they are responsible with respect to dealing with the oil spill.they are responsible for g with all the damages that flow from the oil spill. they're responsible for compensating those that are damaged from the oil l, and the president has been very clear and very direct as all his team has been that we will hold bp accountable. >> are you through -- >> i have more questioning but i'll stop to honorhe time again, thank you for the way you'veonducted youelf today. i appreciate that very much. >> senator stabenow? >> thank you, mr. chairman and weome, secretary salaz. it's always wonderful to see you, although these all wish we were not having to be involved in and to all of you, thank you for your service. this a horrendous situation. and i appreciate the efforts that y are taking and have

takesince the beginning of your term to focus on reforming what has clearly been an process. i think it's important that we learn lessons from history, from the past, otherwise, we are condemned to repeat them. that's certainly a very famous phrase, and i think it's very, very true today in terms of the way we approach the public interest in our jobs as it relates to overseeing what is done in the private sector when it relates to public risk, and in my judgment this has been a perfect storm of alar company that has had according to the records 97% of all of the admiral mullen egregious and willful safety violation being ought by this company coupled with a philosophy that's been in place for the last decade and other times in our history that's basically said, step

back, and let industry police itself even wn there is trendous risk to the american public if they cut corners and we've seen that on wall street. we saw that with miners' lives being lost. we are now seeing it with oil companies, and so i want you -- i'd like you to respo to how we me forward to correct that a little bit more, but i do want to enter into the record something -- a piece of what was in "the washington post" yesterday because i think it's very important. the headline was "bp had a history of problems." and this goes to h we go forward on these situations with companies with these kinds of histories. "a series of internal investigations over the past decade warned senior bp managers that the oil company r disregarded safety and environmental rules and risked a serious accident if it did not change its ways. the confidential inqries which have not previously been made public focused on a rash of problems at bp's alaska oil

drilling operations, they described instances in which the nagement flouted safety by neglecting aging equipment, pressured employees not to report problems and we've heard the same thing here with this instance, cut corners, delayed inspections to reduce production costs. similar themes about bp operations elsewhere were sounded in interviews with employees and lawsuits and little notice state inquiries as well as e-mails. taken together these documents ray a company that systically ignored its own safety policies across its north american operations from alaska to the gulf to california. executives were not held accountable. t some were promoted despite them." it's pretty outrageous. pretty outrageous a so my question relates to knowing that this landed in your lap, i mean, i understand with the new administration, whether it was trying to put us back from the edge on the financial crisis or

millions of people unemplod that landed in the laps of this administration or whether it's this situation, orhether it is this situation. the reality is that we have got make sure that going forward we are changing the philosophy. the philosophy that got us here does not work in the public so secrety, as we look at going forward, the ethics reform in place, the plan put in place to review and so on, the dismmms, dividing it up. do you see the kinds of things? a company like this will bear traffic coming forward that there will be the new tools in place for you and for mms, the

new entities to be able to say no. to be able to stop these kinds of things that have gone on in the past? >> the answer is yes. that i what our full intent and purpose is as we move forward. i would respond in two ways. first the presidential commission that has been formed and the investigations that are underway. we will get to the root cause of what happened here. we have preliminary information that points some to signs that were not caught. problems with cementing. problems with casing. problems we of the back-up redundancy systems, safety systems and so on. so all of that is going be made public and the american people and the united states government will know what exactly happened

here with the root cause known and the actors known, it will lead to whatever results they will lead. that is our invention there. we understand the importance of the critical missions of the mms so the bureau of safety and environmental enfo which we are creating will provide us with that kind of vigorous enfowhicht and the american people want. >> thankyou. >> senator? >> welcome.

i truly believe that the president understands this will take a great deal of review. i want to commend you because i think that you have stayed focused on the three most important things. one, stop the leak. two, start the clean-up. three, see what went wrong and what changes we need to make. i believe i have consistently heard th. le me ask you krks you comment on the agency's involvement in preparing the atlantic coast for any potential fall-out? >> let me just say that the commander on this has been working on making sure we are anticipating the problems that willccur.

we are prepared for the worst casenary j. >> do you believe the areas cover the issues that cause the accident? >> i think that the areas where the safety recommendations are being implement ed for drilling activities in the outer shelf, those recommendations there inputting the national sciences. my view is they are very good and we are headed in the

absolute r direction. whether tre will be additional requireme requirements, we are open to ideas. the goal is we need to have safety when ever we are conducting any kind of operations. >> let me ask you for a very candid answer in case h wanted to comment. has bpt any point refused to do what the government has asked? >> we have wanted them to do somethi something. >> they have not refused anything i have ordered them to do. i am running the operation. it is a national incident.

>> w would like to check back on that. >> i will check with the secretary. >> i was told by an industry technician that didn't work for bp. what steps the entire industry and science community were attempting. everybody from industry, everybody from the science community that might have input is at the table awaiting the stepsforward. is that an accurate statement? and i will say this. in the day or days after the explosion, i pulled together all of the ceos of the companies

that have operations in the outer continental shelf. directed bp to take their input andake sure hay are reaching out for the goal. president dirted secretary and the federal also to be involved in making sur that those are being brought to bare on the items. those are the best mindsf the world focused on this issue and stopping the leak and resolving the probm. the answer to that is yes. >> last question, is the purpose ofhe graham commission. what changes should be made for the future.

>> thank you mr. chairman. good to see you. i wanted to ask you a couple of questions. just to make i am clear about them. many of thendations apply to floating vessels. but i think this could potentlly leave out about 1/3 of what are called mobile offshore drilling units. only one third of those would be considered floaters so, are you consering that definition and have a tighter consideration and make sure we don't have a loophole or is something i missing about the difference between these facilities? maybe mr. black is better to answer this.

i don't know. >> let me just say we are aware of the distinction and the moratorium in place applies deep water drilling. the notice that i tald about earlier that impose a safety requirements for dri occur is now in the shallow water waters i will have steve black comment on the concept of the vessel. >> senator, thank you. if i understand your question correctly, theres usually a different risk profile. the recommendations areintended to cover all of the mobile

drilling rigs. we may need to get more information from you but that is our intent. >> in the term and in definition, you are missing some of those mobile offshore drilling units. i think a big number. so we should look at that. and also i wanted to clarify the report has recommendation to include third party validation of technology and use and aspects of blow-out prevenn tors but it doesn't include a requirement forl top to bottom look at a system or classification by somebody like abs. so why not do that? >> this is one of the principles. the secretary recommended to

thement and the president agreed. with respect to recertification of blow-out safety equipme those inspections should be verified by a third party. not affiliated with the third party drilling partner. and a notice that the secretary put out, we specified that the compan nds to hire a qualified t party ver fier. so it may very well be that somebody with those qualifications would meet that test. >> i think we need to be more specific on your recommendations. you want to understand whether the system is going fail. i am just going off the testimony that we have had from the various people involved and everybody down the line pointed the finger at somebody else. it was supposed to work but you didn't have the right fluid.

or this was supposed to happen. we want to make sure that we are looking at a validation of this, i believe, by thirdparties. we would like to suggest some lang you on that as well. >> if i may, we are obviously open to whater recommendations you might want to give us. they dealt with casing, training, and a whole host of other things. it ask a bunch of recommendations that we are plem this point. if there are things we have missed, please let us know. i am sure as we go forward including getting the recommendations, there will be additional requirements that will have to be imposed.

>> this is going be critical moving forward. i wao you for all of h. your hard work on this. you have been working relentlessly on this national tragedy. you referred to pushing the pause button. there are about three dozen rig s that could lead to costly

delays of projects and endanger jobs that would be there for folks in the gulf. i think the interior department's may 27 report highlights the importance of offshore oil and gas production. it said that the ocs oil approximate gas industry provides high paying jobs and drilling and production activities. estimated 150,000 jobs. the -- i am wondering if in anyway you are looking at our giving consideraon to lifting the moratorium, pushing the pause button soon er. >> senator, the importance of my

mind as well. what we want to assure is that as we move forward with programs that they are going to be safe and that this cirmstance that we are facg with the deep water horizon never happens again. but right now we have multiple inveigations that will culminate through the president's commission. and i think it would be unwise for us to move forward with deep water drilling until we have those recommendations that are in front of us that we can then implement. >> just looking at the bp 583

oil spill response plan that was approved. the plan includes how to protect wall russs, sea lions and sales. none of which live in the gulf. can we will assured that in six months that the pause button will be pushed or doe look at having a stop and extending this a longer period of time, focusing on the economics of that region? information is being developed as to the root cause of the incident.

i hope to work with members of the committee on so we have organic legislation with these functions. we are not waing. 30 day report that we submitted to the president. we worked on that very hard. and ilude d work ining implementation of programs as we speak. >> you had mentioned admiraled that allen and his involvement. he had said that bp has the means to fix the pblem and they need to be held accountable to do it but with proper oversight and that's our job. i was struck yesterday to hear that the president of -- the ceo said he had not actually talked direly to the president of the united states senator earlier

asked had bp refused to do anything that the government asked. a follow up to that is has the government rused to do anything that bp h asked in terms of trying to be helpful to stop this leak? >> i am not aware that the government has refused any request in terms of science from the labs let me respond to the first question. the fact of the matter. the relationship with bp. stoney or andy or lamar, i met

with them on multiple times. they will pay for every cent as well as any damages thatccur from this national tragedy. the directed relationship which i character iize we will contin to have that kind of relationship until we get a conclusion of this incident. >> thank you for your hard work. >> thank you. i appreciate your focus and attention on this issue which is, ocourse, extremely important to t people of louisiana and the gulf coast in a very particular and personal

and emotional way because of what i happening right o our shore. but it's what's happening on our shore that has me concerned right now. and you know what my question is going be and it is one that everyo in louisiana is asking as well as people from missisppi, texas, and alabama. in the appendix of this report, may 27, it lists the name os f experts that you consulted with. i received a letter yesterday from eight of them. a majority. that say they disagree with your decision to impose the six month moratorium. in their words the report does not just fie theatorium as written. it has changed will not contribute measurably to increased safety and will have an iediate and long term economic effect.

it would wreck hoc on this region that exceeds the havoc caused by the spill i will submit to the record testimonies thato one on this panel will recognize because they are not oil companies. acre solutions, the shipyards has been in businessor 64 years. they have never experienced such an uncertain future. they could be laying off thousandof workers. a 27-year-old privately held company. 100 employees based on the gulf coast. their operations will be 99% effected immediately. another provide mapping.

they are not an oil company. they expect lay-offs immediately. the consequences of this moratorium on the 33 deep water rigs where 100 to 200 people work on each one and for every one on the rig there are four or fi jobs direct ly. to our state. and to the gulf coast. the ravages of the storms. we can keep our people at work. get our people back to work.

understanding. potenti potential. could effect 30,000 people in louisiana alone. i don't have the alabama numbers. 13.4% of louisiana's work force. i know not this whole work force is focused on deep water. a shorter time than six months. some confidence that you are doing everything and the president is doing everything they can to get to the root of safety. so we can produce the oil. >> if i may respond to the question. first we have recommendations and i appreciate those

recommendations. it was not their decision, it was my decision and the president's decision to move forward. but i do appreciate the experts and their involvement and point of view. secly the jobs already concerned us but we want to mike shaur that as the development takes place that it will be done in a safe way. that's why the notice that went out yesterday will allow the shallow water development programs still to continue. and the third point i would make, senator, to frame the discussion per hap in this committee. it see to me that we h three options. another option would be what some members o the congress would want us to do and that is just to stop and say no more drilling or exploration activities in the outer shelf.

the place where the president of the united states and i have arrived at this issue is we have put the pause button until we can have a sense of safety that this is never going happen again. we lift our hand from the pause button, it will depend on when we can get to that point. >> let me ask this and submit one thing to the record. for the record, texas uses just the state of texas 1.1 billion barrels of oil nobody is suggesting these numbers are going go down. there are economic risks. some national security risks in terms of less oil being produced domestically as well as

environmental risk and that needs to be balanced. i know that youndand that. these companies have to go out of business or take bankruptcy or lay off thousands of workers. are you going ask bp to pick up their salaries and make them whole? >> the answer to that is yes we will. bp is responsible. and bp is responsible for all the damage and flow from the bp oil spill and these are some of the consequences from that oil spill. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i have listened through the testimony. waiting to ask my question and no one else did until all of the issues i had in mind were just

covered. i won't take my full-time. but simply, calling your attention to the comments made by the outside experts that you turn to. specifically the national academy of engineer iing and a group of them have signed a statement saying we were chose because of our extensive petrolm industry expertise and perspective. and they quote the report and say we broadly agree with the detailed recommendations of the report and compliment the department for its efforts. however we do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium on floating drilling.

they quote the report as they reviewed it and then quote the report as it was changed. and i am not questioning that in anyway. simply quote comments to these folks. they say we believe the moratorium as defined in t draft report is limited moratorium described in the draft report to assure the public that something is being done. a blanket moratorium is not the answer. it will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation's economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill.

awlong the material -- i am sorry. dr. martin, and stipward and thomas williams. i join with the comments of all of my colleagues ining you for your diligence and recognizing the burden this has put on your department. you didn't sign up to deal with an oil spill. you thought you were going be worrying about jack rabbits in the west and occasional wilderness issues. and you had to take this on and you deserve all of the compliments you received from this committee.

i do want to put this in the report with my own observation with respect to the issues that the senator has raised. >> we will be glad to include whatever you have in the record and what the senator offered as well. >> i appreciate the comment that the engineers played and will continue to play as we try to move forward with a new safety regime. let me also just comment that when i s up for this job, i signed up for it because it is the view of america. i describe it as going from sea to shining sea as well as the 1.75 billion acr of the inner continental shelf. we have a job to do to deal with

the future plans.and we will ge. >> senator johnson? you have been doing a great job. i associate myself with the remarks of the senator. do y know whether the moratoriums will have any effect on u.s. oil production? if so, what effects do you anticipate? >> senator, there will be a

report from the moratorm that we have imposed. are aware of the fact that there will be some reduction in oil and gas production? i don't have document in front of me. but i rall reading it sometime late last night. >> what percentage would that ekwa to?

>> are any shallow water productionorps rags halted as a result of the june 2 memorandum? or does the action only affect wells currently in development producing oil? >> senator, the shallow water drilling activies still have to come ply with the safety requirements. our view is that ones that will

be able to be met by most of the companies. >> would you explain which oil and gas operations. >> it's only been minimally effected by the deep water spill so the production online coinues to produce much ofhe energy that we are using here in this nation today.

>> the drilling rigs that are out there. we ordered those compani to get to a place where they could secure the well and then to stop until we give them further orders. >> will you be revisiting to confirm that each operation has been more than temporary abandonment? >> senator johnson we will b making sure including those in

shallow and deep water. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. lete just say i don't think he meant it quite as harshly as it sounded withpect to the issue offed edoffed a adoe less. e president didn't punch that hole and he can't plug it either. the secretary of energy, dr. tom hunter,hom i met with this moing, there is a seriousness of purpose here that has brought together the best minds we have in this country to work with all of you. i wish it had been plugged i the worst way. this raises questions it seems to me about regulations.

>> number one, you talked about bp and their responsibility and their pledge and commitment. the fact is there is is nothing bind in binding i propose $10 billion which is about -- it's just a bit more than the first quarter ofits of bp.

6 or $7 billion. be put in a gulf coast recovery fund that is run by a master that would be selected and per happens a counselorrom bp so you would have joint management from that. i think it is time to move this from a pledge to some sort of binding requirement. if bp would say no, we are not going part with money to put it into gulf coast recovery fund then i think congress ought to be considering what we would do to accumulate tt money.

i will ask you to consider that -- let me ask two other things. one is this issue ofha water versus deep water probably certainly for the bett there will be more regulatis. do you think that the flow would have now been stopped. >> the answer to that is yes, because it is much easier to deal with these kinds of issues in shallower water than i deep water. when you are 5,000 feet below the sea, you can seehe effort that bpas put together to try to stop this leak.

and we are n 51 days into the continuing leak. it speaks for itself. just the difficulty of operating at those depths. some ask the seriousness in bp in stopping the leak. i have seenlans that are running parallel in nature to contain this leak. as i have said before pubically, it is an extensial issue for bp. i do believe they are throwing everything they have at the problem and trying to contain it. that's why the president's directive has been to bring people like tom hunter and other scientists to be sure that they are heard. >> there is a public interest here. clearly bp's interest must be to shut down this gusher.

>> you mentioned tom hunter. i have gotten to work with pele like tom hunter a lot over the last 51 days. they are the best scientists that america has. and it is the president's direction that you have people like the secretary and tom and marsha and a wle host of others oversea. >> he is one of the group of the best thinkers brought together to try to figure out what do we do here. if i have just another moment

ane just say that you look like you could use 10, 15 hours of sleep. i know the hours that you are likely working and we thank you for that. let me ask, a hurrica enters the gul of mexico, wells, rigs and production platform platforms is is there a written plan for this circumstance? >> the answer to that is yes. >>hen they happen in the past, there is down ocrs within the g mexico. the answer, also, with respect to this particular leak is that

it is is one of the issues which secretary and i have insisted there be the capacit it is part of the program. >> let me say that i don't mean that the three of you look awful. when i said that you need sleep. this has been a long period. you have not had a day off. good for you. i think this congress wants to do everything ssiblet can do to be supportive. >> thank you. the folks in theulf are hurting. you all are putting in predijeous numbers of hours at this point. i want to ask you about two policy questions that relate to the report.

areas that the report doesn't get into. for the future, it will be lving door between the close the interior department between the oil and gas intusry. there is a specific law goveing the department involving the outer continental shelf oil and gas program. but it doesn't look to me like it's closing the revolving door. got a job with the company that he was inspecting. th segd one i think concerns me more. as of march 1, 2010.

-- the rule fos block this revolving door are not tough enough. would you be willing to work with me. >> >> if there are things that need to be done which we have put into place since i became secrety of interior. we obviously would want to do that. i know the history o mms perhaps better than almost anybody else.

there were huge pblems there. that's why people have been terminated. people have gone jail. people have been rep remanded. and ultimately what is essentially this blow up of mms and the revolving doorssue is one which we need to make sure doesn't happen. >> let's flow up on it. particularly look at this one that cited involving march 1, 2010. that's an exale to me with respect to the emergency respon issue, i think there is

a general consensus now that the emergey to deal with it as fast as you and i would like. not on a company basis to establish a permanent oil spill response capability. and i am just putting this out by way there are other approaches that resemble this. if it's going be important to strethen the oil spill

response capability, do you think that this is an issue that ought to be examined? >> this is an i that needs to be examined and will be examined. we will address the issue. >> i appreciate the answer. i think what you told me it's on the table. that's what i was hoping for. les go to work as you and i have so often in the past. let's toughen up the conflict rules. particularly as it relates to the revolving door. let's work on the emergency response capability. thank you mr. chairman.

>> senator corker, do you have -- go ahead. >> and just -- i uwith gng bring up the issue again. i am trying to conast wha ars to me to be a very professional response from your department and other professionals to the political responses that occur. and that's all i was trying to do. and i was trying to say that i appreciate the maturity that it seems that crow hayou have disp. on the police call side people move around and try to figure out where best to . and i do thi for what it's worth, that does effect the chain of command. it does effect how pfessionals end up dealing with a crisis when, in fact, the political

impact. hodo you rescue mission like this through the political side. my question is one of i have talked a couple of times a little bit about a story that appeared in the mobile register on april and it talked about having non-flammable boom available so that when a spill like this occurs and apparently there was a preapproval process that took place so that when an emergency happens you burn off the oil. immediately. but you have do that within 24 hours or the oil ends up

since you are here and sin i know he has been talking about that pubically, i am sure row have a pointview on that. i wondered if you might sre it. he seems to think that 90% of the oil could have been burnt if that process -- i am justrepeat. i hope i am not repeating inaccurately. i have heard people talk about the weathernd other kinds of things. i just thought i might give you the opportunity to respond since i know it's out there moving around in the public. >> nator, secretary and so many has really moved forward to

really deal with the boom issue. i know they are doing everything they can with respect to the boom. in terms o bns and booms that could contain oil. so it is a very acte part of the leak containment program that is underway as admiral allen often says we are fighting the battle on multiple fronts. it's been a relentless effort.

they have been relentless in terms of pushing not only bp but the united states government to do everything possible to protect the people of the gulf coast and protect environment of the gulf coast. i can tell you that from cabinet meetings to meetings i have had with him in the oval office. he is the reason some say i am tired today because there is a 51 day march that we have been on and will continue on this march turned president's direction. >> back to the question at hand. what you are saying is that is absolutely not an issue. having flammable boomvailable to jump on that right away is apt for somebody to make a comment in that regard is is

totally off base? >> let me do this. i will have either secretary admiral get back to the senator on the issue. >> that would be good but since i raised the issue, i would love to hear about that. >> i will have them get back to you as well. >> thank you. >> secretary, thank you very much for your time. god speed in getting this problem solved. that concludes our hearing. >> thank [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> see what your member of congress said search the cspan chronicle, everywhere from every appearance on the senate floor since 1987. there is a snapshot of the 111th chris. -- congress. >> a few moments, your phone calls live on "washington journal." the house is back in session at 10:00 eastern to continue with a bill that would establish more federal housing administration requirements. we will have more about the gulf oil spill from the mississippi rep. his district is on the gulf coast. at 8:30