solution that will protect consumers, taxpayers, and our national seccrity. the cleanup has been too slow, indecisive.w, and too%- we want answers and we want them all. we have to worr to ensure that disasters like this never happen again. when that rig exploded and millions of gallons leaked into the gulf of mexico, our economy and our national security i am aware that each witness today was given a lengthy set of questions to answer in advance. many relate to the problem at hand. questions about rig safety, about workplace scenarros, and other rig explosion, and questions about chemical disbursement. .

>> what steps do you believe that the government and private industry should take to reduce climate changed? would you support a cap on fossil fuels used to create transportation fuel tax frankly, i would prefer to bring up the cap and trade bill again on the house floor, because i would prefer that it fell, rather thaa the past by the seven of the

margin that it did last summer -- seven a vote margin that it did last summerr but that is not what we are here to discuss. we are here to discuss what each of the witnesses think what -- think went wrong on the deepwater horizon rig. let us not forget what is at stake, jobs, the environment, and national security. three years ago, when bp was caught discharging into lake michigan, i joined with my colleagues to beat back the attempted pollution of our latk. we worked together to solve the problem. we need a similar but partisanship here today. the gulf of a mexico accounts for almost 1/3 of u.s. oil

production. if we eliminate that supply, the dependency on foreign oil will indeed go up. saudi arabia will be happy. hugo chávez and mahmoud ahmadinejad will be popping champagne, but the consumers will rrmember the good old days when gas was only four dollars per gallon. i asked secretary salazar to ask what went wrong on that the deepwater horizon rig. he said you believed it was preventable, that ii was the result of human error and overlooked safety regulations. [buzzer sounds] i will wait for that.

we will not be satisfied until there is no danger to our environment. let us learn from this awful mistake, fix the problem, clean up the gulf, and look forward to fixing our ailing economy and creating private sector jobs. >> we recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from california, henry waxman. >> thank you for holding this hearing and for your tenacious work on this issue. you have been a true advocate for transparency and admonished traded accountability. accountability.ative%- you have kept the american people informed about the unfolding disaster in the gulf. yesterday, we released a letter excoriating the terrible decisions made by bp in the days leading up to the blowout. time after time, bp has

increased the risks by taking a shortcut. one of the essential questions for today's's hearing is whether any of the other oil companies are better prepared than bp. we ask each of the five major oil companies for their oil spilllresponse plans. on paper, they're very impressive. each document has more than 500 pages. if i might, i will hold up the document that is the contingency plan. but what they show is that exxon mobil, chevron, konica phillips and shell are no better prepared to deal with the major oil spill than the bp. the same companies wrote the five plans and described them as "cookie cutter plans."

much of the text is identical. four of the plant discuss how to protect walruses. there are no walruses in the gulf of mexico. there are key provisions, for preventing a blowout like the one in the gulf, and for worst case scenarios. we found that none of the companies have an adequate plan. it is constructive and to compare at sun's plan with bp's plan. -- exxon's plant with bp's plan. bp will activate the oil spill response plan and assembled a team of technical experts to respond to the situation. here is what exxon mobile says. you can see the text on the

screen. in the event the spills or cannot be controlled by the facility operator or remotely with a safety system, exxon mobile will activate the oil spill response plan and assembled a team of technical experts to respond to the situation. the plans are identical. so were the plans for chevron and konica phillips -- conoco- phillips. shell did not give us a plan, but we were told that they had the same strategies as a bp used that have not worked. on paper, these plants look reassuring. bp's plan says it can handle the spell of 250,000 barrels per day. both chevron and shell say they

can handle over two hundred thousand barrrls per day. exxon says and they can handle over 150,000 barrels per day. that is far more oil than is currently leaking into the gulf. but when you look at the the details, it becomes evident that these plans are just paper exercises. bp failed miserably when confronted with a real leak, and one can only wonder whether exxoo and mobil and the other companies will do any better. it contacteds with the response corp. to provide equipment for a response. all the other companiessrely on this same contractor. bp's plan shows another contractor who will organize spill removal. all of the other companies use a the same contractor. bp's plan relies on 22,000

gallons of dispersant tored in mississippi. so do the other companies. i could go on, but i think you can get my point. these are cookie cutter plans. you re as unprepared as bp was, and that is a serious problem. in your testimony and responses to questions, you say that you're different from bp. but when ou examined the company's response plans for an oil spill, it is hard to share their confidence. hearing, congs to review the evidence and passed new laws pursuant to our regulatory system, but we cannot stop there. our national energy policy is broken. we are addicted to oil and this addiction is fouling our beaches, polluting our

ptmosphere, and undermining our national security. thank you. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from texas. >> thank you. i appreciate you and chairman of waxman holding this hearing to bring our major oil company executives before us and before the american people. i have a prepared statement i am going to submit for the record, but i am going to speak extemporaneously. i have listened with interest to the other speakers. i want to say that in terms of doing an investigation, i commend the majority staff, especially on the oversight investigation subcommittee that mr. stupak cuholds. we are getting the facts out in as fast and transparent a fashion so that the american extent that it is possible to

understand, what happened. there is no question that british petroleum oil company, the owner and chief operator of the reagan that had the accident -- of the rig that had the accident is responsible for the accident. it is the responsibility of our major oil companies do have adequate contingency plans when things go wrong. i am not trying to whitewash the private sector in terms of their responsibility for causing this problem, but i want to point out something that has not yet been pointed out. the five people most connerned about solving the problem are probably sitting before us today. exxon mobil, chevron, shell oil, bp america and conoco-philips have huge interest in getting it right and never being wrong again. if you add market caps to those

five companies, they would not equal the market cap of some of the oil companies owned by sovereign nations such as saudi arabia, venezuela, the republic of mexico. i would stipulate, mr. chairman, that while our major oil companies have caused this, british petroleum is because of this particular problem, i would also stipulate that the gentleman before us are a big part of the solution. if the president of the united states has a better idea of how problem right now he shouud pick up the bone and tell bp hat to doo pitt is a federal issue in terms of the mitigation plan -- it is a federal issue in terms of the mitigation plan, in terms of the cleanup plan, and if there is anyone from president obama on down you can come up with a solution and stop that oil, by up a phone and tell them what to

do. they are not because the laws of nature and the aws of physics do not respond to 32nd sound bites. you have to know what to do. you have to have the engineering and technology to do it. america needs the oil that is beneath the gulf of mexico and in the outer continental shelf. 30% of our oil is coming from the outer continental shelf right now, and 80% of that is coming from deep rigs. of the 8 million barrels of oil and gas that we are producing per day, next year we are only going to be able to produce about .5 or 6 million. we have to replace that energy. since we have rilled in millions of wells on shores since 1870, the fact of the matter is, if you're going to

find significant oil reserves in the continental united states, they will be in the outer continental shelf. we need better energy. i agree that having a 500 page document that is a cookie cutter approach to what to do when you have a problem is not an answer. it is not an answer. you cannot have a contingency plan that says cross your fingers and hope the blowout preventer works. that was the contingency plan. we had not had a major accident on the outer continental shelf in 50 years. everybody had decided that these blowout preventers were so good anddso effective that all you had to do was push that magic button if all else failed and they would work. well, they pushed the magic putton, on the bp rig, and it did not work. german waxman is right. we need more than a cookie -- chairman waxman is right. we need more than a cookie cutter contingency plan. but where i disagree is that the

gentleman before us have the wherewithal, the expertise, and certainly the incentive to put that plan together. -pnow, i do not know what the answers are. maybe we need a full-time safety inspector on these rigs. maybe we need a real time data center somewhere where all the drilling information goes to a central data point where there is somebody in charge of safety that looks at it. it does appear that if people had been lloking for the problem that we now know happened, the data was theee to but they were not looking for that. this rig was 40 days behind schedule and millions of dollars over schedule, and there was a lot of pressure to finish the job.3 whose job it was to make sure that they made the save decision. when you start making a decision after decision after decision that is not in and of itself a bad decision, but cumulatively,

minimizes the safety, eveetuaaly you reach a critical mass and you have an accident that happens. our job, as the watchdogs of the american people, is to get the facts on the table, listen to people who have possible solutions, if there is a federal issue and a federal role let's a dueo it. but when you take a patient to the emergency room, the sslution is not normally to kill the patient. the solution is to stabilize the patient, determine what needs to be done to save the patient, and implement thattstrategy. i will stipulate that amerrca outer continental shelf off the coast of the united states of america, and the five men before us to represent five of the companies in the world, while they are part of the problem,

they are part of the solution. >> the chair now recognizes the chairman of the oversight and investigation committee, mr. is to pack. -- mr. stupak. >> we have been investigating the actions of the bp. this hearing is important because it gives us a chance to other major oil companies. it could be said that bb is the one bad apple in the bunch, but unfortunately, they appear to have plenty of company. exxon and other oil companies are just as unprepared to respond to a major spill in the gulf as bp. i have been examining the oil spill response plan of exxon and mobil, the largest oil company in the united states. in many respects, it is

virtually indistinguishable from bp's response plan and respond plans of the other major oil companies. at this time, i would ask response plans be made part of the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank youu there is one major difference between exxon's response plan and bp's response plan. the section dealing with the media. exxon has a 40 page appendix devoted to how to respond to the press. the media section in the exxon plan directs public affairs personnel to, as you can see on display, maintain on-camera proficiency. it also explains that communication should convey care and concern for the situation and provide relevant factual information.

it sets up a four-tiered system to respond to media inquiries. the highest level dictate special treatment for questions about global warming and the exxon valdez. this plan contains 13 pre- drafted press releases for -palmost any occasion. [buzzer sounds] >> give it a minute here. >> there is a fully drafted press relief for -- press release for an accident at a in exxon mobil facility. six expressed deep regret, while two or more expressed deep sadness. the media section also contains a topic guide, with talking points on over 65 issues.

in five different places, the plan directs the public affairs agent to say, "we comply with all applicable laws and regulations and apply reasonable standards where laws and regulations do not exist." if the public affairr officer is asked about criminal charges, they are instructed to say hat they believe there are no grounds for such charges. this is an accident and they are dealing with it. that response is ready to go whether exxon mobile has any idea if it is an accident or if there are grounds for criminal charges. exxon has anticipated virtually every conversation that the company may need to have with the media in the days ffllowing an oil spill in the gulf of mexico. my problem is, exxon has given%+ far less attention to actually

controlling the spell. while it has a 40 page media strategy, the plln for restores protection is five pages. the plan for oil removal is nine pages. exxon compared -- exxon appears to be more concerned about public perception then wildlife protection. they can, pre-draftedd deeply saddened press release makes the reaction to the deaths of those on the deepwater horizon rig ring hollow. oil company response lans are great for public relations. they allow you to say that you have a 500 page plan that shows you are prepared for any contingency. but these plants are virtually worthless when a spill actually occurs, and that is exactly the kind of misplaced priority that

has led to this disaster. i yield back the bblance of my time. >> thank you. the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the oversight and investigations subcommittee, the gentleman from teeas. > i do have to wonder what penny of us expect to achieve with this hearing today -- what any of us expect to achieve with this hearing today. i know what the folks at home are sayingg they want the flow to stop and they wanted to stop today, but it continues. if anyone here can tell us how to turn that flow ff, tell us today. we did not call this hearing to talk about meaningful solutions to shutting off the flow in the gulf today because this situation really ppesents itself too great an opportunity to give some members of this committee

and impetus for passing even more regulation. likely, there will also be an opportunity to increase energy taxes that americans will pay in the foreseeable future under the guise of energy legislation. the chief of staff has announced that you never want to lead a serious crisis go to waste, and this is a serious crisis. -pbut this committee undermines its own credibility when it capitalizes on tragedy, and this is a tragedy, a 11 lives lost. we should not capitalize on a tragedy to push for the political agenda. i hope the majority of members prove me wrong and that the memmers of this committee will have a laser light focus on the concern of how we stop the leak. that is really all that matters right now. that is all the matters to the shrimpers, the fishermen, that the individuals and the families whose lives have been put on hold while the oil continues to

spill into the gulf of mexico, not on the future involving solar and wind technology, both of which i support, not on how much we invest in nuclear be, and not how much of thisy congress intends to cripple the american economy even more than it already has with job killing legislation. we had thooe debates. we will have those debates in the future. but today, let us keep the focus where it belongs. it is pretty simple. plug the well. stop this bill. clean the gulf. i am going to respectfully request -- i know you have submitted a list of questions. i am going to ask them to include in their opening remarks what ideas they have the will stop the leak. that is the answer we want today. if this hearing is not about stopping the lee, why are we in the alternative, if the witnesses do not have an answer to that question, then one might

suggest that this committee postponed this hearing until we have the witnesses in front of us who can answer that question. finally, i believe that the majority is looking at crafting legislation in response to this bill. i am concerned that this will lead congress to do what it so often does, russia into writing legislation with really no thought to what the concept -- rushed into writing legislation with really no thought to what the consequences down the road might be. a week ago we heard pretty tough testimony from two of the widows, two women who have lost husbands on the deepwater horizon. both would as stated unequivocally that they believed that the current regulatory requirements for offshore drilling are more than sufficient to keep the men and women working on those offshore rigs save. the question then becomes whether those regulations are being properly enforced.

one woman told our committee, "after all of the safety schools, meetings, and fire regulations, i just knew he would stay safe." we need to focus on enforcing the regulations we already have in place. the next one and followed with her statement, "i am not here today to suggest that congress implement more safety regulations, but rather to encourage to hold companies accountable for safety regulations that are already in place and nearly neglected." she went on to say that offshore drilling accounts for 75%-80% of all of the jobs in her little town in louisiana. she said that less offshore drilling would devastate the local economies of not only coastal louisiana, but also the economies of other gulf coast

communities to rely on offshore drilling and oil rig in jobs. every job on the rig 3 responsible for four-five jobs on shore. when all is said and done, we need to find out why our federal agencies, charged with enforcing safety regulations, appeared to feel as if that job was unimportant. we need to find out why they were asleep at the switch. certainly, we need to hold any party accountable at the federal level that skirted safety measures. but first, we must stop the leak. i will yield back the balance of my time. >> in the chair will recognize himself. as i mentioned in my opening statement, the response plans for all of the oil companies are virtually identical to bp's. theyyare just as division. as you can see by looking at the covers -- they're just as

deficient. as you can see by looking at the covers, the pictures are the same for each plan. all that is changed is it the color of the cover of the plan rom each of the company'ies seated at the table. on page 6 of your plan your list walruses' under biological -pand human resources. as i am sure you know, there are not any walruses' in the gulf of mexico, and there have not been for 3 million years. how and exxon have walruses in their response plan for the gulf of mexico? >> those response plans to incorporate a number of broad

based marine mammal studies, many of which are part of the statements put together by the mms. much of the response plan is prescribed by regulation, including the models that are used to project a different scenarios for oil spills. many of the statements and representations -- >> and these are regional oil spill response plans. how can walruses' begin their response plan for the gulf of mexico? this is a regional plan that each company had to put together. >> it is unfortunate that walruses were included. were included.rassment that the- but that is part of a larger marine mammal plan used in preparing regional response plans. >> your plan as