. e speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. lipinski: with no investment , we have no gain. it's as simple as that. we cannot lose the race of competition to other nations. america's future depends on that. we must have the jobs. people are asking where are the jobs going to come from? they are going to come from innovations that come from americans and this bill will help create the environment that will allow that to be done and provide a better future for our nation. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance

of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. hall. mr. hall: mr. speaker, at this time i yield two minutes to dr. ehlers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. ehlers: i thank the gentleman from texas, the ranking member of the committee, for being generous with his time again. i wanted to point out two additional things in the bill that are going to be of very great importance to our country. i've already mentioned that we must become more competitive and that we have to develop a better approach in this nation to competing with other nations if we are going to regain our retain the leadership that we've had for several centuries. but there's somethng else as well that's very important and that isnnovation. america has not only led through manufacturing but also through innovation and the products made. we have begun to slip in that category and that is why it's so important to continue our research efforts at the national science foundation, national institute of standards

and technology and the department of energy. i'm pleased this measure before us today focuses on the challenges faced by our nation's manufacturers and it will broaden and strengthening manufacturing and stem services that will help corpations become mre productive and innovative and it will help it through research and development. i hope my colleagues will help me support the bill which will be wonderful for our nation and our financial status if we will be more creative. and this bill provides an opportunity to do that. so i once again say let's resolve the difficulties we have, let's get them resolved as quickly as possible so we can pass this bill and begin breathing new life into manufacturing in this nation. with that i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: we are concerned with other parts of this program. we are concerned about the duplicative programs in the bill that are waste of government resources and a waste of taxpayer dollars and a timewhen we have scarce resources we had should be thinking about spending money on other things like research and not spending them on the same programs. one of this is the energy innovation hubs program which duplicates a number of programs that is already available at the department of energy. so let me say to the chairman and this congress and anybody who would hear us, this bill has been improved. the chairman has been ameanable to working together and making suggestions. he has listened to us. he hasn't always minded me but he's listened. i think that's unusual and kind of my friend from tennessee. he's changed this bill from a $86 billion to $47 billion,

from five years to three years so we feel we've made comfortable progress. and i think any bill from $86 billion to $47 billion, with that type of money, that -- disabled veterans want a small piece of it. i think as we go along and i hope we can work this out, i hope that we oppose this bill, have a vote today that's going to take 2/3 to pass it. perhaps the chairman has the votes. but if not i think in the next 48 hours we can improve it substantially. and once again be more proud of a bill that we've been from the word go we' been for the thrust of the bill. we just objected to the cost. and to duplicate so many of these processes. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee, mr. gordon. mr. gordon: mr. chairman, how much time do we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee has 7 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from texas has three. mr. gordon: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee, mr. gordon, is recognized. mr. gordon: i'd first say to my friend from texas that i probably minded him more than his kidsinded him but probably less than his grandkids have minded him. we have tried to cooperate in a lot of ways. let me address a couple of things. as i said earlier, mr. hall has said and rightfully so that everyone here is supportive of our veterans and our disabled veterans. so what i would suggt is that we use a suspenders and a belt. let's make sure. and so, mr. hall, i want to assuryou that we are going to

include your language and then -- but we can also keep our strong language of shall. so this is what we'd have. institutions of higher education offering stem education -- excuse me -- stem education, research and activities and programs rather than that serve -- we'll use your language that are availae to veterans with disabilities and then we'll continue to say shall receive special consideration. so i think this can be a suspenders and belt to do what we all want and that is to make sure that our disabled veterans are taken care of. let me also mention, there's a discussion about duplicative programs. you know, i guess sometimes that could happen. in the last bill that 365 members of the congress voted for, we found there were nine programs that didn't serve well sothose programs were taken out of this bill.

regardless of whether we can have disagreements of whether a program is duplicative or not, but it's still the funding doesn't go up. and so that is the good news there. let me also point out on page 195, section 502, and i quote, coordination and nonduplication to the maximum extent program, the secretary shall ensure that programs coordinated with and do not duplicate the efforts of other loan guarantee programs in the federal government. so there is an effort to be sure that we do not have this kind of duplition. once again, this is a bill that authorization has been cut by 50% from what 365 members of this house voted for just three years ago and that was unanimously approved by the other body. and i yield two minutes to my friend, dr. rush holt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two

minutes. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i thank the chair for yielding, and i rise in strong support of the america competes re-authorization act. our investments in scientific research and education underwrite our national prosperity and success. yet, for decades we have underinvested in our nation's tools for advancing innovation and competitiveness. the america competes re-authorization act will build on the successes of the original america competes act and the american recovery and reinvestment act by authorizing funding levels that will continue to double the budgets of our basic research agencies, nist, n.s.f., d.o.e.'s office of science. i would have preferred the stabity of a five-year re-authorization, and some of my colleagues on the other side decided to play politics with science and have made that

impossible. still, the three years of investment authorized by this bill -- investments authorized by this bill will pay big dividends, lead to new industries that will keep our nation competitive. i'm pleased that despite objections by some in the minority, the bill also provides assistance for small businesses and manufacturers to strengthen stem education, enhances the participation of underrepresented groups in technical field and supports research in pursuit of clean energy in the united states. i am pleased that the bill includes a provision that i wrote to require the administration to develop national competitiveness and innovation strategy. i commend chairman gordon and the s&t committee, and i urge my colleagues to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: mr. speaker, i just

want to reiterate that repubcan motions to recommit eliminated the new programs in the bill. new programs in the bill shift an emphasis ay from basic research toward technology commercialization activities that could potentially divert money away from basic research and could lead to inappropriate market intervention. eping the language in the bill would reduce authorization levels in the bill by $1.3 billion. the republican motion to recommit kept all existing programs at f.y. 2010 appropriated levels. given our nation's debt is $13 billion and our nation's budget deficit has increased 50% in three years, it's prudeent to put the -- prudent to put the brakes on significant increases in years to come. this bill is better than the bill was introdoused. it is not as good as when it left the committee that first considered it.

it's not as good a bill when they accepted and voteyes republicans and democrats alike on the motion to recommit. so we've made some improvements. i'm not discouraged. i still like the thrust of the bill. i look forward to working with the chairm from this day forward. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. gordon: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gordon: let me make this suggestion. if you want to wait for the absolutely perfect bill that you agree with every word, then you shouldn't vote for this bill because this bill is a bipartisan compromise that was the result of 49 hearings, four bipartisan markups. and soe had to work together. so if you want the perfect bill

that is just what exactly what you want regardless of what anybody else might want, then this may not be your bill. but if you want a bill that is going to take america forward, if you want a bill that is supported by the u.s. chamber of commerce, by the national association of manufacturers, by the information and technology industry association, by the aerospace industry association, by the business roundtable, by the counsel on competitiveness, by the national of venture capitalist association, by tech america, by technet, by the telecommunication industry association, by the energy science coalition, by the biotech industry organization, by the university -- by the american council of education, the association of american colleges and universities, by the association of american universiti, by the association of public and land grant colleges and on and on and on and on, then this is the bill for yo now, do they agree with every word in it?

no. i'm sure they don't. but do they understand that 50% of the growth in our g.d.p. in this country since world war ii is the direct result of the r&d investment and the result of that r&d investment? yes, they understand that. so today we have a chance to cast a vote for our kids, for our grandkids. we have a chance to cast a vote for energy independence in this country, and when i say energy independence, i don't mean just independence from foreign oil. i mean energy independence from foreign technology also. this is a good bill. i request everyone to take a look at it, see it it and i think th'll see it on the -- see it and i think they'll see it's a good bill that helps our disabled veterans. it was very specific in that. and, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hall: mr. speaker, i will use the amount of time that i may consume subject to my limitation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hall: yes, mr. chairman, i'd like a perfect. all of us would like a perfect bill. and i always pithe taxpayers union, who opposes this bill, against the chamber of commerce, who supports this bill, but i do seek perfection. i don't think we have a perfect bill. i doubt that we could ever get a perfect bill. but we can have a better bill. we've got a better bill than when we introduced it. we have a better bill than it was in committee. i don't seek perfection, but i like as good a bill, treat veterans the way they ought to be treated and not spending money that's needed for other matters, certainly.

i urge a no vote, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. gordon: and i ask how much time do i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee has one minute. mr. gordon: mr. chairman, i yield myself that final minute. let me point out to my friend from texas that the nacks taxpayers union did oppose -- national taxpayers union did oppose the previous bill. we just checked their website. if you have something different we'd be glad to see it because this bill is different than the last bill. thibill cuts the authorization by 50 brs. so we have a different bill here today. so, again -- this bill cuts the authorization by 50%. so we have a different bill here today. there are 6.5 billion people in the world. half of those working make less than $2 day. that's not the kind of way we want to compete in this

country. we have to work at a higher technological level to be more productive. this bill will help us get there. i think once again -- i thank once again the republican and democratic members that worked together on this bipartisan bill. i think the minority and majority for working together, to bring us this good bill, and i urge passage. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> complex, ken salazar speaks

regarding a committee hearing. and then the gulf of mexico oil spill discussion. tomorrow, mexican president calderon address a joint meeting of congress. we will have live coverage of the event right here on c-span. it begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern. >> book tv, boston radio talk- show host will defend the tea party movement against accusations from the left while making a few accusations of his own. he is interviewed by jonathan carl. you can find the entire weekend schedule on our website at booktv.org. >> i offer a toast, a commitment on behalf of the american people in seriousness, good will come and help for the future.

to your health. >> over 20 years of white house state dinners. from ronald reagan to barack obama. we have programs on the c-span video library. it is washington your way. search it, watch it, click it, and share it. watch when you want and what you want. >> can't callous -- ken salazar took steps ignores -- reorganizing government agencies regarding the offshore drilling. the minerals management service will be broken up into three parts. the changes come as a direct response to the gulf of mexico oil spill. his announcement is half an hour.

>> thanks for coming. i signed an order that will restructure the divisions and the three conflicting missions of the agency into three separate entities with different missions. the secretary of interior created this a long time ago in 1982. since then, it has managed the collection of over $210 billion in revenues generated with programs including oil and gas, metals, and renewable energy resources. in addition to collecting revenues, it has passed with developing and implementing renewable energy resources on the outer continental shelf. it is responsible for overseeing offshore energy

operations in ensuring compliance with relevant laws and regulations. these three missions, energy development, revenue collection are conflicting missions and must be separated. today, i am ordering the division of mms into three distinct entities. the bureau of ocean energy management, the bureau of safety and environmental enforcement, and the office of natural resources. a first will be under the supervision of the secretary for land and minerals. that bureau will be responsible for the sustainable development of the outer continental shelf resources both conventional and renewable energy. it will carry out the resource evaluation, planning, and other activities related to this. they will focus not just on oil and gas as mms has done for a

long time, but also responsibly developing offshore renewable energy resources. this new energy ocean bureau will help us build the clean energy future of our nation. second, we will create the bureau of safety and environmental enforcements. this separate bureau will be seen for the secretary of minerals. it will be responsible for ensuring the comprehensible oversight safety and environmental protection of all offshore activities. this will be the police of a sure and gas operations. this year will ensure that these regulations will be enforced and our environment is being protected. in another part, we will move from mms to a management doesn't, and office called the

office of natural resources revenue. the personnel will be responsible for the current revenue management function, including the collection and distribution of revenue, auditing, and compliance and asset management. this office will ensure that the american people are getting every dollar they should be getting. this will be the framework for the reorganization. the order i signed earlier today, the assistant secretary for policy management's -- it was delivered in three days. we schedule the implementation for this. we will work closely with the members of the united states congress and with the office of

management and budget to implement these reforms. this reorganization is vital to the ongoing reform efforts. the employees deserve and organizational structure that fits the mission that they are asked to carry out. they will get greater clarity for the roles and responsibilities, and we will be able to strengthen oversight of the companies that develop the nation's energy resources. these reforms are not the first, nor will they be the last that we undertake in the department of the interior. beginning in january, 2009, we establish new ethics standards in the wake of the scandals that the agency had seen in the past. we terminated the controversial royalty program, because we felt in invited the kinds of scandals the agency had seen before. we balance the agency's mandate said that it was not just focused on oil and gas but

included renewable energy production, which we have been moving forward on. many recommendations have been established to provide us with more recommendations. we council offshore leases. as well as in bristol bay. we would determine which areas on the continental shelf are appropriate for this. we will work tirelessly on how we do business. we will make sure that we are holding energy companies accountable for their responsibilities. the american people are getting a fair return for their resources. we will work tirelessly to protect the safety of workers

and the american environment. joining me today are the people responsible for helping me in the implementation of this. the deputy secretary of interior is one who has been in charge of many the efforts we have been working on and reforming the agenda of the of -- the apartment. henderson is my senior adviser and has been in charge of the efforts in getting a number of things. it is focused on the recovery. one person is not with us today because of a medical issue. i would be happier -- happy to open it up for questions. >> how many people currently

work on enforcement for safety issues? >> a total of 1700 employees with then mms. the organization will be have a 700 of those employees when it is restructured for policy management's in revenue collection. we will sort through the numbers. we will end up with environmental safety enforcement function. the remainder ovation the bureau of offshore energy. [inaudible] we have asked for additional resources for the proposal to congress that went out a few days ago. we ask for additional resources for additional inspections.

our budget for 2011 calls for additional inspectors. we will centralize those within that bureau. >> there is a question regarding a final moratorium. [unintelligible] >> what the president has asked and what we are doing is we want to make sure that it moves forward in a way that we can be confident in the safety with respect to those efforts going

on. you will see in several weeks ahead the announcement of whatever adjustments we feel is appropriate. >> turning briefly to the gulf coast, there has been a constant stream with this lead. wilshire office aware that the footage was available? -- was your office aware that the footage was available? >> we as they would be transparent with everything they had. my understanding is that those materials are available and some of them were being played in some of the committees for i testified in congress.

>> they were given small clips. >> there is no doubt that that information will be made available to the american public. the presidential commission on investigation will have access to all of that information. bp has committed that they will have that information available. there should be no fear that there is going to be any stone unturned to get to the bottom of it. >> i am with "the new york times". will mms functions continue to be funded as they are now? and why did you wait until

after april 20 to move on this? >> this will take the revenue that funds the 1700 employees and the work they do. in addition, there will be more revenues that we have asked for and have imposed with respect to hire application fees for permits to drill. that money will support the structure. >> even the president identified funding the policing activities with revenue from those activities themselves. is that what you're saying? >> what we are doing here is separating the revenue election functions that says budgetary

and revenue as a result of this executive order. that will be separated from the other efforts. the functions that we are leasing out, as well as the environmental safety policing of those activities -- those activities will be put into a separate agency to focus on those functions. how those revenue streams will be matched up and the number of people that will go to the bureau's -- that is why we are taking several days to get it done. i want to get them done right. the employees are working today as we speak.

they are working in helping resolve this horrific tragedy helping unemployed as well and doing many things that are essential to the energy security of this country and economy. we will take the next three days in virginia, new orleans, in colorado. we will talk about these changes that we are making. the second question with respect to this, i came into the department on january 21. we have been working nonstop to work on these reforms. the personnel actions that have been taken for people that have acted inappropriately are standing up for these renewable energy programs.

our reform agenda has been ongoing. the seven some items we have been working on. it is a good restructuring. when you look at the fact that this organization that brings in on average $13 billion a year into the united states treasury and has a responsibility in the outer continental shelf, it is important to have the kind of organization that is worthy of the mission that has been assigned to it by the united states government. the secretary order that i have signed -- we will be working with members of congress for organic legislation and the new agencies. >> can you cite a specific example of the royalty function

has cause conflicts with the safety enforcement side? is it more of an issue with perception? is what he's saying that on a revenue issue, the revenue stream, that is what you will be studying the next few days? >> we will be taking a look at those issues leading to funding and where employees are going to go. we will get more information to you on that. the fundamental question as to the separation, it is important that we have a government that avoids the perception of potential conflict. when you look at the fact we generate an average of $13 billion a year, the same people

in the agency generating that is also responsible for doing everything else with respect to the leasing and auditing and the inspections. it is from my point of view, an important organizational change to separate out these functions. let me take a couple of questions. . >> the art two responses to

that. with respect to this particular incident, the liability caps are not in play because they have been waived by bp because of our porsche and their confirmation that they will be responsible for every penny and they do not intend to hide behind the $75 million liability limitations. bp will be responsible for not only stopping this bill but cleaning it up and compensating the american people for any damages, including natural resource damages to businesses, and people that affected -- that are affected by this bill will be compensated. with respect to changing the law, the question of what do you get to the cap, the president's

package which he sends to capitol hill says that we should be changing that cap now. where exactly that number will be, those are conversations that will take place between the administration and congress so that we adopt and put the right number into place. >> i understand that $10 billion would be too high and it would hurt exploration in the gulf? >> we're looking at that issue to see what the right number will be. i don't have anymore information other than there was an ongoing information for the members of congress so that we are right at a number that is the right number. one more question. the lawyers are next question comes from matthew daly of the ap. >> it was only a week ago that

you were doing two. i understand the need -- what is the need to separate out a third? >> this is over and the policy and management section of the apartment 700 employees collect revenues not only offshore but onshore. he goes into the leases for potash and other minerals. that is essentially a treasury revenue collection function that is there. and in the energy development area, we of separated out in the way that i've described last week, functions that will relate to planning and leasing, with respect to our offshore into resources, and the function that relates to the policing luncheon

-- policing function, with respect to any of those activities. that is what we have organized it this way. i will take a couple of questions from here. go ahead. >> a question on safety and enforcement. will they have any new enforcement power? we've heard that some have a better safety records than others. one that does not have a good safety record would not be permitted to drill with a permit be revoked or denied. or they could not bid on separate leases. and my second question what is ms. birnbaum says raul going forward in the restriction -- birnbaum's role going forward?

>> your first question? >> enforcement powers -- the you have to go back to congress and ask for enforcement powers? >> the report the we are looking at which david hayes and my counselor are leading to have a number of replications with safety. there may be standards for preventers in cementing and a number of other features that are being looked at. and those standards around the country will be what be policed by this section. in terms of the company lost past record, it certainly seems to me that in exercising oversight and regulatory function is bad is a company that they will be looking at. with respect to sanctions, mms has given out thousands of

violations for regulations. auction will continue into the future under this new organization. as we move forward with looking at organic legislation, it may be that some of those standards will be redefined in the new legislation. in connection with your second question relating to crest, he is gone. relating to liz birnbaum, part of the reason i hired her to be director of the service is because she had no connection to industry. you can look at her resonume with your past work -- with her past work and she brought in a fresh perspective. that fresh perspective has

helped all of us move forward with the reforms that we have made, which included the ethics reform, the kind program, and a whole host of other things. we will need three very strong people to run these three agencies. she is certainly a very strong person and we will see how she fits and within this agency. she is not here because she is tough to find. one more question. >> i am with bloomberg news. when you think about our real or perceived conflict of interest, you think about the interaction between the regulator and the company officials. is there anything in this reorganization that restricts or limits that interaction? what kind of things -- the people in the bureau of safety can and does -- can discuss with

the companies, is there any fire wall there? and yesterday in your testimony you referred to push back from the industry, some of the changes that you are proposing. i wonder if -- has this been since the incident are going back with you first came into the department? what exactly are the company's upset about? >> on your first question, in terms of how we will move forward as we have been placed from ethics standards, and we will have in place a strong regulatory program that is comprehensive for the outer continental shelf. some of those may change as we go forward to the president and with respect to safety, we will make sure that there are no ethical conflicts real or perceived between the people who are policing and enforcing the law and regulations and their

interaction with industry. if there are additional changes that have to be made, we will be stricter with respect to any ethics changes. although when i look that with a zero tolerance policy since i became secretary of interior, and that is why our people who are not working at mms today because of those ethical standards. with respect to the ongoing friction between the department of interior and the industry, sometimes it squares up. the oil and gas industry needed to understand that they were no longer the kings of the world, that they were no longer in charge of the candy store. that is part of what has gone on here for the past 16 or 17

months that we have been focused on getting to the right kinds of reforms in the right kinds of balance. you will find that balance starting at the very beginning -- one of the things i had secretary david hayes do is go out and tell me what was going on in the lease sales where we were heavily criticized by industry and many members of congress. the termination of the royalty in kind program, and my decision last year to conduct a thorough review of a new platform because the priorate ministration had opened up everything and i did not feel that a 50-day review period was sufficient. reforms have been there in a very significant way and that is why you have seen this friction between us and the oil and gas industry. let me also say we know that oil

and gas will be a part of our energy in this country today, this year, and for many years to come. we need to have the oil and gas industry to help us fuel our economy and our energy needs. we need to make sure that it is done in a way that protect workers and a way that protects the environment and this organization will help us do that. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> on tomorrow's washington journal, madeleine albright and her group which is made recommendations about the future of the nato alliance.

also, representative eric cantor and a look at the economy with "financial times" columnist dan mccrum. >> in some ways every senate class gives you a sense of what the country is thinking at that moment. >> terence samuel looks behind the institution of the u.s. senate, the upper house. sunday on "q&a." double our supreme court justice clarence thomas on the confirmation process. >> i did not have on the experiences up there and i do not wish that on anyone. and also, something justice white said when i first got here has stuck with me. it does not matter how you got here. it matters what you do after you

have gotten here. >> with the new supreme court nominee heading into the confirmation process, learn more about the nation's highest court in c-span is latest book, "the supreme court." pages of candid conversations with all supreme court justices active and retired available now in hardcover and also as an e- book. >> now another in a series of congressional hearings on the gulf of mexico oil spill three witnesses include bp america and chairman lamar mckay, who said that he had assumed responsibility of cleanup costs. steven newman, ceo of transocean, the company that operated the deepwater horizon rig. this is about five hours.

>> we are meeting to continue the explosion and sinking of the oil rig and the continuing oil spill. damage to both the economy and the environment. many of the elements of this strategy -- of this tragedy are familiar to the committee. bp was in charge in the drilling in the gulf, has a history of prior spills from pipelines, and i cannot doubt whether the company has a commitment to the practice and culture of safety necessary to protect the public. in march 2006, bp was

responsible for the worst spill in the history of oil development on alaska's north slope, a subject of discussion and inquiry in this committee. this bill went undetected for five days. bp ignored four alarms on their system indicating that there was a leak. a federal investigation established that bp had not established programs for required maintenance or programs for internal maintenance in the pipeline. they ordered bp to replace the lines. admiral barrett, the retired admiral of the coast guard, put in charge of safety management said that i continue to find the

presence of hazardous conditions on three of these pipelines managed by bp could result in serious harm to property or the environment. he issued to read -- 3 corrective action orders to bp. it took them quite some time to comply, and i have a complete timeline that i will not go into at this point. when bp obtain its approval for safety and response plan required for drilling in the gulf, bp claimed that if there was a spill, it would not have an environmental impact because bp would rely upon "industry- wide standards for using proven equipment and technology to respond to this bill."

almost a month passed. the response plan and its proven equipment and technology have failed to stop most of the continuing will discharge -- oil discharge or to contain the oil already discharged. bp has harnessed impressive scientific and technological experience to drill the great depths in the sea, and you have to wonder why they have not alarmist -- hornist similar science and technology to anticipate failure, to install redundancies to prevent trailed, -- to prevent failure, and failure to clean up after an oil spill. on the government side, similarly there is a lack -- distressing lack of commitment to safety and relying on the industry to police itself. going back over two decades of government experience.

the director of the minerals management service has a dual mandate to promote and to regulate, promote the government's financial regulation with the -- financial relationship with the industry and regulate safety. that promotes conflict and undermine safety as this committee has found, with the faa doing both promotions and regulation, until that was terminated. secretary salazar is taking steps to separate these functions inside the agency. the merrill manages service has fallen well short -- the minerals management service has fallen well short of effective oversight of offshore drilling. there is a discerning failure

to regulate blowout preventers, a critical part of the bp planned to contain or prevent this bill. minerals management service is aware and that several let -- past several years several failures, several blowout preventer failures played a role in at least 14 accidents. and when you're there were 114 lopper victor failures. but the minerals management service rely totally on the industry to ensure effective as of blowout preventers. -- effectiveness of blowout preventers. they're designed to industry standards, they are manufactured by the industry, and installed by the industry. with no government witnessing or

oversight construction or installation. that brings back to painful memory a hearing in this committee in which excessive deference to a regulated industry was called to our attention, when the coast guard contract for deepwater procurement programs. we found that the coast guard allowed a company who had a contract for major vessel procurement an extension to also play a critical role in certifying the design of the vessel. so the coastguard has minerals management service has faa before it, relying on industry, to design a product, build a product, certified safety. and as the chairman of the sock

-- coastguard subcommittee found, they established the fact resulting in legislation that has changed the practice of the coast guard. we also learned in hearings conducted by mr. costello, the chairman of the aviation subcommittee, that the faa was considering regulated airlines' as their customers and to keep the customer satisfied with the inspectors regulating them. the result of a hearing because the faa to significantly change its practices and chained personnel as well, and now we're seeing a change in the faa on oversight of safety. will develop legislation as a result of those experiences and i expect we will do the same after we have plumbed the total

causes of this incident in the gulf. delegation of responsibility for the safety of the drilling unit, delegated and out to the republic of marshall islands, were that drill rig was registered. under u.s. law, we give suitable deference to safety regulation by the country of registry. in aviation and maritime. there is one reason that ship owners to register their ships and the flag of convenience countries like the marshall islands. they want to save money by avoiding the safety and liability standards in a country like the united states. coast guard witnesses before the board of investigation testified that the coast guard inspection of a u.s. flag mobile offshore

drilling unit takes two to three weeks, but the safety examination of late far and wide -- of a foreign flag offshore drilling unit takes four to eight hours. obviously nowhere near as thorough and detailed an investigation and certification or recertification as we do of our own equipment. given the magnitude of this bill in the gulf, we need to review the causes of this bill as well as the broader question, the adequacy of procedures for ensuring that drilling is safe, it does not endanger the environment. this is not a hearing about whether or not to drill but how to go about procedures, how you assure the public safety, and

how the interests of the broader public are protected to ensure that this disaster does not happen again. about two weeks ago i circulated an idea that i thought the best approach to the fundamental causes would be a challenger- type commission. i served on one for pan am one of three lead -- under then- president george bush which resulted in the first aviation safety legislation enacted in this country proceeding that of september 11, 2002. so i think the president's initiative for the commission is a sound idea, and we may even have to introduce some legislation to further that

cause. hollow for to the testimony of our witnesses. i yield to mr. mica. >> thank you for setting the stage for this hearing and your comments. and also for complying with the request of the congressman from louisiana who first request to this hearing and also requested me to support his review by this committee, and we are doing it today. we do have an important responsibility. this committee does oversee the united states coast guard, the first responders, and we do have a responsibility. 11 people were killed in the explosion. we have a joint jurisdiction with other committees over responsibility to make certain as mr. oberstar said that this

does not happen again. i want to take a minute and i do not want to point fingers but just reviewed the process and what has taken place, and what did not take place, and then we will have questions. first of all, i see in today's headlines salazar says regulatory oversight of industry is lack. he really did not want to -- he said it would be premature to say that watchdogs underestimated the risks. we have had these warnings for some time before he took office. the united states department of interior inspector general at the end of the bush administration issued an ig report which said that they had three separate investigations by the office of inspector general

over the minerals management service under the department of interior responsible for this. i would like as part of the record to show the activities that were inappropriate that were going on between that agency and also the industry. >> without objection, the document will be included in the record. >> and look at the way that these activities take place. you have to review the whole picture. on to the bush administration, leases for oil exploration and drilling were issued. this particular lease was under the bush administration. however all of the actions to ensure that safety measures were put in place have to be attributed to the obama administration. what i had done is outlined the obama oil spill timeline.

we have to look very carefully at the way things are done. first the lease was given. secondly bp came in in february 2009 and we heard mr. oberstar say the industry shows how they are going to go about -- they requested and had approved, and this is a copy of their request, their safety procedures, at everything they were going to do in an exploration of this particular site. just a short time later, april 5, the obama administration issued -- i think this is the first time we have a public copy of this -- this is their approval. it is basically a carte blanche recipe for disaster because they did not require extraordinary measures. there is only one sentence in

here to exercise caution while drilling due to indications of a shallow gas and possible water. this is the approval that that agency, a government agency gave for that. let me say this. they failed to put in place and even today they failed to put in place measures which i have been calling for for some time and others have been asking for, particularly in oil exploration and drilling. mr. oberstar referred to it. all flow well protection plan, remote emergency cut off required and all the european activities. let me ask you -- why does bp developing a dome or a top hat after the incident occurred?

let me tell you why this is important. this is the obama administration's deep water sites. they approved almost three dozen of these sites. almost all are quarter of the debt and some have been approved for 8,000 feet, 8,000 feet, more than what we've seen. we have to make certain that this does not happen again. protections must be in place. then more disturbing is the united states coast guard, the jurisdiction of this committee, has and i ask members when we found out about the budget that came out from the obama administration proposing cutting the united states coast guard 1000 positions, ships, planes, essential to the first

responsibilities but we gave them. and then if you look at that time line of what we did, the 21st, the coast guard came on board -- actually that 28, they were rescuing people trying to deal with the safety and other results of the explosion. but from the 21st, it took to make first half that coast guard commandant, bless their hearts, they do an incredible job, he was appointed as a national incident commander pursuant to it that relation of a spell of national significance. what happened and what is important to note on this -- let me put this up on the screen. this is a little craft here and it shows what happens.

if you had gone this bill -- and we had gone on top of this immediately, it could have contained that, actually vacuumed up and contains some of this bill, but this went on and on and this graph shows the little blue dots where if it'd been identified in the agency that was responsible for oversight was doing its job -- again, i am casting aspersion on the coast guard -- but this is the plan that they were submitted with no backup response system in place. it spread and its spread in its spread and that is the story. i share the president's desire -- and this is a "new york times" article, obama to all been -- to open offshore drilling. i have no problem with that. i've always supported that but

there's a safety factor that you have to make sure that you have safety provisions. and then you come out with the proposal in february which i think is totally inappropriate. we are here to get the facts. i am not going to point fingers at bp, the private industry, when it is the government's responsibility to set the standard, to do the inspection. i haven't gone into the lack of inspections that they did not conduct and they should have conducted even with that small warning and one sentence in the permit that they issued. mr. chairman, i share your desire in making sure that this does not happen again. it should not happen again and it must not happen again and we must work together in that regard. i yield back. >> thank you for your comments. i think it is inflammatory to

call at the obama oil spill. and wrong. those approvals that the gentleman cited were given early in the obama administration by careerists who were not policy appointees. the budget cut that the gentleman sites were in our committee budget submission that the republican members of the committee, the gentleman himself, all approved. there was termination of three entered 78 cutters that date back to the 1960's and 1970's that were out of date and have been replaced by modern equipment. the helicopter terminations were eight helicopters from the northern tier states that would

not have been available or suitable for deployment in the cold for the situation. -- the gulf for the situation. the coast guard russ wanted prompt length -- responded properly -- promptly and dispatched equipment to the scene. the cleanup is the responsibility of the responsible party under law. the government's role, minerals management, and of the coast guard is to oversee and make sure that that work is done appropriately. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for having these hearings today. on april 5, of this year an explosion in the upper branch mine in my district tragically claimed the lives of 29 brave

souls. 20 days later, 11 men lost their lives in the gulf of mexico. what has ensued is the worst oil spill from a drilling platform in 41 years. as we begin today's hearings, we must recognize the human toll from energy development. well in an -- the efforts to find the cause of the blast and to combat environmental disaster, it is important that a remember just as the president and the house of representatives did for our 29 fallen minors that we honor the 07 man as i read their names. jason anderson. donald clark, age 29. steven curtis. rory kemp. call kissinger.

gordon jones. blair manuel. shame. adam wiest. the law to the valley of the shadow of death, i will fear no evil work you are with me. you're robbing your staff, they comfort me. just as we have seen that energy development has seemed limitless, the industry has continued to press the envelope and reached two deaths that heretofore have been infallible. 5 miles of rock in southern west virginia. incredible numbers at an incredible barriers all surmounted duty are undone thirst for more energy.

and as we continue to tackle new frontiers, weekend -- we became convinced of our own superiority over nature. we were told that there had not been an uncontrollable flood since 1969. human ingenuity had triumphed and safety was a foregone conclusion. nothing it seemed could stop us now. it was hubris containing the seeds of our downfall. i think greek mythological character who made himself wings so that he might fly higher and higher, oblivious to his own impending doom. we have dug deeper into the earth convinced that nothing could possibly go wrong. icarus and deepwater horizon remind us of our fallibility. we will examine the disaster in terms of not only what happened

at this particular raid, but the meaning of this disaster as relates to the future of oral and gas leasing off the coast of the united states. -- oil and gas leasing off the coast of the united states. >> we look forward to the transcript of the germans hearing. -- of the gentleman's hearing. we now recognize another run. >> with the explosion and sinking, we occurred repeatedly held 11 crew members tragically lost their lives. now the nation faces an enormous and economic and debarment of disaster. this painfully clear that the administration and industry for simply not prepared to respond to an oil spill at this depth

and of this magnitude. there was certainly no adequate plan in place to respond to this type spill, and we should never be in a situation where we find ourselves now, where we are literally testing response technology as we try to clean up the spill. this is completely unacceptable. i am also concerned that the federal government and particularly the coast guard may not have had the level of resources and authorities to deal with a situation such as this. i would like to point out that if we move forward with the president's budget, that we are going to cause enormous potential damage to the coast guard's ability to respond. mr. chairman, i very rarely like to disagree with you publicly but the letters that restored the cutters, restore all the helicopters, restored all the

maritime security teams, and i do not think anyone on our side of far out gave any indication that we approve in any way with the president was trying to do. for many of us we have seen what happened over the years while we of as the coast guard to do more with less. and they have graciously said, yes, we will and we will try, but their task with enormous responsibility for maritime anti-terrorism to port security to overseeing spills like we see right now and fisheries enforcement. how can we possibly expect them to do their mission if we are giving them what we're going to talk about, cutting personnel? in our committee, we began discussions on this and i want to thank mr. cummings for agreeing to join together so that we can find a way to keep this from happening. i hope, mr. chairman, if you use your enormous position of authority and responsibility to convince others that this is a terribly wrong move.

we look to the coastguard in times like this to not only over say but to take a lead role. and we have to anticipate that the unexpected what happened and have them in a position of readiness, both from an asset and a personal standpoint. i hope that holding this hearing provide the opportunity to hear from all parties and how we respond to this bill. and i thank you, mr. chairman, and hope that we can join in with mr. mica and mr. cummings to find a a clear path for to solve these things in the future. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments in a taped a backseat to no one in my defense of the coast guard. -- and i take a backseat to no one in my defense of the coast guard. we objected to the risk -- reductions but the termination

of those old cutters to be replaced by new cutters is appropriate. and those replacements have been made. the personnel cuts, we felt, were inappropriate and they should be relocated rather than terminated. and that is why our committee does this very strongly. i wanted to make the point that those were old cutters and there were built in the 1960's and 1970's and they are being replaced. ms. johnson. to compete. finally, i'm disappointed that the coromise language for disabled veterans that was included in the motion to recommit is not contained in this bill. this is a second time gist abled veterans language has been as we continue this investigation, we should not lose sight of the fact that 11

individuals lost their lives by simply showing up for work on a daily basis. i applaud the fine work of coastguard and the others for their efforts. i also think wish that the outcome was different. today's hearing focuses on the factors that led up to the deep water horizon explosion as well as ongoing response actions of british petroleum and the state and resource agencies. today we will investigate where the actions of a previous administration look the other way being a significant factor in this incident. i hope we as broader questions about the wisdom of exploration policies that pushed the envelope without any assurance that these exploratory wells can shut down if something goes wrong. every day for the past month,

somewhere between 5000 and 80,000 barrels of oil were released into the gulf. mr. chairman i ask for unanimous consent to put the rest of my statement into the record. but i will close by asking the gentleman who testified to convince me that it was not agreed that caused them to ignore what it takes to control these types of incidents and not to take into consideration the people or the environment. please, i hope you will tell me that this is not true. thank you. i yield back. >> that gentlewoman statement without objection will be included in full in the record the chairman now recognizes mr. gao of louisiana. >> i sit here with a heavy heart just thinking about the 11

lives that were lost and the thousands of lives of the people in my district who are struggling to survive as a result of the negligence that caused the explosion and the ensuing oil spill. it is only been five years since katrina devastated new orleans and we're still struggling to rebuild from katrina -- and now this occurs. this disaster has threatened hundreds of miles of our shoreline and thousands of people along the gulf coast are wondering what we can do to protect them and their livelihoods. the economic, psychological and other impact of the people in the region has been devastating. i've heard from fishermen who are even contemplating suicide.

we have serious problems on our hands, and what are we going to do in order to help the people of my district and the people along the gulf coast? i hope that the congress and the parties involved can come up with a comprehensive plan to help those people who were immediately impacted economically, mentally, and psychologically. i hope that we come up with a plan to look at the long term redevelopment of the fishing industry, the seafood industry, and the economy of new orleans and the region, and i hope that we will pass the legislation that have filed in the house to allow louisiana and the gulf coast region to receive royalties in 2011. and i ask the chairman and all the members of the committee

that we hold all parties responsible to pay for every penny that this devastation has cost to the people of new orleans and the region. thank you and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his statement. >> i express my sympathy to those families who have suffered losses as a result of this incident. mr. chairman, this is a very important hearing for a lot of reasons. i was just down in the gulf just this past weekend and mystery to briefing regarding the current situation from around all -- from the rear admiral for this event. we're going to be going again very shortly.

i know that the coast guard, like all federal agencies responding to this event, has mobilized every possible resource to try to protect the environment and livelihoods along the gulf region. and i commend the coast guard as well as the leadership of the outgoing commandant who is national incident commander for this event, and i would say to the ranking member mica, he may have been appointed at a certain point but he is been doing the job much longer and addressing this issue. i want to commend the responding agencies for their extraordinary efforts. we should note that there are about 20,000 people right now working on this. and not only are all of our appropriate government agencies working on and with everything that they have, but the private industry, not only bp and others -- i understand exxon and others

are also pitching in. the event that culminated in the loss of the deep water horizon and the subsequent oil spill are very complex and there are very many different into related issues that require investigation. the circumstances and conditions under which the drilling plan was approved. the minerals management service's oversight of drilling operation. the inspection of all out for vendors. the adequacy of bp's old prevention plan and the adequacy of all response plan for sites in deep water. and the adequacy of the response which has been conducted by p as the responsible party and overseen by the coast guard which is involved the participation of numerous agencies for mr. chairman, it is imperative that every aspect of this situation be assessed and understood and i applaud president obama's decision to

create the president's commission to throw the examine this. finally, let me say this treat it is important that the coast guard -- let me say this. it is important that the coast guard play a much more important role of the approval of the disaster plans, and not just be coming in at the tail end to do the cleanup and to carry out those plans. and in talking with the upper admiral landry this weekend, one of the things that she emphasized is that the coast guard needs to be involved in this response from the very beginning. i am hoping that we can all work together to make sure that that happens, because that makes sense. you don't as someone to some -- to come clean up something and they have never been part of the process to make sure that the plan was approved from the very beginning. i look forward to submit my entire written statement to the

record. doors without objection, the gentleman's entire statement will be included in the record. i had the opportunity also to have a review flyover with coastguard and some other, part of the meeting in new orleans just two weeks ago, and we had a briefing at the command center. it was very instructive and i hope we get a delegation of members of both sides of the aisle to louisiana had the proper time. when we are not of -- interfering with the ongoing work of recovery and response. but as soon as we get clearance, we will take a significant delegation of members to see firsthand the workings in the gulf. in the tradition of our committees longstanding experience, practice on oversight hearings, as the members of the panel to stand,

raise your right hands -- with regard to the testimony you provide to the committee today, and all subsequent committee communications concerning the hearing, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you. we will begin with mr. mckay. thank you for being with us. we look forward to your testimony. >> like you, chairman. chairman oberstar, ranking member might the, members of the committee, my name is lamar mckay and i am chairman of bp america. we of obviously experienced a tragic series of events for nearly 1 months ago, 11 people were lost in an explosion and fire aboard the transocean deep water rise and drilling rig and 17 others were injured. my deepest sympathies go out to

the families and friends. they have suffered a terrible loss. the gulf coast communities have thousands of people affected by this in their livelihoods are being impacted. i've seen the response first hand, i have talked with the men and women on the front lawn and -- there is a deep instead last resolve to do all we humanly can to stop this leak, contain this league, and minimize the damage. as a responsible party on the dual pollution act, we will carry out our responsibilities to mitigate the environmental and the economic impacts of this incident. our efforts are part of a unified command that was established within hours of the accident, and that provides a structure for our work with the departments of homeland security, interior, other federal agencies, as well as

state and local governments. we're committed to working with president obama, members of your cabinet, the governors, congressional members, state agencies, local communities in mississippi, alabama, louisiana, florida, and texas. i want to _ to the global resources of bp are committed to this effort. and they have been from the outset. nothing is being spirit. everyone under -- nothing is being scared. everyone understands what lies ahead and is working to deliver an effective response. before i'd describe our response efforts, i want to reiterate our commitment to find out what happened. their two lines of inquiry here. first is what caused the explosion and fire or import the transocean raid, and why did the

blowout preventer, the key fail- safe, failed to shut down the rate? we are cooperating with the joint investigation by the departments of homeland security and interior as well as the investigations by congress. in addition, bp has commissioned an internal investigation, the result of which we plan to fully share. in the meantime, we cannot draw any conclusions before all the facts are known. our sub-sea efforts to secure the well are advancing on several fronts. our immediate focus is on the riser insertion tube. this involves placing a tapered riser to into the end of the existing damaged tube and drill pipe, and that is the primary source of the currently. the gas and oil then flows under some pressure of the riser tube to the ship on the surface.

we're working to stabilize a system to maximize the capture of oil and gas through the riser insertion tube, to stop the flow of oil. we're preparing what is known as they top kill which uses it to which inject cement directly into the pipe to stop the flow. it is a proven technique but has not been used at 5,000 feet of water. it will take an estimated three months. the unified command has approved the application of dispersants directly at the leak site. on the open water, a fleet of more than 900 vessels has been mobilized. in addition to using the approved by degradable dispersants, we are attacking it on the surface coastguard- approved disperses. to protect the shoreline, we're using the most massive protection effort ever mounted.

we have 1.9 million feet of boons deployed with more available 317 staging areas are now employs 3 17,000 have volunteered to help and we have 20,000 people working on the issue. we recognize that in -- the lawn -- there are economic effects. bp will pay all necessary cleanup costs and are committed to paying all legitimate costs caused by this bill. we are expediting interim payments to individuals with small business owners whose livelihood has been affected. we have made -- we get paid over 19 claim so far, we have several claim offices. we're striving to be efficient and fair. we're taking guidance from the established regulations from the coast guard that involves an

handles these types of claims in the past three tragic as the accident was, we must not lose sight of why it bp and other companies are operating in the area. the gulf provides one in four barrels produced in the country and it is a resource that our nation requires. bp and the entire energy industry are about -- are under no illusions about the challenges that we face. we know we will be judged by our response to these events during the resource of the company will be spirit. i sure that we will learn from this terrible event and emerge from its stronger, stronger, and safer. i thank you for the opportunity to be here and i will answer any of your question. >> thank you, mr. mckay. mr. newman. >> chairman oberstar, ranking member mica and other members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. i am the chief executive officer of transocean ltd. 3 we are leading offshore contractor.

i am a petroleum engineer by training and i have spent years working on and with drilling rigs. i've been with transocean for more than 15 years and i am proud of the contribution to our company has made to the energy industry during that time. today, i said before you with a heavy heart. .

the crude oil recovery operations. we will continue to support them in all of these efforts. at the same time, we have been working very hard to get to the bottom of the question to which this committee and the american public are wanting -- warrant and deserve an answer. what happened on april 20, and how we make certain that this will not happen again. we have assembled an independent investigative team to look into

these tragic events, and this includes trans ocean and other experts. they led to be those with information and they will study the equipment that was involved. because this process is a collaborative effort among many companies and contractors, the process of understanding what led to the explosion on april 20, and out to prevent an accident like this in the future, should also be collaborative. we are working side by side with others, to get to the bottom of this issue. and these efforts will continue until we have satisfactory answers. this is still too early to conclude exactly what happened on april 20, we have some understanding about the cause of this disaster. the most significant thing is that these happened after the

process was complete. the drilling had been finished on april 17, and the oil well was sealed with casing and cement. for that reason, the one thing that we are aware of is that on the evening of april 20, there was a catastrophic explosion in the casing, and the cement or both. without the failure of one of these elements this could not have occurred. it is also clear that the crew had very little, if any time to react. the indications of trouble and the subsequent explosion were almost instantaneous. what caused the sudden failure? and why were these printers not able to squeeze the pipe? these are critical questions that must be answered in the months ahead. and until we know exactly what happened on april 20, we cannot

determine how to prevent these tragedies in the future. regardless of what the investigations show, this is an industry that must put safety first. we must do this for the employees and their families, and for the sake of the people all over the world who are using and enjoy, and rely on the ocean. thank you again for the opportunity to speak an i am happy to answer your questions. >> thank you for your statements, and i appreciate -- i am certain that the families of the victims, as well as those who survived the blast, both of you are expressing your solidarity with the families, and your grief at the loss of life, and your commitment to support those families.

your recognition of the work of the u.s. coast guard -- they were promptly on the scene and they have done everything in their technical capability to address this oil spill, and you seem to be working together rather than previous appearances, where you were pointing your fingers at one another. but as i said at the beginning, the committee has had extensive experience with both republican and democratic majorities. with british petroleum. i talked about the 2006 oil spill on the northern slope. it was not so much the oil spill, which is serious in of itself, but that this was

undetected for five days, and that the company annoyed -- ignored the alarms on the system. british petroleum did not have made nantes, or inspection procedures, and ultimately, the pipeline safety administration ordered for them to replace this. on march 15 -- the corrective action order was issued, to perform inspections. july 20, they were told to remove crude oil from the western operation area to clean this out. a retired coast guard admiral, who was presiding over this oversight, august 10, 2006. there is still a presence of hazardous conditions on the pipelines that would result in serious harm to property or the

environment. april 20, the following year. the corrective action order to british petroleum, and october 15 of that year. the toxic oil spill, with 2,000 gallons. october 25, 2007. the justice department settled with bp with $20 million in penalties, and three years' probation, with $12 million in criminal fines. this is not a great record. what i want to know is, what is the culture of commitment to safety, in the boardroom of bp? this does not begin with management service and united airlines, american airlines. this begins with the corporate

board room of those airlines. if there is not a culture of safety in the board room, the government can set the minimum standards and make certain that these are followed. what have you changed in the corporate culture? >> in 2005 and 2006, we have very serious accidents. in 2007, the ceo came in, and he made it absolutely -- absolutely clear that the number one item for this company is safety and compliance. we have changed a lot. the leadership has been changed along with management, and there has been a safety and ethical committee established that the board level, and utilize,

robustly. we have the group and the corporate operational risk committee, that has been organized under tony, to understand the risks across the company. and there is the safety and operational integrity in the organization that has been set up, to oversee these issues. we have instituted an operational management system that is rigorous, and extremely detailed. we are implementing this across every single part of the business across the company. the job will never be finished by i am making progress. we do not know exactly what has happened yet, but to make the

operation safer -- we have to make certain that we do not have any environmental problems. we have the structural changes that you have discussed, and these are steps in the right direction. and in this place -- british petroleum has said, with the unanticipated blow out, it is unlikely to have an impact based on the industry-wide standards for using proven equipment for such responses. implementation of the regional oil spill response plan, addressing the available equipment and personnel, for the containment and recovery of the oil spills, meaning -- would you

make this statement today? >> what i would say is that some of the assumptions that were made across the industry, as well as ourselves, are predicated on the printer that works. and if this does not work, this will be manually intervene with, and if this does not work, if i could explain, we have an extremely unique situation that i have never seen, anywhere, where we did not have the emergency disconnect working, and so you have a marine rider package with 4300 feet of rider on the end. we cannot get on top of that prevented. this is a very unique situation. those plans -- the plans for this response are very robust,

and i believe that they were enacted within two hours of the explosion and this has proven to be affective, and they have talked in detail about this. and i think that this effort -- this is as aggressive as it can go. what we have to say is that the intervention -- this is unprecedented. there have been 42,000 oil wells in the gulf of mexico. i think that the intervention and the planning and the capability will have to be looked at in light of this, and this is an industry issue, and certainly, a company issue. >> you have to look at this and revisit this, but transocean has great experience working at this depth.

this is considerably below the level where the l.a. nuclear submarines can dive. and so, every precaution should be taken, so did you have -- did you have an awareness of the printers and the 117 that have failed at one time or another? and did you question whether they would be able to function at that level? and the temperature of the water -- this was very cold water? >> in response to your question, we have one of the leading -- we are one of the leading contractors in operating and deploying blowout preventers and all of the industry -- all of the industry experience with respect to those

is taking into consideration in the development of the maintenance plan, the testing program, and in the performance of the equipment. >> the presenter was produced by cameron petroleum of houston. do you subject this to operational capabilities around 5,000 feet, with temperatures of 30 degrees? >> they have tested this when this is on the bottom. this is tested once per week. and every other week, the pressure containment capability is tested. the pressure containment capability was tested, and successfully passed the test on april 10. the function was tested again on april 17. and it was passing those tests as well.

>> who was supervising this? >> this was by transocean under the eye of bp. >> not under the coast guard or the marines? this area onst visited april 1. >> they were not supervising the test? >> they were not there when this was conducted. >> thank you. i was looking through the submission, that was put in the record by the inspector general of the investigation, concluding that -- they are not listed but i see chevron, as one company that was involved in this investigation. do you know of any involvement in the inappropriate, or

potentially illegal or criminal activities with your employees, in these investigations? >> are you referring to the mma? i know of no bp involvement. >> any transocean? >> none, sir. >> i cited the obama administration, which had approved nearly three dozen deep-water oil rigs, and some of these have been approved, and some of these are pending. are there others in the list? do you have others that are considered deep-water exploration? >> we have other operations and proposals. >> at what level?

>> in deep water, anywhere from three-4000, all the way to 8,000 feet. >> and again, i was not aware that there were this many approved, were pending. and he said in your experience, they had never had a situation like this happening before. they had never had this happen before. is this correct? >> i do not think that this would blow out in 40 feet of water. >> the approval for the exploring was approved by the obama administration on march 10. this is the plan that was given. they did not have the top half or any kind of a mechanism that was proposed in this plan, and this was constructed after the incident.

but this is basically what was submitted, and i have a copy of the approval that was given to the permit that i just received, yesterday. the only exception that i saw and anything that looked out of the ordinary was to exercise caution when you were drilling, because of a possible water flow. this has pretty much approved the plan. >> we believe that this was right. >> i am not an engineer, but we have never experienced anything at this level. and you have done this -- >> are there any other protections? i do not know if this would have made any difference. would this have made any difference? >> i do not believe in this case that the control system would have made a difference.

>> this was not required, as part of the plan. >> this is not required in the united states. >> and you seem to be experiencing -- experimenting with the top half of this. we have to make certain that -- if we are going to drill in the future, we have to do this. we have to use fossil fuel, and you said 25% of the supply is in the gulf of mexico. 60% of this is coming from foreign sources. my concern is that having some protection -- this may be an expensive lesson that is lined, but is this possible to develop the additional technologies, for protections -- that we will have ready to go so this does not

happen again. do you believe that we can do this? >> this is the largest response that has ever been put together in history and you mentioned the tophat. this is such a unique situation, where this is damaged on the top and in a trench. this would be hard to predict. >> is it possible to come up with the technology? we have to show that this will not happen again. you are in bp north america. i was on c-span this morning, and they talked about, what about china drilling off of cuba? i believe that they had been exploring down there.

are you aware of this? >> i think that they have been talking. >> let's say that they do this. 45 miles is halfway between cuba and the united states. they have not requested any permits off of the shores of cuba. we have to be ready, and we have to have these in reserve. that is not the responsibility of the coast guard. and we have to be ready in case something happens. and if you look at the history of these things, in 1979 we had the worst situation in the history of the gulf. this was not caused by people asleep at the job, on this particular incident. but this continued for nine months.

and i think that we have to be prepared, not only for another incident in the deep water, and we have a list -- this is a list of the obama approvals. you see that you are doing this in deeper water, and we have to make certain that if this is done, and we get the approval, that this is finished correctly and we have another plan for what we cannot control. so we are not looking at the gulf shoreline covered in oil. would you say that this is the appropriate way to go? >> i would say that we will learn from this on the intervention capability, and this will have to be understood with industry capacity. >> i think is fair to question -- to about the way the response capability in light of what we have learned in response to this incident. >> without objection, the list

that was requested will be included in the record. >> i would also like to say -- i do not know if this was made public before today. the department of interior permit that was granted, on april 6, 2009, -- >> the minerals management service document, april 6, 2009 will be included in the record. the record will be, without objection, included in the record. this is the list that we have developed of all the approvals during the eight years of the bush administration. this did not require any of these printers. and none of these corrective actions.

>> they submitted a regional oil spill response plan who cover the activities of the soil. this plan, which described their response to the oil spill, anywhere in the gulf of mexico, has the worst-case scenario, with an oil spill from only one particular place in the gulf. this is supposed to cover all their operations in the state of texas, the gulf coast, and alabama. what is the usefulness of a worse-case scenario for the entire gulf if this is only looking at one particular place? >> the plan that you are referring to is under the national contingency plan, and then there is -- the industry- utilized response plan, and this particular plan is the basis and the model for the surface

response. this has all the equipment in the gulf coast, an organization of people that will be called. this was utilized -- you will -- this was utilize, literally, when this happened. and they have reacted across the gulf in terms of their response. and this is a good foundation. this particular plan is not specific to every location, but this will serve the response in the gulf coast. >> as i understand, this is also looking at the impact on the coast line. >> this is very encompassing, protecting the shoreline, and cleaning up anything that will get to shore. this is very extensive, several hundred pages. >> what happened in this particular disaster? why was this an effective?

>> i believe that this has been effective. this is working. this is what we were exercising under unified command. this has been deployed as things change. >> the worst-case scenario in your response is 250,000 barrels per day. do you prepare for the one-time release, where are you prepared for this to last multiple days? and how many days are you prepared for this to last? >> the way that this is put together is 30 days. >> 250,000 barrels per day, over 30 days. you said that british petroleum is providing payments for those who have been impacted by the oil spill. >> these are the fishermen, and the business owners directly impacted. anyone who is having -- who is

not working within the effort for payment, or is having their empire -- their income affected. by the end of this week, we have opened 17 claims centers. the people who are being affected -- infected -- affected, we are helping them by covering their expenses to live. there are thousands of people who are being impacted by this. and we have a system that is addressing their needs. >> and you have established these offices just like fema may be doing after a disaster, and you are making a decision about who will be receiving these payments. >> we have a structure under the pollution act and we have accepted that we are the responsible party and we will have to clean this up, and we have taken this responsibility.

this gives us the broad responsibility, and we will completely fulfilled this. and we are doing this. we have made it clear, from the outset, we are going to pay everything associated with this. and we will have the natural resource damage assessment study that is under way, to establish resource damage, for restoration. >> when the individual takes payment, can they offer any future claims? >> in fact, if the payment were denied, one of this is not big enough, there is a separate process where they could go to the coast guard. on top of that, no one has signed any waiver so they have the potential for litigation. >> they still have this potential?

>> we are trying very hard to be fair, and expeditious. we are wanting to minimize any impact that we possibly can have on the gulf coast. >> supplemental to his comments, i would just say that oil pollution -- in the act from 1990, each responsible party for the vessel or facility where oil is discharged, into the water or the shoreline, or exclusive economic zones, is liable for the damages including injury and loss of -- the loss of the use of natural resources, injury to the economic loss, with the

destruction of personal property, including the loss of taxes, recoverable by the united states, and a loss of substances -- subsistence youth of that -- use of natural resources, providing additional public services and there are no limits on wheat -- on liability for the gross negligence or the violation of federal safety construction or operating regulations. i believe that this supplements very well, what he was saying, and exposes bp to a wide range of cost coverage. and i will yield to the former chairman of the committee, and i would have recognized him at the outset, but he was just returning from alaska, from a funeral. the former secretary of the interior. this is a mobile thing to be

there, in a tribute to him. i will welcome him for opening -- opening comments, and then, questioning. >> we were the only members in congress who wrote this, and the los bill of the exxon bell does -- the oil spill of the exxon valdez -- and there was a spill off of santa barbara. we were able to write opa, and until then, we had no chance to respond to the oil spill. and we have developed a good system with the coast guard, with these communities and this has worked very well. we did not prepare for this kind of oil spill. and i think out of this, we need

to learn how to, in fact, keep this from happening, and we do have a liability and we have the escort and the double-hull vessel, and the rescue vehicles, doing everything to keep this from going in or coming out. we have to try to solve the problem. i am wanting to stress to this committee, that we're going to try to find out what has happened and how we prevent this from happening again. we did not shut down the pipeline, when we had the oil spill. we were continuing getting oil to the lower 48, and we were taking oil tankers through here and we had to learn from what had happened.

the one thing that i would say, and i say this to every member of the committee. the desire to clean up, sometimes this causes more damage than you may consider. sometimes, we were using soap, palm olive, and you did well. bht the damage -- but the damage was far-reachng because this was visually displeasing. we have to be careful about the tactics, because the media is always looking at the dead animals. you have to be very careful. the one thing that i would stress, and i would go to my questions, what was most unjust, the tragedy of this was not necessarily the environment. this was the impact upon the

fisherman, and those who received in, and livelihood. 22 years, we were in court, with the responsible party. 22 years. when this was finally settled, the amount of money that was received was less than $5,000 for each fisherman. i do not want to see this in the gulf. you are addressing this issue right now. you are creating a problem for those that should receive the benefits from this tragedy. recovering the loss of the end come because of this. that is one issue. the environment has recovered. we did lose a species of fish, the herring. the salmon are back.

there is oil under the rocks. this is one challenge i have. make certain that when you clean up this, you do not do more damage. this goes back to the fisherman. you are settling with them with the lost income, and this is not treated by the oil spill? >> we are selling with them. some of these areas are closed, about 19% are close right now. we are compensating them and actually, most of them are wanting to work, and so many of these fishermen are working in terms of the response. >> i commend you for that. they did the same thing in alaska. but what happened when this was

finished -- they were still losing their income, over 22 years. that is not how i want to see this done. >> the structure in the oilfield pollution is good and we will fulfill those obligations. that does not mean that the stops at the end of the cleanup. we're going to pay all of the legitimate claims because of the impact of this. >> that is the most important thing, the impact of the economy on the coastal states. mr. newman, we are trying to find this out but other committees have other hearings. what happened? >> at the time of this, there was of vessel -- there was a vessel by the oil rig. they were conducting operations and they said they were

receiving debris on the deck. this is an indication of the magnitude of the catastrophe that must have happened within the oil well, for the cement to have gone up from where this was installed, to the oil rig, and out of this and onto the deck of the vessel. i think that this is an indication of the magnitude of this catastrophe. >> this probably would have cost the malfunctioning of the shut-off valve. >> if this has gone all the way to this supply vessel, this has traveled through the bop. >> have you recovered this? >> this is on the sea bed. >> until we find this, we can't

be certain. >> there are five preventers. >> seven shut-off devices. until we find this, we will not know this for certain. >> until we recover the bop and dismantle this, we will not know about this. >> and this was greeted in houston? this was completely tested? >> most recently on april 10, and april 17. what about the rumors of the battery being dead? >> there are two control pods and date submit the electronic signals into the actual action. we have recovered one of them, and underneath the assistance of the original manufacturer,

with trans ocean expertise and the bp observers, we completely tested this. there is a battery that is contained within the control pot, and the first time that this was measured, this registered 18.4 volts against 18. it satisfied on the first test. and on the second it was 26 volts. >> the real damage was caused with the collapse of the oil red, which caused the main pipe to be in the trench. this is the challenge? >> after the explosion, the oil -- remained afloat for about 36 hours. and this was sinking on the morning of april 22.

the pipe that can access to the oil rig has remained largely intact and connected, obviously badly damaged, but this is on the floor of the ocean. and this has presented some amount of challenge with a dressing the source. >> as we go through the engineering process, there has to be something that will make certain -- if there was another incident -- does anybody know about the pressure of the oil field? there would have to be tremendous pressure to have a blowout. how are you testing this? >> at 5,000 feet, this is 12,000 pounds of pressure. 13,000 feet below, this has to be in the hundreds of thousands of pounds of pressure for each square inch. >> i have recalled the 20-year- old academics. and based on the weight that was

used in drilling the oil well, 18,000 feet down to the actual reservoir, the pressure is between 13,014 thousand -- 13,000 and 14,000 psi. >> there are a wide spectrum of pressures, resulting from the over-burden, and there are a number of factors that determine the pressure in the reservoir. >> we could talk about this all day. my goal is to make certain that we are not pointing fingers, because we are going to drill. i know the solution to this, but most of you have the opportunity to do this, and you voted against drilling onshore on anwar. we are going to drill in the

gulf of mexico because 24% of the oil is there and we have to make certain that we learn from this and have the equipment available in case there is -- in case this is unfortunately happening again. 42,000 oil wells have been drilled, and we had one of them in mexico -- i have had contact with the chinese because there is a dispute about drilling offshore in alaska. china is already looking at the pole. there is more oil at the north pole than anywhere else. al gore talks about climate change, we do not know where this is, but this is there. they did not have the interest in preventing this kind of oil spill. we have to be prepared to address this.

we have to have this available so we will address this, so this does not happen again. >> mr. defazio? >> two is ultimately responsible for the proper functioning of the blowout preventer? this is owned by transocean. >> we perform the inspections on this. you are ultimately responsible. this has to be fully functioning and capable. there are numerous reports that says that -- that most of the printers cannot sever this. would this have been able to do this anytime? >> most of these are not designed to cut through the joints, which are the segments

that joined us. >> does this give us the opportunity of failure, even when this works? >> this depends on what is across the ram. even though they are working for you under federal law, your the irresponsible party.

>> we are a responsible party. >> if we have rams that are not capable on 10% of the type of cutting the pipe and there were other malfunctions, it do you think you fully met all the federal standards and you are totally irresponsible by putting a blowout preventer down there? >> if i could segregate two things. we are the responsible party for the spill damages. i think there is a question as to what happened to cause the explosion. >> if your contract in with someone, you can get a cheaper deal on your daily rates. the question to you is, they are theponsible for the blow welout you contracted with them. your own engineer was a co-

author said it has exceeded the capacity of some bop share ramps. how can you be doing this? this mean these things do not work. >> what we do it is designed the well. trans ocean's is to erect a. we sped up the well with the casing design. >> you are responsible. that is coming up under your lease. this is unearned you that they cannot share through? you have never heard? what it is not unknown to me. >> doesn't that concern you? then it cannot work. i think it has to be looked out. >> i am concerned by your use of the word "legitimate paul " i am

worried about what happened to axon. you keep using the word "legitimate claims." you are reserving the right later. >> i have been clear from day one with every committee. >> you would say that having a blowout preventer that is incapable of setting up a well would mean it is either gross negligence or willful misconduct. do the that require these things to work all the time? >> i think the regulation stipulates what needs to be done. >> it should be capable of cutting the pike? >> i think it has to be looked at. i think there will be changes made. >> we have a big problem here. one other question about the dispersants better being used. there are other dispersants that

led you to use this particular. there are others that epa measures as more affective on this great of oil and less toxic. why aren't you using those? i am concerned about what is in the water column. but we are using the pre- approved dispersants. >> there are 13 preapproved. there are some less toxic. it comes from a company that you do not have anyone sitting on a board. >> i am not aware of there are products such a more effective of not burda >> we are following it through unified command of what they believe will be the best dispersants to use. i know of their testing other dispersants. if there are better ones to use, we will definitely use them. >> there is a list. there is something called dispersant that is half as toxic

and more effective. i urge you to the pep up. >> i definitely will. >> thank you for having the hearing. i may be repeating some questions that have been asked. bear with me. everyone is focused on the blow of preventative fail. let me put a couple questions to either of you. who designed the structure? who build the structure? was it to build to spec? >> the blogger venture was designed and manufactured by cameron. >> how about the rig itself? >> horizon designed and built to

trans ocean's specifications. >> they bolted or design did or both? >> i do not know exactly who designed it. it was built in a shipyard in career. >> who is responsible for calculate how much oil is leaking? >> there are government scientists with noah, bp, a and other industry experts predict that has come out under the unified command. >> thank you pra. are there other devices that are currently available or in use the would have performed a similar function to the blowout preventer?

>> the blowout preventer's function is to seal the wallboard. i am not aware of any other mechanism out there other than a block peradventure. >> i thought maybe you all make them. you responded to the gentleman from west virginia regarding legitimate claims that have been made. i commend you for that, responding in kind to that. are there legitimate claims that have not been paid? >> as a two days ago, i do not think any claims have been denied. i do not know in the last day or so. none have been denied. >> thank you both for being here. i yield back. >> thank you. >> a moment ago he misled this committee.

-- you misled this committee. he asked about the use of dispersants. you are using one that was 2.6% disperse-it is a lot less toxic and has a rate of 100%. [unintelligible] the toxics to the rate is 42, which is much better. you remember you are under oath. who decided -- do not tell me the command -- who decided which dispersant to use? >> i do not know the individual

who decided. >> i did not ask the individual. b what itp -- was it a bp that decided? >> i do not know. >> could you find out? >> yes. >> if it was bp, what do you something less toxic and less effective of the then you have a board member there. >> i do not understand the supply chain. we are using quite a bit of it. i do not have any idea what the supply chain is for the other dispersants. >> are you sitting the other dispersants are unavailable? according to this, it is the second words on the list. i'm just telling you what i know. would you please get back to the committee with the following information. who decided to use this?

i am told it was bp. two, why was it decided? if you disagree with the assertion that it is much more toxic and less effective, let us know. find out the reason it is being used. mr. newman, the chairman pointed out that deep water horizon is flagged under a foreign flag, the republic of the marshall islands. when the coast guard inspects under the marshall islands it marshall islands4 to 8 hours and when it goes under the u.s. regulations, it takes two or three weeks. how many does transocean have an operation in the u.s.

waters? >> i believe there are 15. >> have made our flight in foreign countries? >> i am not aware. >> most of them are foreign flags? >> i believe that is correct. >> you get much more lenient and it dangerous to the end safety regulations. you do not have to do of lead. are there other reasons why you might glad them? >> the vessels in the gulf are subject to three sets of regulatory regimes, the class society, the flag state and the coastal state. the coastal state in the gulf of mexico is the coast guard. havee coast guard with th

testified that a u.s. coast guard inspection takes two or three weeks. the safety inspection of a foreign takes 48-hours. it is much less thorough. >> if the coast guard is conducting both the flag state inspection and the coastal state inspection, there will of this is the more time on the vessel. if they are only conducting -- >> it is a way of saying there be more thorough . they are saying they are being more thorough. >> i would agree with that assumption, congressman. inspection is review the performance of the flag inspection. they are relying on the fairness of the other parties. >> i understand and i appreciate

the fact you said it is numbers the senate finance dollars liability in that you are pale the damages. i appreciate that. can you give one good reason why we should have any liability limit at all, why we should not repeal it? i interstate one obvious reason would to say that if we did not have a liability limit there would be your companies should want to drill. then one would say why not get insurance for that. it is a insurance would be too expensive. they might say, is it the market's telling you that you should not be doing it? >> i have not addressed any sort of policy issues around liability limits. we know we have accepted we are a responsible party. we are very clear. >> you not to oppose the

regulatory move? >> i cannot hear you. >> un not oppose a congressional moved to remove or greatly raise liability limits? >> i do not think i can commit to what we would do. we are focused on this issue right now. >> thank you very much. >> mr. duncan. >> thank you. thank you for the way you are conducting this hearing today. let me say first of all has certainly been a terrible tragedy. this is been a terrible tragedy for our environment and the people that lost their family members. i share the desire of everyone that we do everything possible to try to determine the cause and see that it will not happen again. again.