our country. >> there have been a number of controversies at the rnc since michael steele took over. >> he hasn't given me a grade and i'm not going to give him one. i think it's a tough job and i think he's grown in the job. i've known michael since i ran for president in the mid 1990s, and he's supported me so i've always had a little affection for him. so i want to see him succeed, and if you look at the results, he's been chairman while we've won some pretty big elections in virginia and massachusetts and new jersey. so let's give him credit for that and hope he continues to grow in the job and get even better. >> you have a concern though about the amount of cash that the committee has gone through? their cash flow is not as good as some expect, because they've done a decent job of fund raising but a lot of people say they're spending too much. >> we would like to have more of a cash balance because we have got a lot of very good candidates running. and if we're going to put a

check and balance in washington we need support from the national committee. >> did you want to grade mitch mcconnell? >> i'm not going to grade anybody but i'm a big fan of mitch. he's done more with less than about any political leader has in this last 15 or 16 months. it's been -- we've had the bear minimum. we haven't had enough votes to stop anything, and have had good arguments. we have won a lot of arguments but not many votes. and on important issues he has held the republicans together, helped us make our point and provide a real difference of opinion between democrats and republicans on jobs. they're creating more government jobs. we think we need environment for private sector jobs debt. they're doubling and tribbling it. terror. mitch has been a leader on that issue. he's a good listener to the different voices in our caucus.

>> do you want to move up in the leadership? >> i've about topped out. i like where i am. i'm really in the leadership to help mitch and the other republicans succeed. and it gives me a chance to have more of a voice. i'm really a pretty independent operator and i think my voting record will show that. but i like what i'm doing and i think i've helped the leader some and i think i've helped individual senators some. >> finally, any plans to go to yea or new hampshire in 2012? >> no. you were there with me a few years ago when i was walking across 83 and new hampshire. -- iowa. our party will have a good strong leader. first, we need to focus on a congress that will get some more balance here in washington, d.c. and i think we're likely to get that. >> we are out of time. thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you, steve.

>> we continue the conversation. what did you take away from today's conversation? >> we learned he has no plans to run for president. he's been there and done that. there's not many things in government he hasn't done. he's a very accomplished guy. one question that i'm left with is really who is responsible for the inability of republicans and democrats in the obama administration to work together during these last few years when americans really needed their government? it's a big question. >> and why is this relationship so frigid? >> that's a good question. i don't know. because he, as you pointed out, is an independent operator. he worked with democrats on a wide range of issues but he is clearly frustrated that the president does not work with senate republicans more. and the white house will say they're not working with them. but certainly after president obama vowed to change the tone in washington and arguably it's a lot worse than when he took over, alexander really wants to

work and has a record of working with democrats but it just hadn't clicked with president obama for whatever reason. >> what else did you learn? >> i just think that he is clear ligfly saying checks and balances. we're months away from the mid term elections. and they're making the case that voters when they go to the poles this fall, they need to have a check and balance. and i think you're goin to hear repeatedly that we need to make sure the democrats don't control the house and the senate and the white house. that we need more senate republicans. and the white house will respect us more. rur can you speculate on what you think the leadership will look like in the next congress? >> republicans have been voicing support for mitch mcconnell. you heard senator alexander do it in our argument for him giving him a lot of credit for having done a lot to slow down the democrat's agenda when they had a small minority. you may see a republican

leadership that looks just like it does now bolstered by picking up an additional 5 or 6 seats, probably not the ten they need to regain control of the chamber. >> finally, senate house conferees come back working on financial regulation. what do you think we're going to be looking at in terms of a time line and what questions do you think members will be asking on this particular bill? >> there's no question there are key differences between the house and senate versions of the financial regulatory bill. the questions about things like 150 billion fund that's in the house bill to deal with future bank failures. the senate does not have that pre-funded money there partly because largely because the republicans insisted on taking it out. other questions about the consumer protection bureau, does it exist within the federal reserve or as a stand alone agency. but they're going to get this bill done. i think the real question is with a high-stakes mid-term election coming up in november will congress be able to do much more beyond this bill

that's now done, or are the gloves off and the political battles under way? >> i think it's essential that they get the bill done by july 4th. it's very difficult to get it through just the senate. and now they're going to conference it, make some deals with the house, the schurem agencies, discarded. but remember, no republican voted for the house bill. and i think the question is what do they do next? is it climate change? immigration? hose bills likely will not pass. they also have to deal with the expiring bush tax cuts. that could be done in a lame duck session. >> thanks for being with us on this memorial day weekend. >> thanks.

>> tonight on c-span, president obama at a campaign fund raising event for california democratic senator barbara boxer running for a fourth term at 7:15 eastern. >> up next, a house judiciary committee hearing on the explosion that caused the gulf of mexico oil spill. we'll hear from survivors and family msnbc of victims. this is about two hours, 25 minutes.

good morning. the committee will come to order. we welcome everyone, particularly the distinguished witnesses that are before us. to discuss the legal liability issues surrounding the gulf coast oil disaster. the jurisdictional basis for this hearing in judiciary is that the liability issues under the federal law fall to the jurisdiction of this committee. fall to the jurisdiction of this committee. particularly the death on the

high seas act and the limitation of liability act, in particular. we all know that the oil spill in the gulf coast is one of monumental proportions, the worst spill in u.s. history. and these considerations that are particularly within the jurisdiction of this committee. the current state of the law is inadequate to deal with the disasters of this size. the legal landscape, the victims of the gulf coast disasterre naviga

navigating exceedingly complex, outdated and inconsistent. the remedy available under the death on the high seas act for the families of those who were kill killed is woefully inadequate and are limited to recovering for the direct loss of economic support the deceased would have given to dependent family members. and the death on the high seas act should be amended so that familiesho lose a loved one at sea can seek relief for the full measure of their loss, including the loss of care and comfort provided by the deceased. but the rei'll put the rest of statement into the record and recognize the distinguished

gentleman from texas, mr. lamar smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i appreciate your holing this hearing today on the liability issues related to the gulf oil spill. and i understand that it was announced just a few minutes ago that the top kill effort has been successful. so, that's the best news we could probably get here today. the most pressing need right now is to contain and remove the oil that has alreadyeen spilled. as we move forward, it is equally important that we make re that the parties responsible for this spill and not the american taxpayers pick up the bill. the cost this spill gs beyond removing and containing spilled oil. those responsible must also pay to remedy the effects of this bill on america's natural reurces. additionally the responsible parties must compensate individuals,usinesses and governments fotheir losses and i know that has already begun. the oil pollution act and other environmental laws ensure that

responsible parties pay the full cost by holding them strictly liable for removal cost and up $75 million in damages. while this bill already exceeds the $75 million cap, it should not be absen obstacle to obtain more. repeatedly called the liability cap irrelevant and has committed to pay all legitimate claims. however i am concerned about some of the proposals to make changes to our oil pollution process. following the exxon valdez spill, congress worked for months to research the issue and ultimately write the oil pollution act. some members did not even wait 15 days after this most recent spill to push legislation to change important provisions of that act. i understand there's a

propensity to punish bp for this spl. but to force them out of the industry all together. we should not create a situation where only the so-called super oil companies and foreign owned oil companies are able to drill for oil offshore. it would be ironic if it had the perverse effect to enabling only companies like bp to drill off the america's coast. i also understand that the response has been slow and insufficient. louisiana governor bobby jindal has characterized the government's response as, quote, awe disjointed effort to date that has too often meant too little too late to stop the oil from hitting our coast, end quote. in large part it's consisted of blaming bp and reeling against big oil while ignoring its own lack of preparation and slow

reaction. while our response should be swift and targeted to the problem at hand, we must be careful not to overreact. just as after the exxon valdez spill we did not stop shipping oil by tanker, we cannot stop illing for oil off america's sho shores f we banned every industry that had a tragic accident, we wouldn't drive. we wouldn't fly. we wouldn't take the train or travel to the moon. instead we have learned from our mistakes and made these industries safer for the future. we must determine what caused this accident and take steps to ensure it does not happen again. those steps should not stop drilling offshore. in a time america needs to decrease our dependenc on foreign oil now is not the time to cut off our own oil. we must continue to drill for oil both onshore and off.

our immediate goal is to me sure all possible resources go to settling claims, stopping the spill, cleaning up the mess and protecting wildlife in the gulf from future spills. thank you, mr. chairman. i'll yield back. >> thank you. are there any oer members that want to welcome our distinguished witnesses today or make an observation of extreme brevity? jerry matly. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman, rather. i hope that it doesn go into my time. basically every aspect of the disaster has liability issues, which we'll get to. i would like to be making one observation. that is with respect to chemical

dispersas. we are treating chemicals with chemicals that don't remove or clean up the oil, simply shift in another eco system while contaminating the water column and threatening human life. there is no scientific evidence that dispersants can be effective in a spill of this magnitude. track how much oil it's there, where it's going ando determine liability. they're good for public relations but nobody can guarantee if they are safe. we are hearing people of getting sick because of these chemicals. there's already an anecdote of people getting sick because of the oil in the ter. it reminds me of agent orange. i'm concerned that we are conducting an experiment with all the marine and human life in the gulf coast region, an uncontrolled experiment that could result in thousands and thousands of people getting sick or dying as a result of the cleanup, not the original

disaster. i'll be going to queions on that during the question period and hope that we can prevent a repetition of some of the disasters we've had before. this disaster is unprecedented in scope as it is. i feel we're just going to make it worse. thank you. i yield back. >> howard cobil. >> it is, indeed, a disaster. good news that you shared with us, too, lamar. i appreciate you all being here. i would like to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from texas, wn he declared that we should not abandon plans to drill simply because of this isolated disaster. we would need to keep that on the table, it seems to me, mr. chairman. and i thank you, mr. chairman, foraving called the hearing.

thank the distinguished panel for being with us today. i yield back. >> bobby scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose the oil driing expansion for good reason. the administration announced a few weeks ago. i didn't think t small gains for the few cents per gallon of gasoline saved in out years was worth the ri. they proponents argue could be created by drilling in virginia paledn comparison to the number of jobs destroyed by this spill. deaf station to sensitive wetland areas, tourism, fish and industry, recreation in the gulf would not be any different than what would happen off the coast of virginia, particularly when we're looking at the various incidents of chesapeake bay. i thank you for calling the hearing to ascertain the extent of the losses already caused by the spill and helping determine who will be legally liable for

these damages. thank you very much. >> darryissa. >> thank you, mr. chairman a i thank our panel of witnesses for being here today. as the chairman sa, it is very clear that we have limited jurisdiction. our jurisdiction in this committee is clearly as to whether or not we change liability limitations and their interpretation. for the chairman i comment him for starting off this hearing by reminding us that in fact we do not control the corps of engineers that failed to protect louisiana. we do not contr the epa who only recently discovered that these dispersants might or might not be available for this use. after oil spoil occurred from ships over the years, we oy recently discovered really don't want to invoke the stafford act even though it has been on the books and would have allowed the president to act and act me assertively. there are so many things not within the committee's

jurisdiction. as ranking member on government oversight i'm pleasedo say those will be dealt with in other committees of jurisdiction. today, we are only asked a fairly straightforward question. are the limitations that are currently in place for acts which are not in violation of any regulation including misconduct, no wrongful act, are the caps high enough at 75 million? under the oil pollution act,f there's so much as one regulatory failure the capsre off. so let's understand all the cleanup is already the responsibility of the parties in this case british petroleum as the leaseholder, two, 75 million to be paid if no wrongful act is done whatsoever, not so much as failing to dot the "i" on an administrative report that may have prevented it. i repeat may he prevented it. if so muchs one of those occurs, then everyone who says

that they had a bad day as a result of this, that they lost economic advantage of any sort and even potentially those who were traumatized would all have that opportunity. that is what we will be deciding here today. i believe that we should consider whether those caps are high enough. we should consider within the body whether or not a fund that would exceed that should be in place so that smaller oil companies, smaller than bpy definitions, everybody, and would be able to continue to drill while the american people could be confident that the funds necessary, not just for if you violate, but even if you don't violate for the cleanup should be in place. those are not within this committee's primary jurisdiction. so i do look forward to hearing the farrow question answered of is the current law for no misconduct whatsoever and the cap that goes with it of 75 million sufficient or i congress in such a hurry that even before we know whether or

not there was so much as one administrative violation we want to change that cap? i look forward to the testimony and i thank the chairman and yield back. >> steve cohen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've got a statement that i'll just turn in and it goes through a litany of issues that -- some may be more relevant than others. mostly it concerns the bush/cheney halliburton administration that is responsible for this, the lack of regulation, the lack of oversight and the laissez-faire cowboy-type mentality that allowed all this to happen. we have got to have regulations and government needs to act to make sure people and our environment and our world is safe. but the main thing i want to address is mr. jones. i want to express my condolences to you. to lose a child and others have lost children and parents, 11 lives were lost.

there's all kind of destruction and damage that pains me to see to my -- the gulf coast which is close to memphis. it's part of our world but the lives that were lost and i just express my condolences to you. >> sheila jackson lee. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i may be the only one on the panel that comes from oil country. at least as i can recognize who has lived in a community that has based its economic independence and contributions to this nation on the energy industry. maybe the only former oil and gas lawyer who worked for entities that range from oil to farrell gas to pipeline and to larger multinational oil

companies. but i have a heart. and, frankly, i first want to thank the chairman for his qu k quickness in moving forward on this hearing, second, i want to say that $75 million is a joke. it is a sad state of affairs as we begin to listen to the testimony of which we will remain open-minded that we're in this dilemma. to all of the families that have lost their loved ones and those that remain injured our deepest sympathy and our apology for we are all in this together. and there are those of us that believe there should be a seamless energy policy that includes fossil fuel. but we don't believe in the devastation that has appeared over this last month and six weeks. the failing of though who are here who are not victims was to be able to have the genius to do

deepwater eloration but have no genius to be able to fix the consequences. is the same story that happened with the "valdez" in alaska i'm td driven by the same principles. we know how to move it but we don't know how to stop it. if that is the case, what i want to hear today, mr. chairman, is a full ownership on what happened and a full commitment to pay every single penny that is necessary to make the region whole and certainly the families whole and i would conclude my remarks by saying that i think it is crucial that there is no longer the opportunity to play without the opportunity to pay. and if we are to engage in these innovative genius-type procedures of deep water drilling as we're doing off the coast of ghana, you've got to

find a way to be able to respond to crises and emergencies like this, a gushing hole that cannot end. and maybe someone wl be able to tell me whether or not the last 24 hours have been successful. we've not been able to determine that, but i will say to you, mr. chairman, i think this hearing is about if you're going to play, you have got to pay and $75 million is a disgrace. i yield back. >> maxine waters. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would particularly like to thank you for the way you manage this committee and the time limits of the issues that you deal with and i'm appreciative for this hearing today and this hearing today, we are focusing on organizing around the liability issues related to the bp deepwater horizon oil spill. bp previously estimated that the oil spill continues to gush over

5,000 barrels, that is, 210,000 gallons of oil each day into the gulf of mexico, however, some independent estimates put the total as high as 70,000 barrels each day. i hope these latest efforts to stop the leak are going to be successful because everything else has failed. thisisaster is already having a devastating impact on the economy of the gulf coast region and the way of life of many of its residents. many of these residents are still trying to recover from hurricane katrina and the bp disaster has doubled their sorrows. during a recent trip to new orleans, i was particularly struck by the stories of the minority fishermen and small port business owners along the gulf coast. from week to week fishermen don't know how long their jobs will be on hold. there are issues that currently exist that must be brought to light regarding the plight of minority fishermen relating to the oil spill.

byron encalade is the president of the louisiana oysters association and the president of the parish fishermen association. i know there's something else that goes with that name. he knows firsthand the effect that the oil spill is havg on fishermen who depend upon the waters for their very sustenance. he is here today, and i thank him f his particition in the hearing. i'm sure this committee will benefit from his story. fishermen have depended upon this season to be their opportunity to finallyecover from past harm, but this is not going to be the case. the oyster season was supposed topen up on may 1st and some fishermen prepared their boats to have them ready to go out for the first two or three days. they planned to bringheir first haul of the season and pay bills but, of course, that did not happen. the national oceanic and atmospheric administration that is noaa has already closed over

54,096 square miles of the gulf of mexico to commercial and recreational fishing in order to ensure that seafood will remain safe for consumers. that is slightly more than 22% of the federal waters in the waters of the gulf of mexico. a closure of this size is bound to have a devastating impact on the fisheries in the gulf where commercial fishermen harvested more than 1 billion pounds of fish and shellfish in 2008. on monday, secretary of commerce gary locke determined that there had been a fishery disaster in the gulf of mexico due to the economic impact on commercial and recreation fisheries. the affected area includes the states of louisiana, mississippi and alabama. this determination allows the federal government to provide assistance to affected fishermen and local communities under the

magazi magnason conservation act. the administration requested 15 million in supplemental appropriations under the magnason-stevens act while emphasizing these funds will only be used as a last resort. >> gentlemen lady's time has expired. >> i thank you very much and i am anxious to hear the people would are here to provide us with the information. thank you. i yield back. >> hank johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for holding this important issue on the legal liability hearing on the coast oil disaster. first and foremost i want to express my condolences. the april 20th fire and explosion that occurred on the deepwater horizon oil rig in the gulf of mexico resulted in the loss of 11 lives. many more people were injured. my deepest sympathy goes out to

the family, friends and co-workersf the 11 individuals who lost their lives on that day. this explosion and fire occurred on the deepwater horizon drilling rig that bp was leasing to drill an exploratory well in the gulf of mexico. transocean, the world's largest offshore drilling company, owned and operated the rig. in the aftermath of the explosio the rig capsized and sank to the ocean floor resulting in oil leaks. millions of gallons of oil have spilled into the gulf since this tragedy ocrred. what disturbs me most about this spill is that it could have been prevented. recent reports are stating that bp missed several warning signs that led to the blowout and fire on the deepwater oil rig. this is unacceptable for a company where the first quarter earnings for this year alone

were $6.1 billion. as a result, lives were lost, and the ecosystem and economy are at great, grave risk. the livelihoods of workers and families in the small businesses that rely on the gulf remain in question. the family, friends and co-workers of the 11 people would lost their lives want answers and they feed to be treated fairly. this committee wants answers. this hearing will give us the opportunity to examine the liability issues stemming from the april 20th explosion. it will give us the opportunity to discuss how congress could amend current laws such as the death on the high seas act and oil pollution act to ensure that they are adequate and allow for punitive damages and nonpecuniary damages. in this current disaster, bp is

suect to a liability cap of $75 million under the oil pollution act. although bp has stated that it will disregard the cap and pay a all, quote, legitimate claims, end quote, questions remain about who will determine the legitimacy of the claims and how those claims will be aessed and resolved. i'm eager to hear from the witnesses about their thoughts on the current liabity laws and what could be done to improve them. most important, i'm anxious to learn about what congress can do to ensure that this does not happen again. i thank the chairman for holding this hearing and i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. delahunt. >> thank you, mr. chairm. i'll be very brief. first my condolences to the

father of the young man that was lost. i think that's very important to say, to articulate and please understand that it is heart felt. i guess before we approach the issue of should the cap be removed altogether, should it be recalculated, i think it's important for this committee to examine where the $75 million figure came from initially. i heard the gentlemen lady from texas describe that $75 million figure as absurd. i think that was her word. i concur and agree. how did that ever happen? it clearly wasn't in this session of congress? it was in the aftermath of the

"exxon valdez" but what we learned from that particular disaster was the cost far exceeded 75 million. i wonder why there should be a cap at all and i think that's the question that we should pose to ourselves and to this panel. in terms of the issue of punitive damages, there's going to be a series of hearings, multiple committees to examine how this happened and why, what was the failure, you know, in the criminal law we have the concept of deterrence, and i think itught to be implicated in terms of disasters such as this that are clearly the result

of failure somewhere along the line, and i dare say, mr. chairman, if punitive damage was implicated into the equation of assessing the responsible parties, it would make a difference. it would make a serious difference because any ceo, any corporate board, any management would be fully aware of the potential liability. so i think that's an important consideration. and i'll conclude my remarks there and thank the chair for calling this hearing, but i think those two queions that i just posed are important to -- for us in our deliberations to examine and i yield back. >> thank you.

weelcome warmly all the witness witnesses. mike quigley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i recognize that we're -- we've got a long panel so i'll just submit my statement for the record but i just very briefly, i know we're talking about oil today, but in the end the larger picture is the cost of carbon. the cost of exploration, the cost of using fossil fuels. i mean, today it's oil. but we could also be talking about blowing the tops off of mountains, polluting streams for all time, making moon scapes out of whole tracts of land out wt in areas like wyoming and we need to recognize it's part of a larger picture that can only be solved by con sveying and by promoting and supporting renewable energy and that, frankly, we sometimes don't like to hear this, but you can't have everything you want.

there is a cost to driving the biggest car you can buy 80 miles an hour. we have to recognize that as americans and have to recognize that conservation is the beginning of this and renewable energy is the end. thank you. >>e welcome all witnesses. . tom galligan, mr. vincent foley, mr. william lemmer, mr. james ferguson, miss rachel clingman, mr. daryl willis, the attorney general of the state of mississippi, jim hood, mr. byron encalade, mr. stephen stone, mr. douglas harold brown and our first witne is keith jones, the father of gordon jones, who

died oard the deepwater horizon on april 20th, 2010. mr. jones is a louisiana native, a practicing trial lawyer for over three decades born in shrevepo shreveport. he was raised -- his family practice and is joined by his son christopher k. jones who is here today. would you stand up, sir? thank you very much. and who has worked with his father in preparation for this testimony today and has made himself available to the committee for any questions that members may have.

we have all statements that will be entered into the record and we invite you to begin our testimony, mr. jones. >> chairman conyers, ranking member smith and other members of the committee -- >> push the button. >> sorry. >> now? >> a little closer. >> forgive me. chairman conyers, ranking member smith and other members of the committee, it is an honor to be allowed to speak with you today. my name is keith jones. i'm a lawyer from bon rouge, louisiana. seated behind me is my holer son chris who is also a lawye in baton rouge. chris and i appear before you today however not as attorneys but as the father and brother of gordon jones, who was killed

above the transocean deepwater horizon. we're here for gordon's wife michelle, for his sons stafford and maxwell gordon, for his mother missy, for his sister katie. at the outset i want you to know that just because i am here and addressing you today does not mean that i believe that gordon's death was more tragic or more important than the deaths of the other 10 men that day. i know their families grieve just as much as we do. but the only one of the victims i knew was gordon. he was 28. hour youngest child. he is survived by his widow michelle and two sons, stafford who is 2 and maxwell gordon who was born 13 days ago. gordon was a m engineer for m.i. swatco would had a contract with bp to provide that service.

he searched his bachelor of arts from lsu and then completed something called mud school. after spendg se time oob seing the work of those more experienced gordon began working as a mud engineer. as a relatively newcomer he was sent to a different rig every two weeks including the transocean deepwater horizon. gordon was good at what he did, it was evidenced by the fact that one of the mud engineers from the deepwater horizon left, bp was offered a list of mud engineers who had worked aboard the horizon and from that list chose gordon. as you know by now the deepwater horizon was a rig of considerable prestige, very large rig that drilled in very deep water and found very large deposits of oil. gordon was proud that he had been so successful so soon in his career it allowed his wife michelle to quit her job last year with one young son, another

on the way, michelle wanted to be a full-time mom. gordon was chosen from that list no only for his skills as a mud engineer, but also for his personality. everybody liked gordon. people who met him liked him and the more they got to know him, the more they liked about him. gordon was funny. he loved to laugh. he loved even more to make others laugh. to have a friend like gordon was a special gift. to lose a friend like gordon was and always will be a bitter loss. gordon even had the ability to make jokes at the expense of others, often me, and they would never get mad at him for it. it was a gift he had. and gordon was a gift we had.

we had a visitation at the oldest funeral home in baton rouge the day before gordon's memorial. the line of people who came snaked through the funeral home out the front door and down government street. the funeral director said he had never seen anything like it. imagine and that for a m who had been with us for 28 years. first picture i'd like to show you is my favorite. taken only a few days before gordon's death and i was standing right behind michelle when she took it gordon was giving stafford his first golf lesson. was, of course, the last golf lesson he'll get from his dad. i vividly remember driving away from that scene thinking ty are so happy.

the next picture is of gordon holding stafford soon after stafford's birth. i've had the pleasure of being with all three of my children when their first children came into the world but i can't say i ever saw a prouder parent than gordon. you'd have thought he was the first man ever to father a child. next picture is of michelle stafford and maxwell gordon 13 days ago. we're happy and grateful that mother and chi are healthy. they're home where together they'll all have to learn how to live without gordon. the last picture depicts gordon's presence in the delivery room. limited only to his picture. gordon was a great father to stafford.

he was tireless. any time stafford wanted to play, gordon was ready. perhaps the saddest story about gordon's death and there are many is that stafford is just too young to be able to remember anything about his dad in the years to me. of course, maxwell gordon will never haveeen able to know his father. hiknowledge of his dad will be limited to pictures and things that michelle and friends tell him. we don't have to be psychologists to know that's not enough. we kno that gordon's body was cremated. then the fireboats washed his ashes out to sea. i admit that having nothing to say good-bye to is much, much harder than i thought it would be. call it closure or whatever, something is missing for us.

you may note that i haven't mentioned how much money gordon made. there's a reason for that. the loss of gordon's income is the last thing michelle grieves for. when michelle tells her boys about their dad she's not going to show them a pay stub, but as i understand the present state of the law, that's all michelle and stafford c recover from those responsible for gord's death. we fear that because maxwell gordon was born after april 20th, 2010 the defendants will argue that he is entitled to nothing. please believe me, no amount of money will ever compensate us for gordon's loss. we know that. but payment of damages by wrongdoers is the only means we

have in this country to make things right. as time goes by we learn more and more about whose fault it was that this blowout took our gordon whose fault it was that the accident happened and whoever ultimately bears the blame for that will have to pay money to compensate the families of these 11 dead workers. how much that will be is up to you. but reckless acts by employees of corporations performed to try to make the most money the fastest will never be deterred by the payment ofere compensatory damages. payment of punitive damages by irresponsible wrongdoers is the only way they may learn. these businesses are there to

make money. punishing them by making them pay some of that money to victims who suffer most is the only way to get their attention. if you want these companies, one of which is headquartered in great britain and another in switzerland, to make every effort to make sure their employees don't ago as these di putting american lives at risk, you must make certain they are exposed to pain in thenly place they can feel it, tir bank accounts. as a friend recently said, make them hurt where their heart would be if they had a heart. i am an environmentalist. i worry about the louisiana wetlapds, the florida beach, all of our precious lands endangered by this oil spill, but i do hope and believe this, after muc

work perhaps for years, this mess will be cleaned up. the wrongdoers he can pay enough money to those who have lost their ability to earn a living to make that right and eventually the shrimp will be back, the oysters and crabs and fish will be back and bp will be back. we have heard over and over that the value of bp's stock has fallen, but bp is selling for about the same price it was a year ago toy, so bp, transocean, halliburton and any other company will be back becae they have the infrastructure and economic might to make more money, but gordon will never be back,

never. and neither will any of the 10 good men who died with him. now, the future of those families is in your hands. i urge you to do the right thing. thank you very much for listening. chris and i will be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> douglas harold brown was chief mechanic and acting second engineer on transocean's deepwater horizon d is a survivor of the april 20th explosi explosion. he served in the u.s. army for more than 11 years, began work with,b. falcon, an offshore oil drilling company that was bought by transoceannd he became a

transocean employee and one of the original crew members of the deepwater horizon. >> chairman conyers, ranking member smith and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. my name is douglas harold brown. i was a chief mechanic and acting second engineer on the transocean deepwater horizon. i am 50 years old, married have a 10-year-old stepdaughternd live in vancouver, washington. i saw the original one from korea to new mexico and have worked on board a the vessel until sh exploded at 10 p.m. on april 20th, 2010. since 2004 i worked in the engine control room. here's what happened to me that night. shortly before 10 p.m. i was completingly shift and making my log entries in the control room

when we heard a loud hissing noise followed by gas alarms going off. th was followed by the sound of engines ramping up very loudly. these engines provide power to the entire rig and are equipped with an electric and mechanical trip. they are supposed to automatically shut the engines down if they exceed certain rpms. as the engines revved louder and louder i kept expecting the trips to shut the engines down but they pfeffer did. they just kept revving higher and higher. the one automatic trip that did work disconnected the generators from the contr panel and plunged us into total darkness. but the engines kept revving. nobody ever radioed control room to inform us there was a kickback or that mud and seawater was shooting into the air. i was standing in front of the engine control panel waiting for the system to power back up when the first explosion blew me into the control panel and into a hole that was created in the floor. a short time later, a second

explosion threw me to the floor again. the ceiling caved in and debris fell on topf me. i could hear people screaming calling out for help. and i was terrified. i did not know what was happening and feared i was going to die. i followed two of my co-workers and crawledut of the hatch in the back of the room which had been blown open by the blast. when i got to the pain deck i saw the fire on the floor shooting up through the derek. thheat coming from the flames was ke nothing i've ever felt. mike williams, the electrical technician and i made our way around the fire to the bridge. and when we got to the bridge the captain sent us to the lifeboats to find the medic because mike was bleeding badly from his head. when we got to the lifeboats, there was complete chaos and mayhem. people were screaming a crying that they did not want to die and that we had to get off the rig. we stood next to the lifeboats and watched as the fire grew larger and larger.

i think we were only there for about ten minutes, it seemed like forever. eventually we were ordered to board the lifeboats and we were lowered to the water. we tied up to the bank spin which was a supply boat taking on drilling fluid from the r before the explosion. we were offloaded onto the bankton and i was taken by helicopter to another rig and eventually to a hospital in alabama. i feel very fortunate to have survived this horrible tragedy. 11 of my fellow crew members were not so fortunate and my heart goes out to their families and loved ones. i do not yet know the full extent of my injuries. i've been diagnosed with a fracture of my left leg and damage and bruising under my kneecap as well as ligament damage and nerve bruising. i have pain in my back and tailbone. i still walk with a cane. i am also having proems with my short-term memory, loss of fine motor skills, trouble sleeping, nightmares and

flashbacks to that night. i have been diagnosed wit ptsd. i will never forget that night, though, the loss of my friends and the effect this has had on so many people. it is important for congress to understand what happened that day so it doesn't happen again. i think it is also important to understand how transocean manning decisions changed over time. when we first went to work on the deepwater horizon, we had a fully manned engine room which consisted of six people, chief engineer, first engineer, second engineer, third engineer and two tor men. as the years went by, for reasons i do not understand the flagging of the vessel changed from panama to the marshall islands and transocean eliminatedositions so we were left with only three people, a chief engineer, second engineer and one motor man. three people are left to do six people's jobs.

while this often made it difficult to timely comple our daily preventive maintenance we worked hard and did the best we could. in october 2009, they reinstated a first engineer back in the engine room. that still left us two people short compared to when the vessel was flagged under panamanian law. over the years, after transocean began lessening the crew, i and others complained that we needed more help. they just kept telling us they would see what they could do. i wish to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today and i am happy to answer any questions i can for you. >> stephen stone was working for transocean aboard the deepwater horizon and was injured in the april 20th, 2010 explosion. >> thank you. chairman conyers, ranking member smith and members of the house

judiciary committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. my name is steven lane stone. i worked for transocean since february of 2008 as a rouseabout which is a general labor on an oil rig. i was on board transocean's deepwater horizon rig on the night it exploded killing 11 of my crew members and injuring many more. i'm here tod to tell my story not only about the disaster of april 20th, 2010 but also about the events that led to that disaster. it is my hope that armed with this information, this committee and this country can prevent another tragedy like this one from ever happening again. like many people i have been following the congressional testimony of the exetives from transocean, bp and halliburton. and have watched their finger-pointing blaming each other for the blowout of the well. when the companies put their savings over our safety they gambled with their lives and gambled with my life and the lives of 11 of my crew members. the blowout of this well was

hardly the first thing to go wrong. i was working up on deck helping to pump drilling fluid down into the wellbore hole however we kept losing drilling mud either because of the underground forpace was unstable or because drilling too quickly caused the formation to crack. either way about four separat times in the space of 20 days we had to stop pumping drilling mud and pump down a sealant to seal theracks of the formation causing us to lose mud. on the night of april 20th, 2010 i was asleep in my cabin two decks below the surface kick of the deepwater horizon about see what was happening. another explosion went off. the force of it ripped through my body and collapsed the upper decks of the rig. up and down the halls screaming i ran through the door of my the lifeboat deck but it had collapsed. i ran back to my room to get my

life jacket, my shoes and wedding ring. i then followed my crane operator eene moss who was running another way to the other end of the living quarters and using other stairwells. once on that deck, one deck below the surface we ran through more living quarters to get to the life boat deck and the ceiling below hadollapsed by the galley. the air was smoky and gritty with debr. eugene a picked our way through the rubble to the deck outside. once we were outside i turned and looked athe derrick which was completely engulfed in flames so bright it seemed like daylight and remember seeing people staring at the flames, someone was trying to muster which means to get everyone assembled and get a head count. some people were getting in the lifeboats and some were in shock they just stood there unable to move. suddenly the flames and the derek intensified. that was when people startedo panic and scramble for the lifeboats. i got in the life boat number two, strapped myself in and waited for what seemed like hours. some people were getting back out of the life boat and another

person was still trying to muster and get a head count. i was pretty certain i was going to die so i just sat there and waited for something to happen. for the derek to fall down and take the life boat down. finally as the life boat filled up wit smoke someone made the call to lower our boat into the water. we unlamped from the rigs cabd and motored toward the bankston. the mic tended to the injured until the coast guard arrived about 30 minutes later. the coast guard retrieved injured from the boat by helicopter, which took them about two hours until about 12:30 a.m. at 8 a.m. the damon b. bankton was reased to start heading back to land. four hours later and 14 hours later we puld up to a flat form of coast guard investigators at aboutoon on april 21st. we were told we had to give a written statement before we could leave the boat. after that was done we pulled up to another platform to pick up paramedics to ride back to lanze with us. at 1:30 a.m., 28 hours after the explosion we finally made it back to land.

however, before we were allowed to leave we were lined up and made to take a drug test. it was only then 28 hours aft the explosion that i was given access to a phone and was allowed to call my wife and tell her i was okay. at last they arranged to have us all driven to the crowne plaza hotel in new orleans where our families were waiting. another three hours later we made it to the hotel and to our families. 31 hours after the explosion at 5 a.m. on april 22nd i was given a hotel room and allowed to rest. i was lucky enough not to suffer any injury that required paramedic treatment but to say that i was not injured isn't true. i breathed in lots of thick dark smoke from the fire, and the explosion and will need to see a doctor for smoke inhalation. like many other crew members i am suffering from ptsd and have had trouble sleeping, flash backs to the explosion. since the explosion i have also developed a nervous twitch in my eye and my doctor said this was probably caused by stress too. the transocean representative asked me to sign a document

statini was not injured in order to get 5,000 for the loss of my personal possessions in general. this happed ten days after the explosion and in a denny' restaurant without my lawyer present. i wouldn't sign the part saying i had suffer nod injury. my attorney handled the 2005 vp refinery explosion in texas. i was sad to learn after the fact about bp's shockinglyad safety record in north america. also i never would have expected from my company transocean to treat me like a criminal after i had survived such a disaster by making me submit to a drug test and then try to tempt to trick me into giving up legal rights by signing forms without a lawyer present. if i had known any of these things, i might have thought twice before setting foot on the deepwater horizon. members of the committee you cannot allow bp and transocean to continue to conduct business this way. i hope that my testimony here today leads to changes that may drilling rigs safer so this never happens again. thank you. >> byron encalade is the

president of louisiana oysters association. he has a business at east point and has fished for his entire life in the gulf of mexico. >> mr. chairman and other representatives of the committee, i want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell our story. my name is byron encalade. i'm a third generation oyster fishermen. from east point, louisiana, i currently serve as the president of plaquemine parish united fisheries cooperative of the louisiana oystermen's association. it is a small fishing village in plaquemines marrish with approximately 300 people. it is primarily an african-american community with

seafoo being its primary industry. our family fisheries engage in harvesting oysters and shrimp which we transport across gulf states. as the president of our family fisheries and trucking company, i employ eight people, my brother, my two nephews and five cousins. black oyster fishermen have not been able to amass wealth to sustain our community. therefore, occurrences such as hurricane katrina and the oil spill have caused us stress and uncertainty for our already underserved community. we thought 2010 was the year to finally recover from hurricane katrina. we have invested moneys in our boats and company infrastructure. this oil spill would be

devastating for plaquemine parish, but it will be extremely difficult ese next few months for fishermen who depend on this livelihood as a source of income and food source. once again we find ourselves crippled by disaster we did not create and as -- in t aftermath of 2005 hurricane season, it has been said that the total cleanup and recovery will take months if not years to complete. on the eve of 2010 hurricane season, which may only make this problem worse, i can tell you we do not have that kind of time. we need your help. we need congressional oversight on the funds distributed by bp and the federal government. we inouisiana have learned hard lessons about the need for

transparency and recovery and call upon this committ to closely monitor the recovery activities. louisia is a provider of shrimp, oysters and crabs, crawfish in the united states providing about a third of the seafood consumed in our natn and also approximately a 2.4 billion a year to the state economy. our request is as follows, the federal government to ensure immediate compensation as paid to the fishermen to provide for income replacement and family living expense, the lack of federal and state income returns must not preclude any fishermen from receiving compensation. the claims compensation protocol must include a system of classification of claimants.

immediate compensation for six months of lost income, that is equivalent a least an annual income of $24,000 per year. fishermen who can substantiate high annual income from fishing will receive higher payments and at the end of six months -- somewhere during the period of november, time period of november is some equal to one-half of a year lost earnings and a lost then $12,000 per worker shall be paid to every fishermen remainingut of work as a result of this disaster. within 12onths of the inial payment, the federal government must make a final assessment of full damages for the lost earnings to be made to fishermen. this determination should include evaluation of other long-term losses beyond losses

of earnings such as damage to boats, equient, damage to other oysterbeds and fishing grounds and other long-term losses. mr. chairman, i'd like to thank you and have a profound thanks to miss waters, if i can, and the fishermen, of course, you know, are really pleased that she came down and opened our heart and extended the welcome to us up here and you have been very, very kind to us including the fishing community and we thank you from the bott of our heart. anybody have any questions, i'll be glad to answer. >> we're pleased to have the attorney general of the state of mississippi, jim hood here.

the attorney general graduated from the university of mississippi, served as a clerk with the supreme court of that sta state, an assistant attorney general for five years, district attorney for eight years, tried numerous cases and prosecuted the successfully the 1964 murders of three civil rights workers. we welcome you to our hearing today. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for tt kind introduction and members of the committee, i won't go through what we have accomplished as attorneys general, our five coastal attorneys gener have been working with british petroleum. i have a letter attached as

appendix c in which we made several demands. bp has come forward on most of em, however, there's one that creates a problemor the states and that's why i ask that this committee consider amending some federal legislation to allow our states to recover the full amount of ourdamages. we are still working with bp in hopes that they will waive the right to try to remove our state court actions to federal court. they will not agree to that thus far. the difference between the "exxon valdez" case going on over 20 years and the tobacco litigation which was filed by my predecessor mike moore as attorney general from the state of mississippi i was asince a.g. when the tobacco wars were started and ended, and i am famiar with that litigation and the reason, you know why it was settled because it was in state court. the tobacco industry was about to have to walk into a courtroom down oour coast in pascagoula,

mississippi. that case was settled because we were in ste court. the "exxon valdez" case went on 20 years because they were in federal court. as a result of some of the tobacco litigation, there were amendments made here in congress that have allowed corporations to draw in states and to multidistrict -- totate litigation and that is a problem for the states, you see, even though you may have put good language in osha, for example, that says there can be a concurrent state action and the state actis will b recognized, well, that doesn't mean a federal judge is going to follow what you said. and, in fact, a federal judge in the state of louisianaas said that under opa, that your case can be removed from state court to federal court. and the problem with that is is that my colleagues here at the table, british petroleum and

transocean have already started a sucking sound coming out of houston, texas, by two action that is they filed before friendly federal judges in houston, texas. e of those was filed by transocean, a limiting action in which they tried to pull in everybody to a judge in houston, texas. bp has done the same thing with a consolidation action and the problem for the states is is we don't need to be pulled into some type of a huge class action where we're just treated like another plaintiff out there and there's no respect for separate sovereign. in fact, i won't be able to plead in our state litigation if it occurs, hopefully these company also come forward and trying every way to work with them and they workith us but if there is going to be a fight, i want it to be in our state court. we're not going to recover a dime more than we're entitled. we don't want a dime more than we're entitled in state court but what happens in federal courts these federal judges get huge mass action and all their

duty is to beat people into submission and that includes states and people don't recover what they're entitled to. i won't be able to plead a claim under opa because i know what's going to happen. they'll take that federal district judge's case out of louisiana and try to suck mississippi into federal district litigation. that happened in the insurance litigation. full's recall after katrina i was the attorney general that filed a suit against most of the insurance industry. that's what they did. they drug us off into federal court on a motion to remove and it sat there and lingered in fedel court for 15 months, finally it was remanded back to state court. we reached a settlement in the insurance industry but carried forth that issue to our state supreme court to make a decision on when versus water liability. well, it took four years to get to a state supreme court. everybody settled. it was a hollow victory. i won 9-0 but what happened the 5th circuit didn't defer as it should have under -- it's a contract law. it's atate issue.

the 5th circuit didn't defer to the court and they got it all wrong. too late to back up so we don't want to wind up bore federal court where they're going to drag us in with another group and treat us like any other plaintiff. secondly, the class action fairness act was passed by congress and in that on all the comments from the senators on the floor, all over the states won't be included this this. the states won't be sucked into a state claz action fairness act. guess what, a 5th circuit -- actually a district judge in louisiana said, yes, the states belong into in caldwell v. allstate, the court, 5th circuit held that, yes, the states are subject to cafa, the classic action fairness act where we get jerked into all this multidistrict litigation, and it creates such a problem that the states are beaten into submission. the federal judge in the alaska case beat -- there was a state court judge making parallel rulings at the time just ignored the state completely. didn't even accept the separate

sovereign, beat those fishermen and plaintiffs into submission and i suspect the state and federal government, as well. i do not want to see that happen and therefore i have submitted to thisommittee several changes that i believe will allow the states to seek our damages in state court and protect our citizens. lastly, the parents patriot authority of an attorney is as one recognized by united states supreme court as a supreme duty of an attorney general. if means protect those who cannot protect themselves. it is a latin term for that. what that -- i will not be able to plead parents patriii claims. the reason for that because of that caldwell case, the 5th circuit will say you're just a mass action, you're bringin that on behalf your citizens and try to drag us into federal court. that's not where we want to be. we want it made in state court so we can quickly resolve our

issues if there are any and we will not be subject to a lot of the other problems that the limitations of liability act can bring states in for. thank you for the opportunity for being here. i'll be glad to try to ansr any questions afterwards. >> daryl willis, vice president of resources at bp. on april 29th, 2010 he accepted the role of overseeing bp's claims process, born in louisia louisiana, undergraduate northwestern state university in louisia louisiana, master's degree in geology and geophysics in louisiana state university, mba from stanfor universitynduniver.

and he has been with bp since 1996 when he started as the lead operations geoscientist for bp north american gas. >> chairman conyers, ranking member smith, members of the committee, i'm daryl willis, vice president of resources for bp america. on april 29, 2010, i send the role of overseeing bp's claims process, which was established in the wake of explosion and fire aboard the "deepwater horizon" drilling rig and ensuing oil spill. i'm here to share information with you about the claims process. this horrendous incident, which killed 11 workers and injured 17 others, has profoundly touched all of us. there's been tremendous shock that such an accident could have

happened and great sorrow for the lives lost and the injure aries sustained. i would like to make one thing very clear. bp will not rest until the well is under control and we discover what happened and why and in order to ensure that it never happens again. as a responsible party under the oil pollution act of 1990, we will carry out our obligations to mitigate the environmental and economic impact of this incident. i would also like to underscore that -- by the federal government and by bp itself, so i'm prepared today to answer your questions regarding the claims process. i cannot, however, respond to inquiries about the incident itself or the investigation.

above all, i want to emphasize that the bp claims process is integral to our commitment to do the right thing. we will be fair and expeditious inesnding to claims. we have already paid out more than 35 -- $37 million in claims. we understand how important it is to get this right, for the residents and businesses,s well as for the state and local governments. to that end, we have established 24 walkn claims offices operating in louisiana, mississippi, alabama and florida. and we have a call center that is operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. we have also established an online claims filing system to further expand and expedite our capacity to respond to potential

claimants. all together, we have nearly 700 people handling claims with over 400 experienced claims adjusters on the ground, working in the impacted communities. we will continue having offices and resources required and mmitting the full resources of bp to making this process work for the people across the gulf coast. our folk cass is on individuals and small businesses whose livelihoods have been directly impacted by the spill and who are temporarily unable to work. these are fishermen, the crabbers, the oyster harvesters and shrimpers, with the greatest immediate financial need. bp is provided expedited inter rim payments whose income has been interrupted, approximately 13,500 claims have already been paid, totaling, as i said, $37 million to date. the claims process was

established to fulfill our obligations as designated, as a designated responsible party under the oil pollution act of 1699 thus, we are guided by the provisions of opa 90, as well as u.s. coast guard regulations when assessing claims. i am not an attorney and therefore, cannot speak to particular legal interpretations or applications of opa 6990. i can, however, reiterate that bp does not intd to use the $75 million cap in the opa 690 statute to limit the claims. we expect to exceed it and wil not seek reimbursement from the oil spill liability trust fund. in closing, i would likeo add a personal note. my ties to the gulf coast r deep. i was born and raised in louisiana. i went to high school there, college there and graduate scho there. my family spent many, many summers vacationing along the

gulf coast. my mother lost her home of 45 yearin hurricane katrina and the recovery process was time consuming and at many times, incredibly frustrating. i know firsthand that the people in this region cannot afford lengthy delays in addressing economic losses caused by this spill. i volunteered for this assignment because i'm passionate about the gulf coast. it is a place i call home and i want to be a part of the solution. finally, as we respectfully inform the committee, i have been asked to testify at a hearg shared by senator landrieu of louisiana this afternoon, therefore, i may need to excuse myself if this hearing runs past 2:30 p.m. if that happens, i will b pleased to answer any additional questions from this committee in writing. and with that, i welcome your questions. >> thank you. but if we need you for additional questions, we will want you to be present.

attorney raischle clingman, acting general counsel for transocean, partner in charge of souther land's houston office, who specializes in energy, transportation and commercial litigation, a graduate of rice university, university of texas law school and has been honored regionally and nationally for legal excellence. >> thank you, chairman. chairman conyers, ranking member smith and other members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. i'm a partner with souther land, asbil and brennan but at the present, working with tnsocean working on the issues the deep water horizon incident. the last few wks have been a time of great loss, sadness and frustration for many, including all of us at transocean. our hearts and prayers are with the widows, children and family of the 11 lives who were lost,

nine of whom were transocean employees. our hearts are with those who were injured and with those were evacuated and survived. we and i offer our deepest sympathies. we are committed to protecting the memies of those who are lost and to providing for their families. i am here today to report to the commission -- to the committee on various legal issues facing transocean. first and foremost, transocean is fully prepared to meet all of its legal obligations arising from the de"deepwater horizon" accident. i want to assure the committee and those represented hereoday that addressing and resolving the claims of transocean employees who were injured and of the families who lost loved ones is a top company priority. those discussions are beginning now and it is our hope that we can resolve these claims fairly, quickly and amicably. the deep water horizon accident has resulted in many legal challenges for the courts and

the companies and the families and claim map thes represented here. these involve class action lawsuits as well as claims under the two frame works of the oil pollution act and general maritime law, including the jones act. as you know, congress enacted a, oil pollution act of 1990 to compensate on a no-fault basis people and businesses for damages caused by oil spills and contamination. the statute establishes a claims process that enables anyone damaged by an oil spill to obtain compensation from a responsible party. in this case, the coast guard designated bp as the responsible party for oil and gas flowing from the sub c well. as you heardgain today urge bp has accepted that designation and has testified that it will pay all legitimate claims, regardless of the statutory $75 million cap. as we understand, bp has established that process and paid a substantial number of

claims to date. the u.s. coast guard designated transocean as a responsible party under opa and we have accepted that responsibility for any contamination from the mobile work space, the are rig. there has been no indication thus far of any contamination from the rig itself, however, we stand ready to meet any legal obligation that arise from that stus. the opa claims process allows someone to file a lawsuit only if and when bp has denied a claim or not reached a claim to the claimant's satisfaction. nonetheless, as you know, a great number of lawsuits have already been filed, including approximately 135 against transocean across eight states. most of these are class actions in which small business interests and other commercial interests claim a current or potential future loss of business in the aftermath of the spill. there is substantial overlap in

the lawsuits. florida property owners, for example, are included in the proposed class of at least three lawsuits to date. louisiana residents who derive income from the coastal zone are claimants in at least four class actions. and overar offing all of these suits are class actions on behalf of all persons damaged in the gulf of mexico. these multiple and dupe plinktive lawsuits create confusion. they strain judicial resources and could lead to disparate treatment for lit gants who are similarly situated. for these reasons, both plaintiffs and defendants have filed motions asking to establish a multidistrict litigation or mbl proceeding to bring all of those lawsuits together in one court and consolidate those claims. the second category of claims, as i indicated, are not the class actions, but personal injury and death claims covered by general maritime law as mentioned by chairman conyers. these include its jones act, which pro-side seamen the right

to sue and create favorable presuches that ease their path to recod havelism maritime body of law applies to therew members of the rig. at the same time that that law enacted by congress makes it easier for seamen to pursue and recover claims it also provides limitation actions on total damages for such claims. under the maritime law, transocean has filed maritime limitation of liability action in the united states district court for the southern dtrict of texas. this law recently reviewed and recodified by congress in 2006, allows ship owners to consolidate actions and define their liability in a situation like this. we have filed the action. we have requested with consolidation. and we have been indicated an initial proposed limitation of liability based on the statutory calculation at just under 27 million. the ultimate amount and what will be included will be left to the court governing that action. i want to stress that that limitation does not apply to

claims asserted against transocean under the oil pollution act. transocean has asked the limitations court to clarify the existing order to make that clear and at order has been so amended. transocean filed this limitation action for several reasons. we believe it is important to have a central venue for these actions to maintain some continuity and consistency that will not be possible if lawsuits proceed in various states and federal courts. in addition, our underwriters instruct us to file the limitation action and we did so to avoid losing any insurance coverage that will help pay claims. overridingly, however, transocean is committed to resolving all of the interrelated legal matters diligently, expeditiously and fairly. our override willing mission in conduction with bp, unified command, gernment officials another contractors is to stopping the leak, containin contamination and determining the cause of the explosion. and my heart is lightened to hear chairman conyers say tha

the top kill kill shot method may have been successful. i thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today and i look forward to answering any of the questions you may have. >> attorney james ferguson, senior vice president, deputy general counsel for haliburton. including his responsibility -- cluded in his responsibilities are litigation, environmental employment law activities in the company's law department. in 1988, he assumed the deputy general position, where he -- or he began in 1988, assumed the puty general position in 2007, served as director of risk management and assistant general counsel for haliburton. >> chairman conyers, ranking

member smith, i appreciate the opportunity ton here today and share haliburton's perspective -- >> pull the microphone closer, sir. >> as you review the legal issues related to deep water horizon catastrophe. haliburton looks forward to continuing to work with the coress, the administration and now the presidential commission to understand what happened and what we can do to ensure that oil and gas production is undertaken in the safest and most environmentally responsible manner. the catastrophic blowout with and the spread of oil in the gulf of mexico are tragic events for everyone haliburton extends its deepest sympathy to the family, to the friends and the colleagues of the 11 people who lost their lives and to those workers that were injured in this tragedy. haliburton has and will continue to fully support and cooperate

with the ongoing investigations into how and why this tragic event happened. we will continue to make our personnel available and we have produce canned approximately 50,000 pages of documents. as you can no doubt appreciate, there has already been an immense amount of lit gigs filed in connection with the owout. as of may 23rd, haliburton had been named in 112 suits involving pollution damage claims and four suits bringing personal injury claims. with current investigations under way with, it's still premature for haliburton to offer theories about what happened. thus, i will not be addressing technical and operational issues, which in anyvent are not within my expertise, but instead, will focus on the issues that you posed in your invitation to testify. mr. chairman, you asked that we with discuss legal liability issues surrounding the gulf coast disaster. in addition, you have expressed concern about waivers individuals were asked to sign as they returned to shore from

the "deepwater horizon." with respect to the waivers, haliburton did not ask any of ou four employees to sign a waiver or any other document as they returned to shore. our employee assistant personnel were already in contact with their families and provided whatever aid and support the employees needed. since then, we have reaed settlement with one employee which did involve a release by the employee. as you consider broader liability questions, it's important to understand the structure of the oil and gas exploration and production business, and in particular, the roles and responsibilities of the various parties involved in drilling a deep water well. obtains a lease from the government with rights to explore -- applicable regulatory requirements, theil company, as the well owner, will engage a drill drilling contractor and many other service and equipment companies to work with on that well. the construction of a deep water

well is complex operation involving the performance numerous tasks by multiple parties led by the well owner's representative, who has the ultimate authority for decisions on how and when various activities are conducted w respect to the mississippi canyon 252 well, haliburton was contracted by the well owner to perform a variety of services on the rig. that included certain aspects of the cementing process, but contrary to some press reports, haliburton did not provide in hole quilt such as casing, well head, seal assemblies, float equipment. hall burton is a service provider to the well owner who is contractually bound to comply with the well owner's instructions on all matters lating to the perform millions of all work-related activities that does not extend, however to acts that would create an imminent safety hazard. our employee authorized to stop work in such situations. over the years, certain industry

practices have developed with respect to the allocation of potential liabilities. since it is the well owner that is entering into agreements with the drilling contractor and with the various other contractors and suppliers, the well own letter often establish a system of reciprocal indemnity obgations through these contracts. also, it's customary for the well owner to take responsibility for certain potentially catastrophic events, includin loss of control of the well andollution emanating from the well. accordingly, the well owner assumes the obligation to indemnify the contractors for liability arising from such occurrences. the terms of the applicable haliburton contract are consistent with this common liability allocation arrangement. therefore, haliburton is obligated to indemnify and hold the well oer and the other contractors harmless with respect to claims by our employees and with respect to loss or damage to our equipment. in like american, the well owner

and each of the other contractors are bound to hold haliburton harmls against claims by their employees and for loss or damage to their property. finally, the well owner has assumed the obligation to hold haliburton harmless against the costs for controlling the well as well as for the cleanup and damages caused by the oil pollution. in closing, haliburton will continue to cooperate with the effort to understand what happened and what we can be done to ensure that oil and gas production is undertaken in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. thank you for the opportunity to share our views and i will be happy to answer questions later on. >> attorney william lemmer, general counsel for cameron international corporation was previously with orix energy company, where he served as vice president, general counsel,

corporate secretary and as chief counsel. he has also held senior management positions at sonoco and is a graduate of michigan state university hors college and the juris doctor from university of virginia law school. >> chairman conyers, ranking member smith, members of the committee, good morning. my name is bill lemmer and i am the senior vice president and jeep counsel of camer international corporation. i wish i could say i appreciate the invitation to be here today, but the fact of the matter is that we are here to discuss a truly tragic event and the consequences that have and will continue to flow from it. cameron has -- cameron continues to lend its assistance and efforts relating to capping the well and we continue to work with everyone involved to try to understand what happened and how this happened. cameron is based in houston, texas, and is a leading provider of equipment and services to the energy industry. and with 11 different operating division and approximately

18,000 employees, more than 300 locations. the cameron product used by the deep water horizon is called a blowout preventer or bop, a product that cameron invented in 1920s it allows our customers to control the pressure in a well while being drilled. there are over 400 camer bops operating subsea, 130 operating in deep water. each individual bop stack is made up of components specified by our customers, configured to their specific operating specificati specifications. each is manufactured, testing in accordance with industry standard and applicable regulations. our bops have a very long history of reliable performance, including performance in some of the harshes operating conditions in the world. the about op ithe deep water horizon was operating at 5,000 feet below sea level at the time of the incident. as soon as cameron was notified of this incident, we mobilized a team of our best drilling specialists to work with bp, transocean and others to assist with efforts to shutter this well. our people have been working

with around the clock to assist in this effort and will continue provide all the resources at o disposal until this well is shut n on the subject of today's hearing is difficult to say anything with precision at this stage. efforts to cap the well are ongoing and the facts related to explosion and its impact on the bop and ability to function properly are simply unknown at this point. the present challenges involving in deterning causes and effects are many. in plan, from our standpoint, inability to examine the deep water with who are ripz's bop there for example appears to be far into early to draw factual conclusions about how this incident occurred. and so, too, is it with are respected questions of liability, which are, by their very nature, closely linked to these presently unanswered factual estions. anything specific we might say in this connection would be speculative and perhaps misleading or potentially so, to the committee and to the public. given the very limited extent of everyone's present suddenier standing of the facts, it is impossible for anyone to make any liability determinations at this point.

nonetheless, eve unof us is mindful of the personal, environmental and economic concerns associated with this incident. we understand the need to discover the facts relating to what went wrong and to do all that is possible to prevent the recurrence are of an incident in the future. i'm here to answer your questions. thank you. >> attorney vincent foley, partner with holland & knight in the marine -- in the maritime practice group, practicing primarily in the area of international litigation arising out of vessel casualties, including coalitions, groundings, exosions, fires and oil spills. he has participated in all aspects of oil spill litigation, oil pollution prevention seminars, formal response drills and oil spill response training. a graduate of the merchant

marine academy and the tulane law school. >> thank you, mr. chairman and distinguished members of the committee. i am grateful nor opportunity, hor and privilege to address the committee today. i'm here to discuss the oil spill liability and compensation scheme in place in the u.s.,he oil pollution act of 1990 is a primary federal statute dealing with liability and compensation for the discharge of the oil in navigable waters. opa is part of a larger statutory scheme, which includes the federal water pollution control act,r the clean water act, which also provides for civil and criminal penaltiesor oil spills on a per day, per barrel basis with no limits of

liability. the opa compensation and liability scheme, the objective of the scheme was to provide compensation to claimants for oil spills. opa works by designating a responsible party to set up a claims process to allow claimants to seek compensation. for a vessel, the responsible party means the owner or operator or basically the entity responsible for day-to-day activities and the opa limits of liability for a vessel are calculated based on the gross tonnage, which is the -- the total overall internal volume of the vessel. the opa also has a provision for offshore facities, the responsible party for an offshore facility is the lese or permitee of the area in wit facility is located. the offshore facility limit, it is a more complicated analysis, which invold -- involved because unlike gross tonnage for

a vessel, which has a certain maximum capacity, an offshore facility has access to an oil field in the seabed. the opa limit for an offshore facility is 5 million for damages, but importantly, it's unlimited for remove al costs. now, in addition to setting up a liability scheme, opa also set up a compensationcheme through the national pollution fund center and the oil spill liability trust fund. the oil spill liability trust fund is an emergency fund for yments to claimants over the opa limits. the fund is sourced by a per barrel petroleum tax as well as collection of fines and penalties for violation of other environmental statutes and recoveries by the national pollution fund from responsible parties. theund step it is to pay

claims that areither denied by a responsible party or that are over the responsible party' set limits of liability. now, with respect to the limits of liability, it is important to under -- or to point out that the opa limits of liability require the participants in the industry to show evidence of financial responsibility up to those limits. and the purpose of that financial responsibility is so that there are immediate funds available to set up this compensation scheme and to start paying claimants. the -- when -- when i mentioned the offshore facility, there's $75 million limit for damages and unlimited for removal costs, those are the two primary types of opa claims. the removal costs include the cleanup, the prevention, the minimum -- minute mikz the extent of the oil spill,

mitigation and disposal of the oil. the damages a the economic loss damages, such as injury to natural resources, injuries to real or personal property, also of revenue from use ofatural resources, loss of profits and earning capacity and public services rendered durg or after removal activities. with respect to both types of claims, whether there are removal or damages, there is suppting documentation needed to establish that you have a compensable claim under the statute, whetherou make the claim to the responsible party or to the national pollution fund. and the way the sysm is set up, the claimants are required to make the claim first to the responsible party to seek payment. if that claim is not paid within 90 days, they may -- they have th optiono litigate against the responsible party or to seek compensation from the national pollution nd center, which will be an adjudication, also

based on documentation of that claim. so, that's the system set up by opa. with respect to the limits of liability, there have been increases in opa limits with respect to vessels there is a recent increase for vessel opa limits in 2000 -- in the 2006 delaware river and protection act it increased the opa limits of liability for vessels and also increased the responsle party payments to the trust fund. and in 2010, just recently, we had a consumer price index increase in the vessel limits for liability. there have not been increases to the opa limit of liability, the damage limitation of 75 million but again there is an unlimited am for removal costs. now, when we also talk about limits of liability, it is important to understand there is unlimited liability under opa. if -- a responsible party will

lose their liability limits and be strictly liable on an unlimited basis in two situations. one, there is a situation where they lose their limits for gross negligence or willful dismist conduct, violation of an applicable federal safety construction operating regulation by a responsible party or by a party under contct with a responsible party or the third category where you would lose a limit would be a failure after the spill to report the spill, a failure to provide reasonable cooperation or a failure to follow a governmental order. if any of those circumstances exist in the aftermath of a spill, the responsible party would lose their limits of liability and have unlimited liability. the second area where you have unlimited liability is that opa allows states to impose supplemental liability over and

above the opa limitations. so, here is another opportunity to have unlimited liability that's already built into the statute. with respect to the industry experience with the opa liability scheme that i've just described, it has been a positive experience. the system works within the responsible party limits for the vast majority of oil spills. for exceptional spills which exceed the opa mits, the emergency trust fund is available to make payments and the emergency trust fund is based on a per barrel petroleum tax. alternatively, responsible party will pay in the excess of their limits without seeking reimbursement for the reasons i -- because of the threat of an unlimited liability for violation of a federal safety -- applicable federal safety regulation or grossegligence or potentially criminal liability under the federal statutes that impose criminal

liabilities for oil discharge. it's important to -- when considering an increase to the opa limits, it's important to carefully study the overall liabily and compensation scheme can. a precipius change in opa limits could have adverse and unintended impacts on this functioning and reliable compensation system for oil spills there is also a potential to disrupt u.s. oil imports because an increase in opa limits comes with an increase to the participants in the industry to provide this financial responsibility certificates. this, eventually, will require extraordinary -- extraordinary and in most cases unaffordable premiums for the participants in the industry and may cause most small, mid size and even large ners and operators out of business, leaving only major players who can self-insure to

continue with the u.s. oil import business. thank you for the opptunity to address you this morning. i looked for to your questions. >> t galligan is the president of colby-sawyer college. from 1986 to 1998, he taught at the paul haybert law center at louisiana state university. he was previously dean and professor of law at the university of tennessee college of law, has published numerous books, articles on torts and admiralty.

hi scholarship has been cited in the restatement of torts and by numerous legal scholars. he has been cited in the united states supre court cases and other federal and state appellate trial cots. >> thank you. chairman conyers, ranking member smith and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. my name is tom galligan and i am the president of colby-sawyer college in new london, new hampshire. the l spill in the gulf of mexico and the ensuing disastrous consequences have forced our nation to consider its damage recovery regimes for injuries and deaths arising from maritime and environmental catastrophes. doing so row veals inequity test and inconsistencies that you, in congress, have the chance and abily to repair by amending the relevant statutes.

i would like to begin with a discussion of wrongful death recovery under the jones act, which is applicable to the negligence-based wrongful death actions by the survivors o a seaman and the death on the high seas act, which defines the rights to recover for wrongful death in all other cases arising from incidents occurring on the high seas. as interpret, neither of those statutes allows recovery for loss of society damages to the survivors of those killed in maritime disasters. now, what are loss of society damages? they are compensation for the loss of care, comfort and companionship caused by the death of a loved one. the majority of american jurisdictions today do recognize some right to recover for loss of society damages in wrongful death cases, but the jones act and dosa do not. one might arguably understand the availability of loss of society damages in 1920 when the

jones act a and dosa were passed, it was a different world. but to deny recovery oloss of society damages to a loved one in a wrongful death case in 2010 is out of the legal mainstream and it is a throw back to a past era. a spouse, child or parent who loses a loved one suffers a very real loss, a loss of care, comfort and companionship and the law should recognize that loss much congress can appropriately make the law consistent with current moral, social and familial realities by amending the relevant statutes to provide recovery for loss of care, comfort and companionship in maritime wrongful death cases. now, interestingly, there is one exception to the rule barring recovery of loss of society damages under dosa and that exception points up current inconsistencies in the law. in 2000, after the korean airline and twa disasters, you amended dosa to provide recovery

of loss of society to the survivors of those killed in gh seas commercial aviation disasters. us in, in commercial aviation disasters, dosa is consistent with modern law and values, but for anyone else killed on the high seas, someone kind a cruise ship, someone killed on a semisubmersible floating rig or someone killed on a helicopter, the survivors may not recover loss of society damages. the proposed amendment would provide all survivors of those killed in maritime disasters with the recovery now available in commercial aviation wrongful death cases. and i would with like to pause here and say one thing about opa 90. opa 90 does not provide liability in the wrongful death case. those are outside the scope. i would like to shift to survival actions and note the supreme court in a high seas death case has held that predeath pain and suffering is

not recould have rabble in a maritime survival action when the death arises on the high seas. thus, in any case covered by that rule, no matter how much the decedent may have suffered before his or her death, those damages are not recoverable. they should be available. another subject of significant import arising out of this disaster is the potential recover ability of punitive damages in various types of maritime cases. the united states supreme court has twice in the last two years held that punitive damages are recould have rabble under general maritime law, but it has limited that recovery in at miralty to a one-to-one ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages. today, america might well consider if that one-to-one ratio cap frustrates the deterrent aspects of punitive damages in certain maritime cases. it is less clear if punitive damages are available in jones act anddosa cases until the

most recent supreme court case on the subject, i would have said no. now, i am less sure. a final critical point in this analysis is the effect and a ic ability of the limitation of liability act to these events. originally passed in 1851 to encourage investment in maritime shipping and commerce, the act allows a vessel owner and some others to limit liability to the post-voyage value of the vesl pl pending freight if the liability is incurred without with the prifity or knowledge of the owner. one may just appliably wonder whether an act passed at the time before the modern development of the corporate form and before the evolution of modern bankruptcy slaw still sail yent in personal injury and wrongful death cases. however, limitations still exists and in this case, prepresents this committee with an opportunity to consider and discuss its amend tomorrow assure personal injury and wrongful death victims moreust

compensation. thank you very much and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> i invite ranking member lamar smith to begin the questions. >>hank you, mr. chairman. i know we have a vote cing up and so i won't use up all of my time. let me direct my first question to mr. willis. and mr. willis, i just want to confirm what i believe bp's position is, and that is that you don't feel the taxpayers should pick up any of the cost of the oil spill, is that correct? >> representative smith, we are going to pay all legitimate claims associated with damages caused by that spill. we are going to pay for damages to people's livelihood. we going to pay for lost wages. we are going to pay all claims that are substantiated. >> right, i understand. >> pay all claims that are

reasonable and necessary. >> right. and you don't feel the taxpayers should pay any of the costs attributable to the oil spill? >> i'm sorry, accident hear your question. >> you don't feel that the taxpayers should pick up any of the costs of the oil spill? >> we realize that we are going to be judged by our response to this spill and we will pay for all damage that has been caused, that is directly related to this spill, to people, to governments, to the communities. >> and bp, not the taxpayers? >> bp is going to pay for all damages that have been caused by this spill. >> okay. thank you, mr. willis. >> yes, sir. >> mr. ley, i was going to ask you if you felt that the liability cap needed to be raised. i think you have actually explained very well in your opening remarks why that's not necessary and why people can still be adequately compensated. so let me go to attorney general hood and ask you a question, if i may. attorney general hood, do you feel that your state of mississippi has received all the equipment and permit that you

need to address the oil spill from the federal government? >> i'm sorry, i couldn't hear your question. >> i'm speaking into the mike. maybe i can get some help. do you feel that the state of mississippi has received all the equipment and permits i needs from the federal government in order to adequately address the oil spill? >> yes, sir. we have -- we have been satisfied with the efforts of the federal government and bp gave 25 million to the state so that local government does draw dawn on that money to ppare for the ill to come n. >> so you have everything you need for quilt and permits from the federal government? >> yes, si >> okay. thank you. mr. willis, last question with. you have a background in oil exploration. do you feel that we should consider limiting or eliminating all offshore drilling?

>> by training, i'm a geologist. i grew up on the gulfcoast, born and raised in new orans, louisiana. spent many summers in biloxi and bay st. louis, pascagoula and when my folks actually had a lot of money, we actlly went over to destin. and i have actually studied in the marshes of louisiana. and i realize that there's a very delicate existence in louisiana, particularly between the oil industry and the fishing industry. i have family members who worked in the oil industry who love to fish. one of my uncles to worked in the oil industry taught me how to crab. i think they can bothxist together. >> both offshore exploration and fishing and crabbing? >> yes. >> okay. thank you, mr. willis. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> chairman of the constitution committee, jerry nadler. >> thank you. mr. -- first of all, let me just say that i hope we ca have attorney general hood back here before this committee to really explore the issues that he

raised about the class action suits, about federal courts, removing these cases, perhaps not properly and about why it is so bad in the federal court in any event. i mean, en if it is removed york should you get less justice in the federal court, which obviously we think you do than in the state courts. i hope we can examine that at a subsequent occasion. let me ask the gentleman -- mr. willis i think is the person i want to ask. does bp have are sole liability for damages caused by the use of dispersants as well as by the use of the oil? >> sir, my involve tonight date in response to the oil spill has beenassociated with the claims process. >> fine, someone files a claim, i got sick through breathing air made poisonous by the dispersants, would you award that person an award? >> we ve an open claims

process. and anyone who feels like they have been damaged or hurt or harmed directly by this spill has every right -- >> directly by this ill, ds that mean by the dispersants or only by the oil? are we going to have to determine jones got poisoned by the oil but smith got spoiled by the dispersants, therefore, you are not liable or are you willing to tell us that it doesn't matter, you are going to cover people who got sick for whatever cause? >> what we are going to do is follow the law. >> well, i'm asking you, do you feel the law covers -- do you feel that the law covers the dispersants or on the oil? >> i'm not an attorney about but i will tell you we have a claims process, accessed three ways through 1-800 number. >> excuse me, stop. stop, you're wasting my time. i'm not interested you have a claims process and it can be accessed. we know that the question is what will you respond to in the claims process?

can begin answer these questions? >> i will tell you what we will respond to in our claims process. the claims? >> i'm sorry? >> what kind of claims? >> to date, as i mention into in my testimony, we have pifder 13,000 claims some, of them have been for lost income, some have been to -- >> someone breathes -- i'm asking you a different question if someone breathes in air on the louisiana coa and claims that that air is poisoned as a result of the dispersant and can show that that is the case, is that a valid claim under your process? >> they can file a claim. yes, ma'am they can file a claim. >> i didn't ask if they can file a claim. i said if they can prove that claim that they are poisoned by -- because of the dispersant, is that a valid claim that you would pay? >> every claim will be evaluated and looked at fairly -- >> you answer yes or no, please? >> every claim -- >> do you consider poisoning by the dispersants your

responsibility? >> what i'm telling you, sir, is that we will evaluate every single claim that we get in a fairnd -- >> i know you willvaluate t you're evading my question. and the question is -- let me read you something here. read you a different question. fishermen responded to a working bp's giant uncontrolled slick in the gulf are reporting bad headaches, hacking coughs, stuff if i sinuse sore throats and other symptoms. the material safety data sheets for crude oil and the chemicals used in its dispersants list these very illnesses as overexposure to carbon, hydrogen, sulfate and other chemicals boiling off the slick. bp is not offering people respirators. we just finished, in the other room two days ago, voting $10.5 billion to compensate people who were poisoned by breathing in toxic air after the world trade center cter disaster because the secretary of -- because the head of the epa at that time

lied and said that there were no ill health effects and the air was fine. i very much fear we are recreating the same thing right now. and that bp, and i have a whole group of stories here, seven people have been admitted into the west jefferson medical center new orleans receiving treatment for having contact with dispersants, marine toxicologists said the chemicals used by bp can wreak havoc on the person's body, even lead to death. like other cleanup workers, jackson had attended training class, told not to pick up oil-related waste but wasn't provided with protective equipment. the bp officials told us if we ran into oil, i wasn't supposed to bother us, which is clearly untrue. i fear what bp is doing now going to get thousands and thousands and thousands of ople sick and maybe dead. and my question is do you undertake the respoibility, not to evaluate the claim.

do you recognize that the toxic air produced by the oil and by the dispersants can make people sick and is your responsibility? yes or no? and what will you do to prevent this from happening? you're obviously allowing and requesting people to work without proper protection. >> i realize and i understand your question. we have received as a part of our claims process claims related to bodily injury, however, opa does not contemplate personal injury, but as part of our claim process, we will accept those claims, we will evaluate those claims and we will with address them as they come n. >> but in your evaluation, are you going to reject them because they are caused by dispersants, not oil? that's the real question. are you going to protect the workers or are we going to recreate thousands of people who are sick and who are going to be

debating a few years from now how to compensate? >> we are going to do the right thing. we are going to respond to this in an effective manner. and we realize we will be judged with on our response. and we realize -- >> i will just observe since my time has expired that the answers are totally unresponsive to the questions and i hope that after this hearing that you can get us answers to the specific questions i asked. one, do you accept responsibility for the poisoning of people by the dispersants, either in the air, in the water with as well as by the oil or is that not direct, under your definition? two, what steps will you take to make sure that the people working on the recovery are not poisoned as they are now clearly -- as is now clearly happening to them. i hope you can get us direct answers to those questions and not simply say we will evaluate it. thank you. >> senior member of the committee howard coval.

>> let meut a proceed y'all question to you, if a plaintiff submits a claim for immediate compensation and compensatn is, in fact, afforded, is that claimant permitt to subsequently submit claims if the damages are incrse i guess you don't require a release upon delivery of the first response to a claim, i guess the question? >> just to make sure i understand your question, you're asking whether or t a release is required? >> yes. >> when the first claim is deliverered? a release is not required. >> okay. i assumed that thank you, sir. mr. attorney general, mr. hood. mr. hood energy your testimony, you suggest that state actions related to this oil spill should not be removable to the federal court. now i'm told, may be wrong about this, that tort reform advocates rate mississippi at or near the bottom of their ratings in every category studied.

now, why should we bar removal relad to this spill if mississippi's system is a poor record it may not be a poor record. my information may be flawed. what do you say to that? >> i suspect that the information that you have is probably biased. but -- >> i have been beneficiary of biased reports as well as you have. >> yes, r. yes, sir. me, too. but see, you have florida. you have texas. alabama and louisiana, you have all our states that want -- our attorneys general want to bring our actions in our state courts and have the federal judiciary recognizthat we are a separate sovereign. we wilbe making claims under our clean water acts, under our coastal wetlands protection act. we are trying to recover resources for our states and you know if we get thrown into a mass tort action in houston,

texas, then we won't -- we won't recover all that we are with owed. that is all we want. all we are owed and nothing else. >> thank you, sir. mr. lemmer, let me put a two-part question to you, sir. has cameron international made an assessment yet as to whether it is exposed to any liability under the oil pollution act, a. and b what is cameron international's previous experience with malfunctioning in its blowout preventers? >> congressman, the answer to the first one is we believe we are not a responsible party under opa. that's initially bp. and as we heard today, transocean. we don't believe that we are. with respect to the history of our blowout preventers they can performed excellently over the years. they have gone from the surface to shallow waters to deep water and we have never had an incident like this before. >> i thank you, sir. mr. foley, i think you touched on this in your statement, but if you will, discuss briefly the

cil and criminal penalties that are relevant to this bill under opa and other environmental laws. >> there are civil and criminal

>> 0 restaurant may not be able to get seafood is so they would lose money in terms of sales and the waiters would lose their jobs because the restaurant is closing. \ even a local movie theater may suffer losses because nothing is working.

who sets the standards on who gets paid in all of these situations? >> congressman scott, the starting point is the law, and is opa. what we are doing is following the law, in terms of damages and paying for damages directly related and caused by the spill. losses of income caused by the spill. paying those claims that have been substantiated, those costs that are reasonable and necessary, as the damages have been described in opa. and we are being guided by how the coast guard has interpreted this law for the last three years. >> can we get periodic reports as to what is being paid so we can get an idea of what is getting paid and what is not getting paid? >> yes, sir.

every day we provide the coast guard with a report by state, by type of claim. >> now, there been allegations af fraud, mr. misrepresentation, and everything else. let me ask the attorney general. we are trying to figure out what kinds of damages and liability there should be. what kind of punitive damages and criminal liability should there be? >> this will depend on what the facts are in this case. if we find there was gross negligence, that they should -- they should knowingly have taken action they did not come up that would elevated to the level of punitive damages, which are available under our state actions separately. as far as criminal investigations, it will be up to the department of justice to

make that decision. and i am aware that there are, it is being looked into from of possible criminal ankle. the facts will have to lay that out. i am not able to lay all particular standards that are required for those causes of the action to occur. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> steve king, ranking member of immigration committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it has been an interesting panel this morning. listening to the testimony and questions being asked by the members of this committee, i hear the reflection of what was said and done at ground zero in new york city. and that might inform us as to what we might do here.

i do not intend to support anything that is going to do something retroactively. i will not quote some member on that. i will make the point, as i listened to the panel, i have not heard what went wrong. of all the experts we have, is there anyone on the panel can tell us what went wrong? and, let the record reflect that there is not an answer right now to get. i perhaps direct my question to mr. willis. and that would be, would it be reasonable, in your opinion, that before this congress passed judgment on what mistakes were made by which entity, that we would determine what went wrong before we actually took some action to try to fix something?

>> i am not sure i understand the question. >> we have a blowout preventer that apparently failed. we do not seem to know why. we do not know if there was of high gas pressure bubble down there. we do not have measurements of pressure. i do not know what the control was of the law prevented. all those things down hole, i have not seen those reports from bp or anyone else. i hope you are forthcoming with that data so we can find out what you may know that you have not yet told america cloth but i see a congress that is wrestling with this. i see you're here is a sea hearings all over the hill. yet -- the first thing i believe we should do is find out what went wrong. and we don't know. is there information that bp has that america would be interested in? >> congressman, all i can tell

you it is that since april 20 nightlife focus has been making sure the people that have been heard and louisiana -- since april 29 my focus has been making sure that the people that have been hurt are compensated. >> mr. ferguson, representing halliburton, i assume you are involved in preparations to cement the well. >> the company was, yes. >> you are here as an expert on the legality of it but not the geology of it. >> that is right. that is where i will run in to bumy blank. mr. chairman, i have great difficulty going down the path of determining how congress might deal with liabilities or a message we would like to send of we are unable to determine what went wrong. holding people accountable for something that may have never

been accounted -- in counter before geologically appears to be premature. i would like to do this on the other side of the ideological report. hopefully, we will have the technological report from halliburton, bp and other companies and ball. at that point, we can be objective. it is premature to be at this point, in his testimony that is here today. i will turn my focus on learning what went wrong. at the prado, start putting some of my conclusions together -- at that point start putting some of my conclusions together with the best amount of judgment. i thank the witnesses for coming to testify today. i yield back the balance of my time. >> senior member of the judiciary committee cleared >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do not disagree substantially with what mr. king has said. it is unusual, but it is

interesting that people are already starting to point the finger at each other. mr. lehmer, i take you have concluded that your blois prevention system did not cause this accident. -- your blowout prevention system did not cause this action appearu.s.. as soon as you have people down there investigating and doing what was necessary to respond, i guess the first question i have except where mr. king that left off -- picks up where mr. king has left off. you eem to know what did not cause it. perhaps you could tell us your theory on what it did cause appeared >> congressman, we do not have the necessary facts to make that determination. >> you made a determination that

your company's system did not fail. you must have made some kind of determination in order to be able to make that assessment. what are the possible theories of how this occurred? >> we do not have enough information at this time to make any such determination. >> i do not think you said anything like that at all. i am looking at your testimony. in response to some of his question you said, your company does not have any liability. it was a peak and the other folks. so my question is -- it was a p p and the other fauves. ohtetherd the folks. what are the range of possibilities? that is my question. >> liability under opa.

>> i am sorry if i misrepresented what he said. can you answer the question now? >> the theories go anywhere from a catastrophe down hole, where there is a failure. >> we know there was a catastrophe. >> did the casing fly up into a blowout preventer? did the casing hangar fly up into the blowout preventer? did it try to close on the tool joint? there are a number of instances that would prevent it from closing. then there are the issues of control. from what i understand it, reading in the paper, the attempt to close the emergency disconnect did not occur until after the explosion. it could well be, that that explosion cut the communication between the control and the operation of the bop on the seabed. >> what about the halliburton.

theory? >> like mr. limberer, we appreciate investigations are still going on. >> what do you think happened? >> there were a number of things going on with this well. there were a lot of operations being done. there was a lot of equipment and corks in the well that could have failed. the manner of doing the operation could have been a problem. until the investigation is over with, we cannot identify which one of those -- >> all of those would of been under the control of bp, at some level? >> bp is ultimately in control. >> let me ask you this question, mr. willis. there are already some families deceased, people who died as a

result of this incident. what efforts are you currently making to try to address the needs of those families? or are you waiting on the lawsuits to come and be resolved at the end of the process? >> our hearts go out to the families. >> i understand that. we all of that response. >> my understanding is that each company is addressing the needs and claims of its own employees and survivors. >> how many of those employees were employees of bp? >> none of them were employees of bp. >> who were they employees of? >> they were employees of transocean. >> ok, transocean, where are you? what you doing to address the

needs of the families of the survivors currently, as opposed to waiting on them to go in and prove what ever claim they may have? >> of the 11 lives lost, and none of those were transocean employees. we take responsibility for addressing the needs of those families. we have made a conscious decision to wait until after a memorial service that our company held on this past tuesday to start financial discussions with the families. >> so you are not taking any steps right now, other than waiting on the legal liabilities to be determined. that is what you are saying? >> we waited until after the memorial. we are in touch with those families and their legal representatives. we started the process before the memorial. we did not want to have financial discussions before the memorial. we thought it was inappropriate to interrupt the grieving process. >> to the extent mr. king has

said we cannot do things retroactively, i agree with that, but we can inform ourselves about what the future state of law should be. i would remind my colleagues that, in the upcoming financial regulatory reform debate, and the same issue about to what extent the federal law pre-empts all state law is the same preemption question. all national companies would like to have one national standard and never answered to any state law, be subject to any liability fort -- from any attorneys general, lawsuit, but you'll get an opportunity in other contexts to address this same issue. i hope we will remember this tournament, mr. hood's testimony when we get there. i yield back, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. klingman, the loss of employees' lives are covered by more than just the caps we are dealing with here today. i am not asking you to tell us about the settlements per se, but in overall terms, what is the company's anticipated dealing with the loss of lives, and is any of that affected by the 75 million- dollar cap we are discussing today. >> no. >> yes, representative. no, the $75 million cap that has been referenced applies only to opa, which are environmental claims. that cap has nothing to do with our responsibility for our employees. they are, however, subject to the liability action filed in texas federal urt. how we address that depends on

how those claims play out. what i can commit to you and to the families involved is that from our ceo down we have testified and will proactively resolve those claims fairly and we are to the very outset that have process now. but it is one of our top priorities. >> and the business of drilling rigs, whether on land or at sea, it's pretty dangerous business, isn't it? >> i would say no more dangerous than many industrial workplaces that are obviously a lot of risk factors in offshore drilling. it also has been historically remarkably safe industry, our rig in particular involved here has not had a single incident for more than seven years of even minor injuries on board. >> isn't it true that on the very day that this disaster occurred your people were receiving a safety award for the operation of that rig? >> yes, sir, as ironic as that sounds now, the opeon