a lot of what this has been is about trying to divide our democratic party. i do not want to see that happen. i believe strongly in my democratic party of arkansas and the democratic people of arkansas. i was raised in a democratic household and i was taught to appreciate what it meant to be inclusive and to be a part of something and to make sure that everyone else felt comfortable in being a part of that. . .

>> so i just think that as we move forward in this campaign, folks, we've good lot of work to do. no doubt about it.

i'm going to hit the trail. i'm so glad that president clinton has helped us to our countdown to victory tour. we're going to end up june 8, being successful [applause] >> i'm so proud. i'm so proud. we've got mommas for blanch. we've got farmers for blanch. we've got teachers for blanch. we've got seniors for blanch. we've got everybody talk about what this campaign needs to be about. and i just want all of us to walk away from here with something that president clinton said. i was raised -- i was raised in a family that taught me that you do not use anger and hatred to try and solve your problems. you use hard work and you use a consensus of bringing people together. that's what we are about in

arkansas. have you ever seen anybody, anybody respond to natural disaster like arkansans do? when floods hit or tornados hit, i'm right there in the front lines. neighbors are there to be there for one another. we don't use hatred. we make a difference not just in our lives but in the lives of others. so folks if anybody ask you -- you let him know, blanche's vote isn't for sale and neither is yours! we're going to win this election. help me get it june 8. june 8 that's where we're going. thank you all very, very much. [applause] >> thank you.

♪ ♪ ♪

>> lieutenant governor bill halter began an r.v. tour from north little rock to north eastern arkansas. >> tomorrow on "america & the courts" justices antonin scalia and stephen briier talk about the agency. hear their remarks at 7:00 p.m. ear on c-span. >> the treaty before you is an evolution of agreements that go back to the 1970's and particularly of the periods of agreements that started in the reagan administration and then continued in some form in every

subsequent administration. >> watch the moments that make history, right now online at the c-span video library. it's washington your way, every program since 1987. available free online. >> california, congressman darrell issa called for an investigation of joe sestak who says the white house offered him an administration position in exchange for not running for the seat now occupied by senator specter. congressman isa speaks for 10 minutes.

by congressman former admiral joe sestak in which he was repeatedly said he was offered a job for getting out of the race. during these 10 weeks congressman sestak has repeated many, many times with exacting details, he was offered a job for getting out of the senate race by someone from the white house. today the announcement came from the white house from their council that, in fact, rahm emanuel had instructed former president clinton to make such an offer. the offer is allegedly an unpaid position in the department of defense. we find this to be less than fully credible. and it raises more questions than answers. more importantly on seeking guidance from council, i find that that 600 and 595 are still

deeply in question. not wanting to investigate this anymore than necessary, myself, ranking member lamar smith and the rest of the republicans on the judiciary committee are today sending a letter to robert mueller the director of the f.b.i. asking him to open an investigation in a similar fashion to the one done under the clinton white house so-called travelgate. we believe that if the attorney general will not as has been asked by him by the senate investigate this with an independent council, at a minimum, allegations need to be checked by law enforcement officials able to discern whether these or other criminal codes have been violated.

this does not mean that we will give up our investigation. what it does mean is that we would prefer that we concentrate on the committee on the question of the proper role of the white house through transparency and oversight, ethical behavior and the administration of trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money. this is best left to independent investigators either lieu the f.b.i. or through the u.s. attorney's office. we are again, reiterating that that's what we'd like, but we must have closure on this with today's letter from the white house, actually created more questions than answers. and with that, i would like to answer your questions. >> [inaudible] already well, one of them is that in the plain english

reading in the u.s.c. as we call it, 600, the admission that a position was offered in return for the desired effect of getting congressman sestak out of the senate race, both those actions talk about a number of different ways, contract and so on. but they specifically name position. not unpaid position or paid position, but position as being a violation of u.s.c. 600. additionally 18 u.s.c. 595 is more broadly related to a senate race. although a white house says in their closing remark, that there have been numerous reported instances in the past when prior administration both democrat and republican and motivated by the same goals and

i would presume to clear the field, discuss alternative path to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office. such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements. i think it's clear that it's not consistent with the standard that president obama said he was setting for his administration. it also, at least in the plain english of the law is not consistent with the law but a violation of the law. yes, molly. >> have you walk across the aisle and talk to sestak about this. >> conversations with members of conk -- congress would be inappropriate for us to do ourselves. we have a procedure if there are questions to deal with that. but this this case, congressman

sestak has been forthrighting in this way. one is corporating. and two, he said he would cooperate with an investigation. he has repeated that. although this is the joint system that appears to be coordinated through his campaign, we would welcome the f.b.i. or a u.s. attorney investigating an ordinary course in which congressman sestak could answer questions appropriately. members of congress are not to investigate even other with the narrow exception of that. zpwhress >> how does this apply with political fund razors where you get a -- fundraisers where you get a photo op with the president? >> it doesn't.

in this case, it is very clear that it is designed to be applicable to offering somebody a job. a politician supplying his team or his photo op as you say is very much consistent with the federal election commission rules and laws. although many people, myself included would prefer that we have a system of financing our campaigns and funding them that was less open to the question of, what did someone give you $2,400 for if not for something else. in this case this statute which has been modernized repeatedly, last time in 2006, is specificically intended to protect from patronage, from direct giving of jobs in return for anything of value. and 595 more specifically, of

course, deals with the senate. 600 deals in general with all political offices. understand that it is extremely easy for a congressman or a senator to talk in terms of, bell, i'll have a large staff and i'll have this and that if i'm elected. therefore i i'll be able to point your daughter to west point or whatever. these are wrong. they're criminal. every member of congress as we go through our ethical training learns where these lines get crossed. and why you can't cross them. the assertion by the administration that these are business as usual begs two questions. one is this an administration that is business as usual that these petty crimes as they consider them are ok because there's no need for a change or is it that now that the president is in office, what he said no longer applied. i think there are two things we have to bear in mind.

one is that in my teen your at the house i've never had an irrefutable statement by a witness and then confirmed by the person who bestowed that offer so exceptedly can say i'm the face of these statements. one could bring incredible charge. yes, sir? >> what made you think ha the f.b.i. would be any faster? >> well, first of all, we're not in a hurry. we want to see process done at a deliberative speed. yes the 10 weeks of stalling and if you will hoping for it to go away. they have been inconsistent with the promise of the white house. but now that they've given us this, they've given us certainly a valid reason for furrer investigation. i would like that once it agains, i would like for it to

be done in an early course. these investigations should be done properly and independently. i don't want to have a political which hunt. it was a democrat asking another democrat if he would take that. democrats would not be good to investigate. nor would they want republicans to investigate. other questions? yes. [inaudible] >> will the investigation pass longer than expected? >> many of the facts are known. we know that rahm emanuel was involved. we undoubtedly would expect that they were knew but that. that's a fatherly small group of people. i think the u.s. attorney or

the f.b.i. should be able to interview the witnesses, come up with an independent findings in a short period of time. anything else? i want to thank you all for coming today. good-bye. >> congressman joe sestak healed news conference to talk about his conversation with fortunatelier president clinton about an obama position. today the white house said that

an offer was made. he said he never considered any position with the white house. he spoke here for about 15 minutes. >> can i first just say, thank you. i'm sorry to delay until right now. i didn't want to do in the middle of all the votes. and go in and out and potentially miss the vote and all. i'm happy to answer questions. >> congressman, what about bringing president clinton into this? why didn't you say this was the person who was involved in it? this is what he said? why didn't we hear that earlier? >> president clinton had called me last summer and i just didn't feel it was right for me to talk about that conversation with him. >> mr. sestak, can you describe what your reaction was. was it just one phone call you got from him and that use it? >> well, he's called several times -- this is the only time.

he called last summer. and during the conversation, he talked about how tough the democratic -- might be. he also said you've done well in the house. your military background can really make a mark there. and then brought up that during a conversation rahm emanuel had brought up about a presidential board of something. you know, if i were to stay in the house and i almost interrupted the president and said, mr. president, i am going to decide to get in this or not only depending upon what's good for, pennsylvania's working families but not an offer. and he said and he said, i knew he'd say that.

>> is this something that the white house was asking president clinton to do? >> i'm sorry say again. >> was it very clear that the white house was asking president clinton -- >> ram had mentioned that there would be. he worked in the white house. >> was there anything wrong about this? >> could i just take -- i'll try to get to all the questions. >> this could have been pretty much a misdemeanor or a felony. >> oh, if i ever thought it would be wrong, i would have reported it. >> is your intention that what what president clinton said offering a job in relation to your senate race. would you say that's inappropriate or no? >> i was very con sthuse he did not want me in the race. and i looked at this as just another effort by the democratic establishment in washington not to have me in the race.

>> was it president clinton. >> no, there was nothing wrong that was done. >> you call it a job. >> actually someone asked me -- >> i'm sorry can you hear me? face the cameras, ok? >> anything you want, congressman. >> i'm wondering why you call it a job and not just a position. >> if you remember this happened last july. and sun denly i thought it was in february. someone asked me did they offer you a job? >> and i felt from my personal "bility, i said yes. i didn't try to march the words there. after that no comment to the follow on questions that were asked because i talked about my role in the matter. and i thought that was fornt for me to do.

>> did president clinton go into detail what this would be or did you cut it off before he was able to get in too much detail. this portion of the conversation probably lasted -- i'm not sure at the time. but i would say 30 to 60 seconds. >> it was almost as when he was saying the words, i felt like i was interrupting to say., i would only get out of this. because that wasn't in the primary at the time if i felt it was the right thing to do for pennsylvania working families and not just an offer. he chuckled and joked and said, joe, i knew you were going to say that. >> since our conversation in j july, how often have you spoken

to bill clinton about this? >> never. never again. >> not since february? >> no. you haven't spend any time with them? >> no, the answer's no. >> i got you already. go ahead. can i just quickly go around one time. >> how do you feel about -- >> look, i understand washington is often about political deals. it was, you know, i didn't feel battered, good or indifferent. i madely said no and move on. to focus on what i want to focus on. we're going to don't focus on

that. >> [inaudible] >> you said that this is what washington's all about. >> washington does this type of stuff. your company is in large part against what you stand for, the ethical questions -- >> they asked me, you know, was asked a question if i was interested in this and as i said, i would only not get in if it were the right thing for the pennsylvania workers. >> but do you feel like you used this against pennsylvania voters. i did. when i was asked the question, i answered it. and you know, today the white house talked about the rest of the it. do you think that any of this sort of washes in your campaign in any way not that you ned --

that this impacts your county. >> come on up with me with 27 counties. i honestly washington, d.c. forgets about this. i'll never forget the farmer, potter county. when i asked him how was the le session last july. i was hurting so much already. but i'll tell you, i think washington better focus on them. and's all we've done in our campaign. keep the focus on this im. >> yes, ma'am. why didn't you tell the story when you were on meet the press? >> because i didn't feel it was right for me being called by a former president of the united states to talk about the details of that conversation. not at all. no.

no. last time i saw rahm was -- i think it was march a year ago. they were hauling over people there to -- about the impending health care bill. >> during this conversation, at my point do you feel that the former president was crossing a line? >> absolutely not. >> what is inappropriate? why couldn't he just reveal it. the fact that it was president clinton who had the conversation with you. >> i honestly didn't feel that it was right for me. and i didn't feel comfortable all. the -- but i did when i asked about my roll. answer that. yes, i'm sorry i interrupted.

go ahead. >> [inaudible] >> when i was asked a question and by the way, i never put that out there. someone asks me a question in february abouting is that happened eight months or seven months earlier, and i said yes about my personality account ability. >> could you clarify? >> at the time i heard the words "presidential board." but that's all i heard. but it didn't matter what it was. i would have not -- it wasn't anything else. and i said mr. president i almost interrupted. >> no, i heard presidential onboard and -- you know, and that was kind of what i heard. you know, it was about -- there was about either intelligence

or events. it was like -- but i wasn't interested. and that was the bottom line. i i have great respect and admiration. i don't want to overplay it. i mean i was just at the n.f.c., i was the navy captain. but he calls ever so often. how's the race going. i asked him for advice. i think some of you may know i was sit knowingly his home down to georgetown when the issue about arlen speaker came out asking for his final stuff just before ai nouns. arlen spector was still republican. i leb when he -- my daughter

had a brain tumor. and he called, and she herd me talk. she said is that the president. he wouldn't talk for five minute on the floor. the white house called your brother and people would read things into it. >> they called my brother to say we're going put out a -- they're doing a review and just want you to see if, you know, set up when they're going to go out. and that was the end to let you keep your head up about what we're going to say. my brother was just a conduit of it. >> will this hinder your ability to run. i'm hoping to go over, right over there and work very well with people. never with a compliesed the

principle but where the principle compromised. not at all. you know? none of the details are out about this? >> it's your problem, pennsylvania. you know people don't care about this up there. they do care about their jobs that they're holding on. >> do you think anything will come of the investigation? >> did they offer you a job on a presidential position. does that seem like too little? >> i didn't even think about it. i've got make a decision. i didn't even think about it. i didn't know exactly what it was. did they make clear to you they wanted to be healthy. he said him being brought up

being appointed to the presidential board. that's when your question, you think i almost interrupting. i said mr. president, no. .

>> tomorrow, on united states of america, justices antonin scalia and stephen breyer talk about an advisory commission to ensure the fair and effective administration of agencies. hear their remarks at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> this is an evolution of agreement that is go back through the 1970's, and particularly of the series of starting agreements that were started in the reagan astration and continued in some form in every subsequent administration.

>> watch the moments that made history right now on line at the c-span video library. it is washington your way, every program since 1987, available free on line. >> carl levin talks about the defense panel's mark up of the authorization veil. among the topics, military pay raising, don't ask don't tell and the striker program. this is about 35 minutes.

>> the focus of our mark-ups over the last couple of days and our hearings over the last couple of months in our effort is to support our troops, to give them everything they need to succeed, to support their families. that has always been the focus of the armed services committee, and it always will be. we authorized a 1.4% across the board pay raise for military personnel. i'm not giving you these items in any particular order or priority. they tepid to follow actually the subcommittee decisions that will be taken up bay the full committee. the committee will be on the website at any time. i think you already know about the action relative to don't ask-don't tell. that was adopted by a vote of

16-12. i will go into that on questions, although there has been a lot written on that already. the prohibition on the performing of legal abortions in d.o.d. facilities has been repealed. these have got to be prepaid. there is no government money involved here, and it is only done on a voluntary basis by a doctor. there is no requirement, in other in other words that doctors in military hospitals to perform abortions, but this authorizes them if they are prepaid and no expense to the government. the afghanistan forces fund is fully funded at $11.6 billion to train and eequipt the afghan national army and police so we can grow as quickly as we can the capability of those security forces to prepare them to take over responsibility for security in afghanistan.

the request for $2 billion for the iraq security forces fund was cut by $1 billion. this is consistent with the few that most of us took -- not a large ma majority, but a sufficient ma majority to make that cut. our view is that we want the iraqi government to take responsibility for the financial strength of their army. they -- the request in the iraqi parliament was cut in half. they didn't even fully fund their own defense budget. the amount of oil revenue they get is way up because the price of oil is up as well. we reduced that question for the iraqi civilian forces by $1 billion. we wanted to make sure certain actions were taken. we extended the authority of the secretary of defense to

transfer equipment coming out of iraq as our troops withdraw. we extended the authority to transfer that equipment to security forces in either iraq or afghanistan. we adopted by a vote of 17-11 a moratorium on the transfer of detainees from guantanamo to certain identified countries. we added six fa-18 fighters because of the shortfall we have in fighter aircraft. we added six to the budget request. we authorized the full funding for 42 joint strike aircraft. there is a reduction of one. we did not replace one legacy

aircraft that was lost. other than that, we fully funded. we did not put a fence around that funding as i was tempted to try to do. but the house has put a fence around the joint strike fighter aircraft. i will be just as chairman, but as one member of the committee being supportive of a fence in conference because of the problems that we have had with the production and document of the joint strike fighter. we did not take up the shufe an alternative engine for the -- the issue of an alternative engine. that issue was not raised, and we did not vote on that. there was no additional funding proposed or voted on for additional c-17 aircraft. on a very close vote of 15-13, the committee approved an

amendment to require the president to send 6,000 national guard personnel to help secure the u.s. mf mexico border. my view is it is inappropriate for congress to mandate that. only the president can do that. i thought this language went too far, but nonetheless, it passed by a vote of 15-13. i don't know of any modern precedent for congress to direct the president to deploy troops in the manner provided for in this amendment. but that is an issue which will be resolved either on the floor or in yelps. we received a letter from the security advisor to the president, general jones, strongly opposing that language. we added funding for unfunded

priorities that were not funded in the president's budget but which were high priorities of all the services, army, navy and air force, and there was a significant add for a number of those so-called unfunded requirements. i can go into that, if you would like, more on the "q & a" part of this as well. we >> a number of energy conservation programs that were involved here. we, relative to iran adopted a

significant amendment which prohibits the department of defense from entering into any contract for the procurement of tiger woods or services from entities engaging in commercial activity in the energy sector in iran. >> we authorized the skds -- secretary of defense for funding for equipment, surprise and training for the counterterrorism force of yemen. there was an amendment to restrict the executive branch from entering into executive agreements with our countries relative to space.

that was rejected by a vote of 14-11. so that restriction on executive authority relative to entering into agreements with other countries was rejected by that vote. the money for a prison in illinois was struck, a prison which would have been available to house detainees from guantanamo. that was a voice vote where a clear majority voted aye. i and a few others voted against striking those funds. i think i will stop there. >> there is language regarding

that, the second engine, do you see that language from other senators, or how do you see this all playing out? >> that is similar to the language which was adopted last year by the senate, and it obviously did not succeed in conference last year. i don't know whether there will be an amendment on the floor of the senate or not. last year there was an amendment on the senate floor which struck the language that the full committee had added. i don't know whether or not the supporters of the second engine, and i have always been one of those, would want to take that course of action if it is going to lead to another negative vote on the floor of the senate. it would be a better course to go to conference with the house, which i understand last night added the funding for a second engine. >> are you encouraged by that?

>> very encouraged. i think it makes sense to have that competition, especially when you after -- you have the amount of money invested in the second engine. it is valuable in terms of reducing costs. it is valuable as a hedge against the first engine not working well. even by the pentagon's own new numbers, it's a 50-50 deal as to whether the current value of dollars, what it will cost to maintain two engines and the value of competition. it comes out to be a wash. i think even by their own numbers, we think their numbers are very conservative, slanting towards their position, which is not to have a second engine. but even by their own assessment, it is at least a 50-50 deal to have it. so i've always favored this for competitive reasons, and i think it is, from my perspective, good that the house adopted the funding

yesterday. >> senator levin, i assume that prison in illinois was the one that the obama administration wanted to transfer the detainees from guantanamo to. how much money was struck, and will there be an attempt to put that back on the floor? >> i don't know if there will be an attempt to put the money back on the floor. i think it makes a lot of sense to close guantanamo, so i opposed the reduction of that money. but it was obviously going to be the pass, so it was the reduction or the ending of that funding in this year's budget. it was adopted by a voice vote. >> $245 million. >> and the entire amount was struck? >> it was part after larger -- yes, the entire amount for the prison was struck.

it was part of a funding line which is larger than that, which the balance remains. >> if you are successful in conference to keep the funding for the alternate engine, are you concerned that the president will veto the bill just as secretary gates said. and the don't ask-don't tell legislation is in there. and are you concerned that it could jeopardize that specific step you took yesterday? and what do you think? do you think the president will veto something that has don't ask-don't tell in it? >> this is a huge bill. there are all kinds of items in this bill. this is a bill which fund, ee equips, trains our troops and takes care of them and their family. we added something in the try-care -- tri-care statute to

provide coverage up to 26 years old. it seems to me that the president would look at the entire bill, not just one provision. many i think on the republican side voted against the ball because of the presence of one provision. whether the president would want to take that kind of a view because of the presence of one provision, i don't know. but there are a number of provisions in here now that the president would not like, i would think, including the prohibition on transfer of detainees to four or five countries, including the cutting of the funding for the prison in illinois. there is a number of provisions in here that the president will have difficulty with, and he is going to be very satisfied with some of our add-ons. he may not like the cut of $1 billion for the iraqi army, but some of us feel strongly about

this issue. that it's time, given the amount of money that iraq is taking in by oil revenue, and the cut in their department, it is kind of hard to justify putting billions of dollars in for the iraq army. we put that in. the president may not like that cut as well,. he is going to like a lot of things, and he won't like some things. i would hope he would look at the overall product which comes out, but we are a long way from having a product. some of the things which i would think he would not like may not dropped along the way, and we don't know what the outcome would be on the second engine in any event. >> do you think it might be difficult to get this vote to the floor? senator mccain is not here with you, and he usually is, and a lot of republicans voted against the bill. >> i think it is hard to

filibuster a defense bill. there is so much in here for our troops. there is one thing in here, if there is, that people don't like, it would not seem to be enough for 41 senators for filibuster the bill. we would hope to get that before the august recess, but that will be up to our leaders. >> what is the tony of the debate in committee yesterday as far as don't ask-don't tell and the future of that particular provision on the floor? >> the tone watts lively. that is as you've mystically as i can put it. the future on the floor, i think it is likely it will stay in the bill. i believe a majority of the

senate, just like a majority of the country according to pickup opinion polls, favor changing this policy. we have put in significant protection. the same protection that the chairman of the joint chiefs and the secretary of defense provided when they said they favor the repeal of don't ask-don't tell. the same protection, which is when it comes to how and when you do it, you have a study, you have a determination, and we added something else, a certification that before there is a repeal, there must be a certain if i cation from our top military leaders that there is not a negative impact on training, morale or recruitment. so we protect that very explicitly and carefully. i would think that would help us on the floor. again, we are following the

pattern of the secretary of defense when he put into place a review process. i think it is a committee more than a commission. a committee of folks that are going to look into how to implement. when i asked point blank by letter the secretary of defense are you saying, mr. secretary, that the issue for you is not whether to repeal it, but how to implement a repeal, his answer was yes. so the secretary, the chairman of the joint chiefs favor repeal. they have made that decision in advance of their own study. so i don't think it is appropriate to criticize us for doing the same thing which the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs did, which is to take a position relative-to-an appeal, but preserving the question of how do you implement a repeal

because there are some issues which have to be resolved. i am optimistic it would survive on the floor and should survive on the floor the way it passed the house yesterday. >> on the pay raise issue, you approved the raise that the president asked for at $1.4%. the house recommended 1.9%. what is your rationale for giving only 1.4%, something military family groups think should be hire? >> there is going to be something from senator web that is going to provide for additional pay for certain categories. it is going to be more targeted an -- than an across the board pay raise. he offered it yesterday in full committee. it's a very important and a very significant proposal.

i don't know if it gets the total to 1.9%, but it would be higher than 1.4%. i suggested it yesterday, because there was some discussion about this. i suggested that we take it up on the floor and that we get the pept gone's analysis -- the pentagon's analysis of it because that was not available. it is going to be much more overall than 1.4%, but i just don't know the outcome. but it was understood by everybody that we were going to be going above 1.4%. but how you slice it, how specialized and targeted those pay increases are will be left to the floor. >> why not just give the 1.9%? can you go into that? >> because senator webb has a very creative proposal to add pay in a more targeted way to

categories of people who have not -- mainly at the lower end, but not exclusively at the lower end. it is important that be taken up and voted on. we just weren't ready to vote on that because we didn't have even an analysis by the department of defense. we should be hearing from the department of defense before we take that up. >> there were report yesterday that senator mccain wanted to move to open consideration for the don't ask don't tell? >> that didn't take place. a unanimous request wouldn't be required because a decision had already been made. there was the possibility of classified information being taken up. so to change that rule or that decision would have taken unanimous consent in my minute

onas chairman, and unanimous consent was objected to. >> where do you stand on the measure that passed the hold-outs last night that would required d.o.d. to take into consideration that eads would have in the tanker contest? >> i haven't seen the provision. obviously you want a fair competition, but i can't give you more specifics. i would hope everybody would want a fair competition, but i am not at all familiar with that language. >> would you support any such consideration, without getting into the details of what they do? this has been an issue that has been out there. senator brownback introduced legislation that required d.o.d. to take into consideration certain findings of the w.t.o. i'm just wondering whether you

think that warrants consideration by the full senate or the conference committee? >> i'm not going to go beyond saying that there should be a fair competition and that relevant information from whatever source should be part of a consideration. but i'm not going to stand up here and say what is relevant and what isn't relevant. that is up to the department of defense in the first instance. if there is protest after their decision, which there has been in the past, that protest would have to be considered. when it was finalized and comes for funding, we would have to hold hearings to ensure there was a fair competition. but i don't want to go beyond that. >> two issues. on border security, you said you hoped the issue would be resolved -- in conference -- >> or on the floor. >> do you feel there is support to remove that provision?

i believe you would need 60 votes? >> no, you don't necessarily need 60 votes to do anything in the senate. happily, some things are still decided by 50. don't ask me which is 50 and which is 60 because that is in flux. but i believe this would be an issue on the floor as to whether or not congress has the authority to direct troops to go to specific locations. there is mo precedent for that according to the library of congress. we can add, recommend, fund or prohibit. but can the direct the commander in chief to send troops to a specific place? there's no precedent for it. i don't think it is consistent with the constitution myself. there was a closed vote in the

committee, and i assume it will be raised on the floor. we will be hearing from the president or his security advisor on this. he had written a letter strongly opposing it. >> on guantanamo, you said there were four or five countries that are now prohibited on the transfer issue. can you say what those are? >> they are identified. i will try to find out the list. i know that three of them are afghanistan, saudi arabian pakistan, yemen is the fourth, and somalia. >> a question on the engine again.

your wepts acquisition format pushed competition, but you have seemed reluctant to take that up in committee. if the competition and the engine is good, why didn't you push that in committee? you are sloughing it off to conference again instead of making a statement. >> we did not act on it last year. you said last year we didn't do it in committee. we didn't. >> you had that language that virtually assured that the pentagon wasn't going to be served. >> not in committee last year. >> the point is why didn't you push it this exreer? >> i think last year we put the money in, and it was stricken on the floor. >> why didn't you push it this year? >> because we didn't think we had the votes in committee to do it. i very much much favor the second engine if the reasons i game. i don't believe in following a course of action which is destructive to my own beliefs.

>> was webb the only democrat to vote against the don't ask-don't tell amendment? >> yes. and the vote, by the way -- i don't know if they are part of the website, but the votes are available. >> senator, how likely is it do you think the conference committee will support the alternate engine? >> i can't predict that. it was one of the last issues last year, and i assume that it will be one of the last issues this year as well. >> you are saying if the policy has already been decided, and it is more or less about how. if a soldier is opposed to openly gays serving -- >> the soldier should take it up with secretary gates. secretary gates made the

decision. he is the top military officer we have in the country. they made a decision that it should be repealed. we followed that same course. we think that this matter -- the policy should end, and we gold the gates-mullen approach to study how we should do it to make sure it is done in a way that does not effect unit readiness or cohesion. that course was set by the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs. a very strong and powerful statement. we followed that same course. for troops that have that kind of question, we each represent different states, will answer that question in different ways. i know how i will answer it representing my state, but everyone will give their own opinion on it, people who favor it and people who don't. what i would tell troops

generally is we followed the same course that the military leaders set out, which is that this discriminatory policy should end. how you do it in a way that does not affect those important considerations of cohesion, readiness and recruit nment need to be looked at and taken into consideration to make sure we don't have that negative effect.

imprisonment. knowing this do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> yes, sir. >> take your seat and please be seated. >> before we begin, are you being represented by transocean? >> yes, sir. >> for the record can you please state -- >> i represent transocean, not mr. -- >> sorry. thank you. >> mr. placen, do you wish to have transocean counsel sit next to you? >> yes, i do. >> okay.

>> for the record can you please state your full fame and spell your last. >> christopher placen -- >> is your microphone on, sir? >> christopher bernard pleasant. p-l-e-a-s-a-n-t. >> by whom are you employed, sir? >> transocean. >> what position do you hold? >> subsea supervisor. >> how long have you been the subsea supervisor. >> aroximately three years. >> prior to being the subsea supervisor any other positions you held. >> yes, sir, i started at the bottom and i worked my way up from a roustabout, working shaking hands, mud pits. >> how long have you been with transocean? >> approximately ten years. >> did you stay on site after

the incident and work control response with the b.o.p. stat? >> yes, sir. >> how long did you stay out there. >> we came in friday evening. >> were you able to identify any problemsith the stack after the incident? >> no, sir. >> have you been contactedy the transocean investigation team concerning the b.o.p. stat? >> transocean investigation team concerning the b.o.p. stack? >> yes, sir. >> can you please tell me what your educational background is? >> i graduated from high school. got a year and a half of college. >> did you have any well control training when you were with transocean? >> yes, sir. we was taught how to determine pressure gradings mud weight. how long it takes to circulate different things around.

>> can you please briefly inform the board what your job responsibilities were as a sub sea supervisor? >> my main duties are well control. while the b.o.p.s are deployed own the sea floor, we do p.s, preventive maintenance on all our surface equipment. >> and p.m., you mean preventive maintenance? >> preventive maintenance. >> how long have youbeen? >> i arrived april 20. >> the day of the incident? >> the day of the incident. >> were you on the rig the day the b.o.p. was splashed? >> yes, i was. >> was there any leaks on that b.o.p. before it was splashed? >> none. >> were you aware of any problems on the deep water horizon prior to the incident?

>> could you say that again? >> we you aware of any problems on the deep water horizon well at the time of the incident? >> no. >> did you participate any daily meetings with the managent, the o.i.m. or transocean, bp company men? >> yes, i go to the meetings. >> did they discuss any problems with loss returns or kicks or anything else the day of the incident. >> the day of the incident? >> what was that? >> the day of the incident? >> yes. >> well, i arrived on the rig that day. and first thing i do is go to sleep. i don't work. i work nights. >> okay. let's take a step back. can you please tell me from the time you arrived on the rig on the 20th, what happened until the time of the incint. >> yes,ii ii iic i can. >> can you? >> i arrived approximately 11:00 a.m., went to bed. i woke up around 5:00 p.m., got

dressed. went to eat. approximately 5:30, you know, i went outside, made some rounds and toured the rig floor. >> did you have a pretour meeting? >> no, sir. prower meetings are, you know, noon to midnight, midnight to noon. >> and after 5:30 what happened? >> i made relief at 5:30 in the drill shack. and basically, you know, i was talking to my supervisor, which is mark kay, and he was explaining to me that they was -- they had just finished a negative test. during the negative test, they felt like they lost approximately 60 barrels of mud through the angular.

they increased the regulator pressure to 1900 and stopped leaking. wyman at the same time, wyman wheeler, which is a two-pusher, he's talking to bob kaluc hi, a bp company man, and wyman is convincing them that -- they were saying it was u-tubing. bob was saying it was u-tubing, and wyman was convinced that something wasn't right. he left -- he went outside. by that time, wyman works 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. by that time, his relief comes up, which is jason anderson, which is a tube pusher as well.

so, you know, just ltening to them talk, you know, jason, he was telling wyman the same thing, that, you know, u-tube. wyman was still, like, he couldn't believe that a u-tube back up the hose, youknow? but i guess we never really had it clear in the standing where the fluid went to. right now it's approximately ten minutes to 6:00. bob kaluchi, bp company man, tells jason anderson, we had to all stop. he said don is coming on at 6:00, k67 p.m. and he was going to discuss with don at was going on. jason and wyman are still talking. i really wasn't paying any more attention to them because i was still talking to mark about the

upcoming rig move that we was planning for the next couple of days ahead. bob comes back up to the rig floor and he tells jason, which is the way don want to do it. really don't know what way don want to do it. don is the bp company ma but- so jason said, we need to do it -- jason anderson said we need to do it the way murray sepapado does it. >> who is murray? >> murray is a bp company man. >> was he supposed to be on the rig that day or was he not? >> no, he wasn't on the rig that day, but his procedure worked better than any other procedure. so he was jugs saying that's the way he wanted to do it. 6 any way, bob tells jay sorng we're going to have to do it the way don wants to do it.

so probably five minutes after 6:00 or somethin don comes to the rig floor. him and bob talks back and forth for approximately a good hour. don aski bob, did you do this, you know, this and that. you know, the only thing i really gathered out of it is that bob, he wanted to do it according to the apd, and so don, don the company man, he told him no, we're going to do something else. and so him and jason went on talk i talking, and finally don tol jasowe're going to do it the wamuay wants to do it. so he tul teles bob to go call their bob in houston and say we're going to do a second negative test, okay? so bob goes to do it.

he comes back to the rig floor and says bob, what are you doing here? he said you got to -- you know, they were shortchanged. he said go to bed, you've goto get up. and whoever hisupervisor was said no, he told me to come back and stay with yofor e negative test. during the negative test, we didn't see anything flow back. don told bob to tell the office to displace the well. bob said okay. jason anderson, w got everybody back together for displacing, we got a prejob meeting on it. just before we started displacing, jason asked me, he said chris, he say can i put

1,000 psi before you open it. i said no, man. we can't open it, put no pressure on that and open it up. they say all right, let me get one or two strokes on it. i say i'll go for that. i'll give you one or two strokes. after everything that lined up, don said everything is ready to go. we started displacing the well to seawater. as they were displacing the well with seawater it took 9600 strokes. for the weight we had in there, it was 17 -- approximately 1750, and my job was to bri the kips down to seawater on the well head. so every quarter, i will vent off the tensioners on the moon

crew. we've got all the strokes, just like we were supposed to. it was 9:10. i looked at my watch. it was 9:10 when i left the rig floor. and i told jason. i said jason i'm done. i said i need to work on the b.o.p. crane and get it inspected to pick up the b.o.p.s before we unlatch. he said ok, you got the tensioners where you need it to be he said everything is perfect. he said all right, you can leave. >> the next 15 minutes i spent in the moon pool. the valves never get worked, sometimes they don't close all the way. i checked all my fluid levels. then in the process, i go in the ccu and check all my regulators

out. i dropped it back to 1,500, you know? back to 1,500 psi is normal operating pressure. i get all that done. i go up to the b.o.p. house, that's where the b.o.p. crane for picking up the b.o.p. stat, and i'm writing the prump cord for the next job to inspect it. and at that time, i heard jimmy harold page the deck form. and i said man, what he still doing up? and i thought about it. that evening mark told me to get the charts for the casing test, take them, gethem typed up and signed. after i heard him up initially, i go up to my office, type up the paperwork. i took it to jim herald. he was in his office talking to the deck forman.

>> what time was that? >> probably around approximately 9:30. so i'm talking to jamie for five or ten minutes. he was talking about the upcoming rig move, how long it was going to take to change the tensioner at. i had his signature. so i went to the companyman office. he wasn't in there. i went to the bathroom, come out after finishing in the bathroom, i come back to the compyman office, he wasn't in there again. so i went back to my office, and as i sat down in my chair in my office to save all the paperwork in the computer, i had an a.d. sitting next to me. he was in the chair and he was looking at the tv and flipping through the channels.

and he said chris, he said what's that water? i said he's probably coming out the hose. normally when you've got wattner there and you break a joint, water come out. i say it's probably coming out of the hose, probably. a man later, boog say i see mud. so i pick up the phone in my office, i call the rig floor, no answer. i call all three lines, got no answer. seeing buddy treyhan, he said what's going on? i said i don't know. i tried to go to the moon pool, check my packer down there, see if it was all right, you know, and everything. when i got in the hallway, i seen the electrician, chad murray. and chad say, don't go that way. he said something bad just happened in there. i said what? he never said what happened.

so i didn't go that way. so i ran back up t to the main deck, which is star board forward, trying to get to the rig floor. and that's where i saw the fire at. at the same time, i saw dave young, the chief mate, and he asked me, he said send me some help. he said i need some lp. i said i can send you some help. i said i've got to go. i ran instantly to the bridge. i was coming through the door in the bridge. he said they got the well shut in. i said yeah, the verter closed and i had alarm going off,

acouple lay tor alarms, just alarms flashing. i said i'm getting off here. and don say yeah, hit the button. you know, i hit the d.s. button, and everything in the panel, like you're supposed to at the panel, but it never left the panel. i had no hydraulics, and at the same time, you know, the captain, he's over in another area, and i heard himsk don wins winslow, could we eds in? he said yeah, we haven't already? i already hit the button. i said we already did. i said steve, i need mark hay, which is my supervisor. steve said do you really need him? i said no, there's nothing he can do. after i hit it, you know? and so, yo uh know, we stood

around and eventually the captain said abandon ship. and that's when i went to a lifebo lifeboat. >> on the eds control panel, you said everything look ed normal n it? >> yes, it went through the sequence at the pane >> was this before or after the explosion. >> it was after the explosion. >> you said to the captain calm down, we're not edsing. can you give me some type of policy where you're addressed and what kind o authorities in activating the emergency disconnect system? >> i am the authority. it's myequipment. you know, and it --ou know in a normal circumstance, the captain, in a watch circle he

can say no. we've got different watch circles out there, eds 1 and eds 2, but as far as the authority, i am the authority. and how much timead elapsed after the explosions that the captain had told you to calm down, don't activate the eds? >> i would say probably five minutes. >> to your knowledge is there any policy to lockout any portion of the b.o.p. stack at any time in the well? >> yes, you can lock out different things, but you'veot to have approval through mms. i mean, you've got to submit a form to them to lock out something. and they have to agree on it. >> were you awe at any time during this well that the b.o.t. stack was locked out or bypassed? >> no, it was never locked out, knowing this well. >> do you know if the deadman

auto share can be disabled? >> yes, it can be disabled. >> was it disabled? >> no, it was on. >> earlier, you said you were there when they splashed the b.o.p. stack. i just want to make sure there was no leaks on the accumulator system at this time? >> we had no leak whence we splashed it. >> are you awe of the computer logic of the stack. >> don't understand the question. >> the logic that's entailed in the b.o.p. from the rig to activate certain things, when you hit certain buttons and do certain electronics from the rig. there's a logic detailed in the b.o.p. stack that tells the stack to do something. you know if there was any modifications to the logic of that sta? >> when he uses logic, do you

understand that term? >> the electronic logic. >> i don't know. >> okay, thank you. at anytime, did cameron come to the rig and pull the b.o.p. stack or look at the b.o.p. stack or inspect it? >> yes. >> and what did that -- what did they do when they come to the rig? >> well, they come to the rig for different problems. you know, if we had -- we deemed them necessary to come out for, you know, we'll get them out when, you know, they didn't come out of every rig move. just when we had problems. >> to your knowledge -- i know you arrived on the 20th, did cameron come up for any previous b.o.p. issues? >> no, sir. no they didn't. >> were your responsibility -- earlier you said you had preventive maintenance on the b.o.p. stack and the equipment associated with it. can you please tell me what you did? did you inspect certain

components or functionsf the stack? >> as far as the components of the stack, you can't inspect them until you have them back on the surface. you have your hpu pumps. you do pms on your rails, change your oil out. you know, greasing everything up your b.o.p. crane, just checking your cables, make sure you don't see any burrs or anything in them. >> are you familiar with ap api spec 16 d. >> no. do you know by chance if that stack was certified through the inspection api spec process? >> no, because i'm not familiar be with it. >> there was study done by r.b. falcon back in 2001 on the b.o.p. assurance of that stack. they did some analysis on b.o.p. assurance. are you familiar with that study? >> no, sir. >> is that copy on the rig?

>> i' not familiar with it. i've never seen it. >> i'm just saying the hazards identified in the hazard analysis said ts report should be issued to the rig so all individuals responsible for running the b.o.p. can be reminded of the hazards and critical steps associated with running the b.o.p. are you not familiar with it? >> not familiar with it pop i'll walk it over there. >> can i ask you to identify what you're reading from? >> transocean, it's a document submitted. trn-hcec-0016648. >> thank you.

>> have you seen this before? >> never. >> are you familiar with that, sir? >> i have never seen thi documentefore. >> okay, thank you. had you ever in your career with transocean been involved in the sub sea well intervention? >> no, sir. >> earlier in your testimony, you d discussed that you had been contacted by the transocean investigation team on this incident. has there been any type of information, transfer of any problems by that investigation team? >> the investigation team asked me what you asked me. i mean, that's the only investigation i've been through. >> thanks a lot, sir. >> i just have a couple of follow-up questions.

i know it may be dficult to go back through this process, but could you just go back preef briefly to where the events started and maybe give us a little bit slower accountf what happened. >> yes, sir. >> i got lost a little bit in what you were telling me there. i just want to go back over it again. >> yes, sir, that's no problem. >> at approximately 5:30, i was on the rig floor. when i walked into the drill shack, you know, i seen my relief over there, mark hay, and i went to talk to him. at the same time, wyman and bob kalusha were talking about the first negative test. wyman was convinced we lost mud.

they bumped it up to 1900 and there wasn't any mud. >> that's to keep it closed? >> normal operating pressure is 1,500 psi. >> to keep it closed? >> or open. >> or open. so you increased pressure to keep it closed, is that what you're saying? >> yeah. >> thank you. would you continue, please? >> you say we increased the pressure to keep it closed. it was closed at 1,500. >> they increased the pressure more? is that what they did? >> they keep ee ee eed -- incre pressure to keep it closed. in one theory -- everybody didn't have the same theory that's where the mud went to. >> so that's what they tried? >> that's what they tried.

after that, bob kaluza said he was going to talk to don, the bp company man, don vidrine. and he come back to the rig floor and, you know, he telling jan, and jason convinced -- jason anderson, he is convinced that we didn't lose no mud through the annual. he said u-tube. but anyway, jason is telling bob that we want to do this negative te test. and bob tells jason, no, we're going to do it the way don want to do it. >> can i askou one question there. is there a difference in that one person tests down the hole and the other on the kill line. is that the difference? >> it's really not my area of expertise how they do it. i just know what i heard.

>> okay, thank you. >> i don't even know where i was that. >> they were discussing -- i don't want to say arguing, they were discussing how they were going to do the negative test. they had two different opinions there. >> two different opinions about the negative test. that was going on. anyway, don is up there now and he's talking to bob for about an hour, you know. and at the same time, he's discussing it, he's getting aggravated about the negative test as well, don is. because he's saying you should have did this, you should have did that. and bob said i want to do it according to apd. he said -- anyway, don and jason talks and they finally come up that they was going to do it the way murr wants to do it.

>> and murray is who? >> bp company man. >> thank you. >> so don tells bob to go call the office, the supervisor, and tell him we're doing another negative test. this is approximately 10:00 aft -- ten after 7:00, right in there. so we do another negative test. 7:00, right in there. so we do another negative test. we had no flow whatsoever. in the process, bob shows up on the rig floor and don asks him what is he doing up? they're making a shortchange. one of them is going home. >> and the shortchange is he's coming back at 2:00 and relieving don? >> one was going home the next morning. i don't know which one. >> so he's not going to get much rest up there on the rig floor? >> that's rrect. >> thank you. >> anyway, bob tells him that whoever their boss was for both of them to be up there for the nelg tif test. and that's what we did. after the negative test, don

told bob to call the office and tell them we continue on displacing the well, that he was satisfied with the negative test, and we had a prejob meeting. we lined up to displace the well with seawater. >> do you know where displacing the well tube to the pits? or to the boat? or you don't know? >> when you're displacing the well, in's no way to displace the well to the boat. it has to come to the pits. >> okay. all right, thank you. so you're displacing the well. then you went back down to your -- to the shack, is that what you call it? >> no, sir. as we're displacing the well, i'm on the rig floor compensati my tensioners. my overpull on the well here. >> that's right. >> once we finished that b, looked at my watch. it's 9:10.

and i told jason, i say i'm done. i said i've got to go work on the b.o.p. crane to get it ready. there's some paperwork that we have to sign and sent in that we inspected it before we can pick up the b.o.p.s. and they said that's fine. i went through the moon pool, checking everything, all the work on the tensioner skid. because y never vent them off. sometimes they don't close all the way and, you know, you may have to just bump them, just to get them closed. but anyway, i did that. i went into the hpu room, looked at my pumps. i went into the ccu room, and that's where i adjusted the regulator back to 1,500 psi. >> could youxplain what the ccu room is for? >> just central control unit. >> okay, thank you. >> and i adjusted my regulators. and i zeroed all my flow meters back to zero.

finished that job, i went to the b.o.p. house, which is a flight of stairs up. i srted writing a prump card on inspecting the b.o.p. i heard someone paging the foreman. i needed to get the casing test signed. i got it all typed up, the official paperwork, took it to him, he signed it. we talked for about ten minutes. >> who is he? >> jimmy harrell. so we chitchatted about the upcoming rig move.

he asked me for -- how long do you think it's going to take to change that tensioner out? i say a day and a half. he said well, that's 36 hour, that's what the paper said. i said yeah, well, i ain't looked how many hours it's going to take. that's how long it's going to take, a day and a half to change. so we talked about a few other things, you know, just about the rig move. so so i said well, i've got to go. i went back to the company man office -- >> what time was that conversation? >> with jimmy harrell? roughly about 9:3 00. >> 9:0 is when it started or ended? >> i figure 9:30, that's when it started. i stayed in there about five or ten minutes. >> so your conversation could have went from 9:30 to 9:35 or 9:40? >> yeah, something like that approximately.

i left his office, went down the hallway looking for don vidrine. he wasn't in his office. i co i go into the bathroom, domut of the bathroom and he's still not in there. >> where is your office? >> right around the corner from don's. and jimmy's office is all the way on the other end of the hallway. so i just walk around the holloway back to my office. i sit at my desk. i started saving the casing tests to the appropriate file.w. i sit at my desk. i started saving the casing tests to the appropriate file.b. i sit at my desk. i started saving the casing tests to the appropriate file.h. i sit at my desk. i started sang the casing tests to the appropriate file. at that time, the a.d. was sitting next to me. he was watching tv. he said chris, what was that water? >> what was he looking at at the time, the shaker house? >> i don't know.

i never looked at him. i was safing some documents. he said what's that water? i said man, it. >>'s probably coming out the -- when you've got wattner the drill stream and you break a joint -- you can't pump a slug a in other words. >> you get flowback. >> the water is there so you can't slug the pipe. i said it's probably coming out the hose, you snow and then probably like, you know, man, just right away, he's flipping through the channels. he says i see some mud now. i say you see some mud? so i turned back and look at the tv, because the tv is behind me. i turned back and you can see the rig floor. and so i picked up the phone. buddy treyhan is at my door asking what's going on. i pick up the phone and dial 211, 2110, 2112, nobody answer the phone. i said buddy, we got to go.

we took off running. i was going through the moon pool to see what was going on. and -- >> was there any liquid or mud or anything in the moon pool? >> i never made it to the moon pool. >> oh, okay. >> as i was trying to get into the moon pool, i met the electrician chad murray. and he says, to get to e moon pool and the pump room, you know, the doors are right there together in the hallway. and chad said man, i wouldn't go that way. something bad just happened. i said what. he never said what. so i take back off to the -- take off running to the main deck up top. and that's where i saw the fire. >> did you hear any explosions or noise? in the process? >> i heard popping, but to this day, i still can't remember the big boom that a lot of peoe heard. you know, i heard popping, and i se sealings and all that kind of stuff, but i never heard the big boom. you know, i don't know if my adrenaline was going or what. >> i understand.

>> and from there you proceeded to the bridge, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> from there where? >> when you ran into chad murray. >> no. when i ran into chad murray, i ran back up to the deck trying to get to the rig floor. from there, that's when i -- when i got on the main deck, that's actually when i saw the fire. and dave young was right there, and he said i need some help. i said i can send you some help and i ran to the bridge, through the door and said that i'm hitting the eds. the captain said no, calm down. we're not hitting the eds. he went one way, i went straight to the panel, to my panel over there and don vidrine was standing by the panel. he said they got the well shut in. i looked at it, the lower angular was closed, the verter

wa closed. i said don, i'm getting off here. don saidet off here. approximately four or five minutes later, you know, the captain told me to hit the eds. i said i already hit it, you know? >> okay, thank you, appreciate you repeating it for me. >> i just have some follow-up questions to clear up timerame in my mind. you said you m with jimmy harrell around 9:30 to 9:40 to sign off on some paperwork. did you see him after that? >> no. i saw him on the bridge. >> and how how long after that he signed the paperwork did you see him on the bridge? >> i don't know. it had to be approximately from 9:40 to probabl somewhere, five minutes to 10:00 or something. >> so around 10, 15 minutes probably? >> yeah, 10, 15 minutes approximately. i mean, that's just a speculation, you know? >> i understand.

i'm just asking for ballparks. i'm not asking for exact times. >> when you were on the rid doing the stumping, what type of preventive maintenance did you go to the b.o.p. stack prior to splashing it. >> pri to splashing? >> yes, sir. >> on a normal rig move, we change out all the rubber goods and the b.o.p.s. we check the precharge on all the bottles. you know, youave to adjust them for different water depths. we make the ets, they make the cables, make up the electronic cables and make sure we're not getting any water in it. this rig movehere, we changed out all the half inch hoses on the bop stack. last rig move, we made all new hoses and tested them. you know, we changed o all t gaskets, all the filters and the

conduit manifold. we -- i mean, you just want to know everything? >> well, i understand what u're -- >> that's the biggest part of it. >> is there any type of documentation or checklist done by you or anybody you work with onhat testing, or whatever you prepare preventive maintenance? >> yes. >> okay. are you familiar with the logic of the eds system, the logic that was referred to earlier, the electronic system, that once you hit certain buttons on the control panel, what happens? >> yes. >> is there any way to manipulate the logic on the emergency disconnect system to delay a disconnect in case you accidentally hit the disconnect? >> no, if you hit the button, that's what it does. >> okay, thank you. >> i've got a couple of follow-ups. could you explain on this bop

stack, how the autoshear functions. >> there's got to be separation from the b.o.p. it's got to separate, got to lift off the stack. >> and then the autoshear takes over? >> that's correct. >> what does it snurngs. >> the bd share rail. >> can you explain to me exactly how the deadman sysm works? >> yes, the deadman system, you've got to lose communication in both pods and the hydraulics. >> comnication with the rigs? >> no communication with the pods. the pods got to lose communication. >> with the b.o.p. stack? >> that's correct. with the controls. >> with the controls. so the controls on the rig and the communication between the

pods and the rig, is that what you're understanding? >> when you s rig, i mean, i don't understand. >> where the rig floor is, the horizon, the vessel? i mean, the pods are located on the b.o.p. stack, correct? >> that's correct. >> so i'm losing communication between the pod -- >> and its controls. >> say that again, i'm sorry? >> and the controls, yes. >> and the controls. >> yeah. >> and that's the control you would have at your panels? >>hat's correct. it's got to lose that power at the panels. >> in your ccu unit, did you have b.o.p. function capability in the ccu unit? >> yes. when i know you splashed the ack, what position are the rams in when you splashed the stack. >> are they in the open position

or is the b.o.p. in the new position? >> they're in the open position? >> okay. during normal drilling operations, what position do you maintain that b.o.p.? >> open. >> not in the neutral? >> no. >> okay. from your cc unit, did you have the capability o putting the b.o.p. into the neutral position? >> yes. >> all right, when it's placed in the neutral position at that locati location, es it have any effect on the functionality of the control panel on the bridge and the control panel on the floor? >> neutral potion, when you say neutral position, is that, like, putting the pod in vent? >> i don't know. i'm going by what mr. harrell told me yesterday was that you have on your control panels, you have indicator lights that indicate the b.o.p. is in the

open position -- >> the closed position? >> the closed position and then a neutral position. >> the neutral position is called vent. >> okay. it's called vent. all right from the ccu unit, if you place the ccu unit controls in the vent position, does it have any effect on the control functions from the bridge and -- >> no, sir, they're independent stations. >> follow-up. if you have the monk lines severed, that activates the b.o.p.? >> to activate the deadman you have to lose the electronics and the hydraulics. >> both >> both. >> if you have the mud sideline and the hydraulic severed then it would activate?

>> yes, butit's got to lose communicion in both pods. >> to communication back to the rig floor i'm assuming. >> communication back to the panel. >> if i sever all surface activity down that riser, the monks lines, the hydraulic lines, the b.o.p. system should activate and close? >> the deadman system should activate and close. >> what functions on the b.o.p. stack does the deadman function? >> the blind shear rail. >> blind shear only? >> that's correct. >> i have a couple of real quick clarification questions here. during testimony yesterday, talking with chiefmate young, i believe he indicated that sometime prior to the actual explosion, that he and you had a discussion or conversation in and around the sub sea office.

do you recall that? >> i don't recall it. >> okay. >> and then let me go back here to the activation of the eds system. when you went to the brej, you said you basically activated the eds on your own? >> is thatcorrect? >> that's correct. i am the authority. >> so is it your understanding, you don't need to ask the permission of the captain to do that? >> it depends on what the situation is. if it's a watch circle, yes, you need permission. but -- >> okay. >> no, go ahead. >> was it based on your understand what you knew about the situation that happened, you had direct authority to execute the eds without asking anybody else? >> that's correct. >> did you ask the oim for permission or discuss with him? >> no, i didn't. >> were you aware of any ongoing discussion between the master

and the oim concerning activation of the eds. >> if i understood your previous testimony correctly, you indicated you hit the eds panel and the lights that you expected to come on activated, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> i als believe you said but you had no hydraulics. >> that's correct. >> what did you mean by that? >> no flow. i d no pressure in the system that allowed those functions to work. >> so would it be fair to assume when the ligs came on, you had no verification that anything had actually happened. >> i had no verification that nothing happened because i had no flow, no hydraulic flow. >> thank you. i have no further questions. >> good morning, mr. pleasant. >> good morning.

>> it seems like you account every detail. it's greatly appreciated because this is a fact-finding body. when did you hear the announcement to abandon the bridge. bri ship. >> i was on the bridge. he told us to abandon. everybody else was already in lifebos. >> which lifeboat were you on? >> one. >> when did you go to lifeboat station number one? >> when the captain gave the ortders to abandon the ship. >> when you go to the lifeboat station, what happened? >> the lifeboat was still there. they was getting ready to leave, but -- >> and can you kind of

explain -- the coast guard, when they come out and do these inspections, we want to see you all going through your stations and see the activation of the lifeboat and the competency of the people. that's where i'm going with this line ofuestioning. who was in charge of the muster station? >> well, it really wasn't a muster station when i got there. when i got there, everybody was in the boat. >> okay. >> i never seen -- as far as the lifeboat deck, i never was down there. i was on the bridge. when i got to the lifebo, everybody was in that boat. >> okay, and then you got in? >> me and don winslow got in. >> can you estimate, or if you do know, how many people were actually in the lifeboat? >> i don't know. >> okay. who was in charge of the lifeboat. >> in charge was one of the guys off the bridge. i really can't even remember his name. >> that's fine, that's fine.

>> was it orderly? was there a lot of discussion? what was going on inside the lifebo lifeboat. it's a really confined space. can you describe that environment for us? >> when i got there, once we hit the water and got unhooked, to me it was just normal. wasn't nobody panicking, hollering or crying, anything like that. they wanted to get away from the rig. >> okay. and have you ever rid an lifeboat down before from the upper station down to the water? >> not a lifeboat. fast rescue boat, but not at lifeboat. >> all right. do you know who made the determination to go ahead and lower the boat? was there someone in the boat that said hey, let's get away from here or any taxing like that? >> i don't know.

when i got there, they was ready to go and i said let me in. >> i'm with you. i'm with you. i was wondering if there's someone saying let''s go, let's go or anything like that. >> i don't know. >> okay. when the lifeboat did meet to the water and i suppose someone gave tasking or direction to the coxwain? isn't there a window right there? >> yeah. i mean, it is a window, but anytime you -- you know, another t of eyes is better than one set. in this situation, if you've got somebody who can help you, let's t all the help we can.

>> i completely agree. did anyone leave the lifeboat? >> there's a hatch up there. >> someone was peeking snout. >> yeah, peeking out. >> that's only when we got close to where we ram the boat, you snow. >> got you. when you got down there and met with chad, he said what, don't go through there? >> he said don't go through there. something bad just happened. he was gone. >> what did you see? >> i didn't see anything. i didn't go that way. i went another way. i took his word. other than, that i seen in the ceiling dwsh. >> that's what i'm talking about. >> tiles popping, but -- >> okay, all right. when you made your way around, what was the condition of the walls, the bulkheads and the doors? were they blown apart? were they open or were they

intact as they normally were when you walked around on the rig? >> i was wide open running. i wasn't looking, inspecting. i was trying to get to the rig floor. >> when you talked to mr. anderson, why did he ask you to pump up the andular. that seemed to be a side discussion between you and mr. anderson? >> he just asked me. i said no, i can't do it. he said okay. that's as far as it went. >> do you donor mall maintenance on the b.o.p.? >> ye i do. >> when i was a cutter it was my job to do maintenance on the gun system, but there was a certain level of maintenance i can do on that. are you restricted to the type of maintenance you can go do on the b.o.p.? >> anything electronic i don't work on. i'm there with the electronic

technician learning, but as far as doing it, no. >> okay. and so you perform normal plann planned maintenance that's identified by transocean to do -- >> that's correct. >> when you splashed the b.o.p. originally when you came on location, was the planned maintenance up to date on the b.o.p.? in other words were there any maintenance requirements that were deferred until later? >> i don't know. >> okay, fair enough. when you got to the bridge -- i'm just trying to capture a sense of the environment up on the bridge. who was control on the bridge? who was giving tasking for people to do things? >> i don't know. >> it sounds like you were. you knew your job. >> well, i don't know what was

going on. you know, you hear people talking, but my mind frame was set on my job, my responsibilities of what i had to do. >> i understand. i understand. thank you very much. i appreciate you being with us. >> mr. pleasant, i want to back up to when you arrived on the panel on the bridge. when you first observed the panel, i believe you said you noticed the lower andular was closed and the diverter? >> yes. >> that's the diverter at the rig floor? >> that'correct. >> so you have that on the panel as well? >> electronically, i didn't close them, so electronically. >> that's what you saw? >> that's what i saw. >> when you function the eds, what is the sequencing of valve closes when you function eds? >> the sequence of valve closing, when you hit -- when you hit eds, everything on the

stack goes to vent. the blind shear rams closes. once the blind shear rams closes, your pod receptacles, they retract, they energize, retract up. once that does, your choke and kill connectors, they unlatch and the lmrp unlatches. >>nd it lifts free? >> it lifts free. >> when you got to the panel, and you noticed that lower andular was closed, did you notice any other ram positions on the b.o.p. stack. was there any indication there was any intervention by the rig floor? >> when i got to the panel, i looked at the panel, the only thing that was closed was the low lower annular and the pack.

>> would it give you an indicati on your panel as well? >> yeah. >> when you activated the eds and you said you got no floor, would that indicate to you that you lost hydraulic control? >> that's correct. and at the same time, i turned over don vidrine, the bp company man was standing right there. i said don, look at this panel. i say, you see it say eds activated, and everything can vent. >> for it to work you've got to have hydraulic control? >> you've got to have some fluid. >> thank you. i have no other questions. >> just a couple of questions for you, mr. pleasant. >> w manufactured b.o.p.? >> cameron. >> did you receive any training from cameron on how to train

b.o.p.? >> i went to just a school with him. it's more electronic than acal hydraulics. >> so this is a cameron training course you went to? >> yes. >> it's more on electronics -- >> the one i went. they offered several courses. >> and you're not responsible for the electroni on b.o.p.? >> i'm responsible, regardless of who worked on it, i'm responsible for it. >> so you only receiv training from cameron on the electronics? >> yes. >> be uh you're not responsible for preventive maintenance on the electronics of the b.o.p.? >> i'm responsible. it's my equipment. just because i have somebody work oingn it, i can't tell management inow nothing about it. >> but you don't do the preventive maintenance yourself on the electronics. >> no, i don't do it myself, but i'm there with him the whole time that he's doing it.

after time, you learn what he's talking about, where they can't tell you anything. >> for the things that you actually do preventive maintenance on, do you know if cameron provides training for that purpose? >> i'm sure they does. i mean, i never researched it. >> right. >> now, when i was on deep water nautilus, there was b.o.p. event log down at subsea engineer room. >> that's correct. >> is there such equipment on the horizon? >> yes, we have a data logger. >> the data logr -- is the ta only scored on tt computer down in subsea engineering room? >> only in the ccu. >> also in the ccu? >> only in the ccu. >> okay. now, does that data get transmitted to shore? >> no. >> s it only stay onboard the vessel? >> that's correct.

>> thank you, sir. >> transocean, do you have any questions for the witness? cameron? >> good morning, mr. pleasant. i'm david jones. i represent cameron. >> good morning.

did you get a statement after the accident? >> no, sir. i gave that statement in cannon, louisiana. >> that was going to be my next question. you gave that statement when? >> whatever that friday was. >> i have just a couple of questions about this statement. the first line says that you heard a hissing noise and thought maybe the valves of the tensioner bleed down and got stuck. >> that's correct. >> where were you when you heard that hissing nose? >> in my us a.

then you say you went to the bridge and immediately fired t eds system. i want toocus on when you say you got to the bridge. you went immediately to the panel, is that correct? >> i tried to get to the rig floor to see what was going on. and i didn't make it. then i went to the bridge. >> okay, i understand. i ju want to go from the time you go to the bridge. to the br >> okay. >> i understood you to say you then went immedialy to the b.o.p. panel, is that right? >> that's correct. >> allright. yesterday we heard some testimony that the panel, the control panel for the b.o.p. and the other sub sea equipment had -- that it looked normal -- that there were some lights on that weren't normally on. >> that's correct. >> when you got to the panel did it appear to be abnormal to you? >> yes.

because you had the lower accumulator on. that told me our system has 5,000 psi and that tells me right there the pressure has dropped below our set point, you know, and we normally get that around 3500 psi. >> okay. was there any abnormal lights on the various buttons to accuate the rams? >> no. >> it appeared to you as if it normally does when you would see the panel? >> the panel appeared norma other than the alarms going off. >> okay. so there were lights on for both of the annulars, correct? >> lights on for both of the annulars? >> sure. to operate the annulars, there are various buttons underneath, coect? >> yes. >> and those buttons are in

effect lights, correct? >> that's correct. >> and there were -- those buttons were lit up under both annulars, is that right? >> one was showing closed. one was showing open. >> okay. but both ofhem had lights on and the lower one was showing what color? >> green. >> and the upper one was showing what color? >> the lower annular was showing red because it was closed. the upper annular was showing green. >> okay. and neither of those were showing vent or yellow? >> no. >> all right. and then as you moved down the stack, the various buttons for the rams, what were they showing? >> everything was showing open in the green position. >> okay. was there a light on under the eds button? >> yes. >> what color was the light under the eds button? >> red for normal.

>> was there a light on under the dead man? >> yes, it was on. >> well, what color was that light? do you recall? >> i don't recall, but when i come on tower i checked that panel and it was on. >> ok. now, when you hit the eds -- well, first let me ask this -- have you ever hit an eds button before? >> yes. >> when? >> hitt every time we're on the surface. >> just for testing? >> yes. >> okay. in deployment have you ever hit an eds button before? >> no.

>> all right. how mechanically did you go about activating the eds? >> i don't understand the question. >> all right. do you push one button to activate the eds? >> no. >> okay. >> you never push one button on a cameron system. >> that's my question. how do you mechanically go about pushing btons to activate the eds? >> you got to push an enable button. you got to hold it down. as you hold it down in function you wa to fire. >> okay. and that's what you did when you -- >> that's correct. >> all right. when you hit the button, hit the enable, hit the eds button, describe for me what you witnessed happen on the panel. >> as i hit the button, you know, i -- i'm looking at everything go to vent like it's supposed to on the stack, you know, and i glanced up at the flow.

i got no flow. i turned my head from the panel to look over to my other panel, you know, to see what's going on, you know, and still had nothing over there. looking at my regulators, my read back on my regulators and stuff, you know, nothing fell off. nothing moved or nothing. you know, i come back to the panel, you know, just turned my head back to the panel and looked at the top. showed eds activated, you know, and i looked down and it showed where it had picked up my receptacles, power receptacles. it showed the lights were -- the bottom of the ship rams was closed and it was unlocked and everything. >> let me be clear. i believe you said everything was on vent. were some things not on vent? >> everything on the stack has to be on vent because if you don't, if it doesn't go to vent

when the receptacle comesp you still got fluid trying to go through there so your pumps are standing running. that's when the vials on the stack go to vent. >> all right. and you know it's in vent because the light is yellow, correct? >> that's correct. >> was there a yellow light on r the blind shear ram? >> i don't know. >> do you recall after you activated the eds what color light was on under the blind shear ram? >> the green light -- i looked at it and it was green. you know, at the same time, you know, after i see i got no flow, you know, i didn't sit there and just confirm which light is which. my next thing was we had to leave. >> okay. so just so i'm clear though, when you looked down after executing the eds sequence, it's your best recollection that you had a green light on for the blind shear ram? >> no.

that's n my best recollection. my best recollection is that i seen it go to close and i saw no flow and i was moving around looking through that panel trying to see what was going on. after i saw that i had no hydraulics i kne it was time to leave. >> and all i'm trying to do is just get your -- >> well i can't answer your question there. i mean, i'm giving you the best answer that i know that's a fact. >> okay. and do you recall what color lights were on under the blind shear -- >> no. >> okay. you do not. you do not? >> i seen the blind shear rams go to close. i seen them go to close but i didn't just focus my time on to see that the light changed from green or orange or back to red. >> okay. how do you know that it went to close on the panel? >> because i'm looking at it. that's what i told you. i looked at it go to close. >> what specifically on the panel tells you it went to close? >> it goes from green to red.

okay. so that's all i'm trying to get at. >> okay. >> you saw the red light ce on under the blind shear ram. >> that's correct. >> and what you're telling me is you don't know whether or not it went to some other color after you saw that. >> that's correct. >> okay. the flow meters that you're talking about, those are where on the panel? >> they're at your top -- top right-hand -- you got two panels. you got a left cap and a right cap. your flow meters are in your left cabinet top right. >> which flow meters if you recall on the left side control panel top right were you looking at? >> the top one is your surface flow meter. >> and did you have movement on the surface flow meter? >> i had no movement in none of them. >> okay. none of those flow meters that are on the top rig showed movement. >> well, you got a surface flow meter, you got your blue pot flow meter and your yellow pod

flow meter and i seen no flow. >> okay. after you hit the eds sequence, the eds button, i guess enable eds, did you see any lights blinking? >> did i s -- say that again. >> when you activated theds by hitting enable and pushing the eds button, did you see lights blink? >> i seen them change colors. >> was there any period of time when lights were flashing like this or did it just stay solid and then switch color? >> i don't know. >> you don't recall? >> i don't know. when i didn't see flow, i knew something was going -- i knew it wasn't working. >> was mr. harrell present when you activated the eds? >> i don't know. i mean, at some point in time he

was up there but i don't know who was up there. all i know is the captain and me and i know there was other people up there but who i don't know. >> that was a bad question. was mr. harrell next to you when you first operated the eds? >> no. >> okay. he came up after it had gone through the sequence? >> if he did, i didn't see him. >> okay. >> i saw him up there, you know, at some point in time but i don't rember him coming and standing next to me at the panel. >> i may have misunderstood your earlier testimony. i thought he came up to you and said eds and you said it's already done? >> no. i did not say that. i said that when i walked into the bridge, i said, i'm eds'ing. the captain told me, calm down, chris. we're not eds'ing. i went to the panel and the bp

company man was standing by the panel. he said, they got the whale shutting in. i said yeah. i'm getting off here. he said get off here and that's when i hit the eds. approximately four to five minutes later the captain come back to me and told me to eds and i told him i already have. >> all ght. that's where i misunderstood. it was the captain who came back toou not mr. harrell. >> that is correct. >> okay. thank you for your time. >> you're welcome. >> just one clarification here. so he told you to get off. >> donald madrine didn't tell me to get off. i told them i was getting off and just said, get off. >> okay. so you would have done it anyway whether he said get off or don't. >> that's correct. >> okay. halliburton?

thank you, sir. >> no questions. >> joe? >> no questions. >> weatherford? >> no questions. >> annadoco? >> no questions. >> douglas brown? >> jeff seely. how are you, sir? >> i'm fine. how are you? >> i want to pick up kind of where you left offnd i think you answered it but i want to be clear. as i understand it you get to the bridge. you say you're going to eds. captain says hold on let's not do it right now, right? >> that's correct. >> and then i think fairly soon thereafter you did hit it, right? >> probably 30 seconds because, i mean, we were right there by the panel ands i tell him, he said, chri calm