howay, many vessels do you have in the area of this bill -- the spill to collect the oil that is received? are you going to run out of capacity to collect the oil that you are receiving? >> we have two per day receiving oil. we have several being outfitted to arrive in the next couple of weeks, and we have an additional two on the way that should be outfitted and functional potentialll by mid-july. obviously, that is not counting other vessels picking up oil on the surface, but in terms of taking production off the well, we will have up to roughly six that will take direct production ii the very near future. . .

first of all is that plan for whole of your operation, or is it item by item or specific site by a specific site? starting with mr. tillerson.

>> there is a gold regional plan, and with each well, there would be a plan to support that well's activities and operations. cookie cutter characterization should not be a surprise. the industry relies upon sharing of resources. in working with the coast guard and federal agencies, what we really should have is a unified plan. it does not matter who's well as the problem. when we have a problem, we need to respond with everything available. the plans look the same because they call upon the same resources to respond. >> gentleman, with each of you submit the date of those plans -- you do not have to do it now. i will ask it to be inserted into the record.

nor am troubled here -- now i am troubled here that everyone is blaming the administration for the events that are going on down in the gulf area. i am curious -- what is the practice, if you please, starting with mr. tillerson, does the federal government takeover when there is a spill- cleanup? or is that the esponsibility of the operator? >> well, the coast guard has command of the incident after youuhave this bill. the responsible party looks -- works in the unified command structure on the spill response. the coast guard does ultimately make final decisions on your actions. the actions have to be approved by the coast guard, but it is very much done in a joint fashion. and the coast guard makes a

determination of when certain cleanup activity should be undertaken, how they should be undertaken, and when you should stop. those statements?you agree with >> i do. the incident commander is the coast guard and final decisions are by the coast guard under that command structure. i agree with the statement that much of this is collaborative in terms of this decision making, but final deployment -- >> in the case that we're discussing here has the coast guard made a recommendation with which bp did not agree? >> no, i don't think there had been any recommendations that the bp did not agree. the decision is to work together

through the unified structure and the major decisions have been in a desperate for with our support. >> has there been any conflict between the administration and bp with regard to the cleanup that has been going forward? >> on the spill response within a unified command structure, there have been debates about deployment and when and where and how. that is part of the structure. thh decisions that have been made have been supported by bp. >> is it for you -- your view that the government to take over the cleanup, or should ttat remain as it is now, or should it be the sole responsibility of the operator or the holder of the lease? >> overall, the command structure and the way the national emergency plan as well

as the gulf of mexico plans work is affected. i understand everyone's frustration at how long this is taking. this spill response has been effective. we have not been able to get it stopped and we're doing everything we can to do that. i think the command structure has actually been functional and they have been the foundation of that. >> now when one recommendation, that the secretary has made, he recommends that there be the finalization of a role that would require the operators of drilling wells to develop robust safety and environmental management systems for offshore drilling operations. in 2009 when this was first proposed, theeoffshore operators' committee and the

american petroleum institute raised concerns about it. you are all members of both bodies. pould you suppoot -- is there anyone at the table who would not support the finalization of that rule? i notice, mr. tillerson, chip got the same problem i did. i'm not coming through very well, i'm afraid. would you support the finalization of that rule, sir? >> i am not clear on what role you are referring to. >> in one of the secretary's recommendation, the finalization of the rule of operators to develop robust safety and environmental management systems for offshore drilling operations.

my question to you -- would you support such a reeommendation? that is known as the sems rule. >> i would have to look at the specifics. i don't remember enough of the details. i am sure that we would have reasons if we were concerned of -- concerned with it. >> could you ppease submit yourr comments on that to the committee. mr. chairman, i thank you for your courtesy. jim and i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman.+ let me go back to a rhetorical question i proposed in my opening statement. everyone with the exception of mr. mckay said, if there is any idea that would stop that leak from occurring in the gulf of mexico, is there something you could share with us that has not

been tried that will bring a rapid conclusion to this. we know bp does not have that idea. to many of the rest of you? >> we have provided our experts to assist, congressman. i am not aware of any ideas. >> no ideas or suggestions that have not been taken up. we know that bp has not been to the white house to talk to the president. have any of the rest of you had conversations with the white house about the management of the situation in the gulf? mr. tillerson rrmark >-- mr. tillerson? >> that was a very brief conversation. >> with the president or with his advisers? >> with both.

>> let me ask you a question. a week ago we went down to the gulf and had a hearing on the investigation. we heard from workers on the rig. i did not get a bit of information that date from yourself, transocean, halliburton, and others. i learned a lot more from the ladies talking about the phone calls that they had with their husbands, phone calls, when they came home for visits. there seemed to be a lot of concern about things that are happening on the rig. have any of you work on a rig? >> not a deep water rig, but i have worked on rigs during my career. >> it is that unusual? i go home and complain about mr. markey a lot. [laughter] it is that usual to have that level of anxiety that these

people were sharing with their wives about the safety conditions on those offshore rigs? >> congressman, i have not looked at their testimony in detail, so i cannot comment directly to that. there were clearly things going on at this well in the days and hours prior to the loss of control. we are interested to understand and it is not completed this point. i cannot really say. well control is part of drilling. you're trying to drill into the forces of mother nature and hold that back in a controlled fashion until you can secure it. it is common to be dealing with well control issues on a well in a routine matter. the reason you have well- design and the training sets is so that you can deal with us.

you may have to occur kipp -- circulate a kick out so that you can continue operation. you have to have well bore integrity and good equipment and -ppeople that know what thhy're doing. when you have those things, you can deal with well control issues and maintain the integrity of the well and not lose control of the well. >> had any of you ever ceased operations on the well because this was difficult to control? >> yes. >> the answer is yes. that does happen. who would generally make that call? will be transooean or bp here? would it be the owner of the platform for the driller -- for the driller? judge >> we is the owner and operator of the well would make that decision. depending on the severity of the issue and what was at stake, it

would be made by a line manager somewhere in the organization. there's been one instance and that came to my mind. >> you talk about natural gas in the use of natural gas is one of those bridge fuels to the future. gas on land where it is not an issue with trap -- drilling a mile down in the gulf. we had issues of where it is occurring because it is closer and closer to civilization, and sometimes right on top of civilization.. mr. tillerson mentioned the loss of the public trust with the industry. what are you doing to create the best practices so that people on land who were nearby and gas drilling operation can have the comfort that their safety is protected, that they are not being expooed to contamination

of their water? how are yoo takkng a leadership role in the industry to be certain that those things are being handled appropriately? >> we have group experience as a company and an industry, and we share those practices. ago is that fundamentally to how you plan, design, execute, and complete those wells. are you developing infrastructure, so that as you bring that gas to the marketplace, you have had in place in a way that they are secure and safe. we really feel -- and we have many decades of experience that this can be done. there is nothing that you need from a technological point of view for our ability as an industry to develop the gas resources that can be developed

in north america. it is a tremendous resource. our country is blessed with natural gas. it is not just a transition fuel, it isn't tentacle part of what we will need for our society and for our economy. >> i may have additional questions for you on that issue. i would appreciate you working with our office so that we can be confident of best practices. in my neighborhood, it may not be a security thing. and i will yield back to the chair. >> the chair recognizes the chairman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee, mr. stupak. >> mr. waxman and i sent a letter yester day, and you coold respond a little bit to it. we found some areas where we think bp should have done things differently to get control of this well. you use the word "nightmare

well" and one of the e-mails that we put in our report. i was struck that in your testimony, based on the industry's extensive experience, you state that what we do know is when you properly design wells in the range of risk anticipated, build and layers of redundancy, properly inspect and maintain equipment, kennuck test, and drill on best practices, that incident that we are witnessing in the gulf of mexico today should not occur. i mention that because the saying -- the exact same words are there in your testimony, but it is attributtd to the vice-president of exxonmobil global affairs. in your 500 page response, you stay on script. i have to compliment you.

you are all on script and you are using the same words. that was the problem with the well that mr. waxman pointed out in his testimony. if it was not bp but one of you, one of your companies, if that was you in the blowout happened on april 20, if you had received a call that there was a subsea blowout -- below which are well, what you have been as prepared to stop the leak and stop oil from reaching the sensittve coastal areas? would your company be ready, mr. tillerson? >> we would've been ready to implement our oral response plan. that 500-plannyou referred to. >> non on oil removal. that would ave been enough to keep the oil from hitting the gulf shores? >> if t done what it says it

was intended to, and to the maximum extent practical. >> how about you, mr. watson? >> our emphasis is on prevention of the spill. >> short, but let's say you get the call on april 20, it was your well. what would you have done?? >> we would of exercise proper work authority. we use stop work authority. >> you're well below what. what would you do? >> we would activate the spill response plan to remove the old. >> my concern is chevron and shell in your case, its 200,000 barrels a day in your response plan. that is a lot more than is currently leaking out into the gulf. on paper, these plans might seem

reassuring. the reality shows that you cannot prevent oil from reaching the gulf shores. mr. tillerson states a response that exxonmobil prepared for these the mets -- commitments in its permit including a worst- case scenario. do you stand by that statement? >> i do, because the permit does not guarantee that the oil will not get to shore. nor does it guarantee that it will all be contained. >> where it 40,000 barrels a day? 40,000 is what we have been saying. exxonmobil's worst case scenario is for 160,000 barrels per day. how can you say you wwuld be a lot of control of spill four times bigger than the current spell using the same plan that bp has with the same contractors bp is using? >> as i said, we would use the response capability to the maximum extent practical.

and in the model that we provide as part of the permitting in conformance with what the regulatory bodies required -- >> your plan is written for the same contractor that bp has. so if you cannot handle 40,000 barrels, how would you handle 160,000 barrels per day that you indicated? >> when these things happen, we're not well-equipped to deal with them. >> in worst-case scenarioo, we cannot handle them. correct? >> we are not well-equipped to handle them. there will be impacts as we are sending -- as we are seeing. and we've always said that. that is our focus on keeping these things from occurring, because when they happen, we're not well-equipped to deal with them. that is the enormity of what we're dealing with.

>> these are cookie cutter plans and we call upon the same resources. the resources for bp are not enough. no matter which one of the oil companies had the blowout, the resources are not enough to prevent what we're seeing day after day on the call. not only the loss of 11 people, but the oil washing up on the shores. there is no other plan. there is no way to stop what has -phappened until we cap this we. correct? >> that is correct. >> there but for the grace of god go i. he could be chevron tomorrow. >> not if we follow our practices and procedures in >> but the worst-case scenario is well on our shores. >> is a plannthat mms and the coast guard requires to

calculate according to their methodologies. but the point is, we have to take a risk that -- we have to take every step to make sure that this does not happen. we're not well-equipped to prevent any and all damage. there is damage that will occur. >> we cannot respond to a worst- case scenario. >> our response is underway and is having some response -- some affect. but there is no response that will guarantee no impact. it will probably never exist. >> if we cannot handle 40,000, how can we handle 160,000? >> tony hayward will be on capitol hill this week to test the four before a house energy and science subcommittee.

all of our recent coverage related to the bp oil spill is available at c-span.org /oilspill. also there, the president's address from the oval office. we heard a perspective from two people. >> present obama is going to give a speech about the bp oil spill. what would you expect the federal government to do about the situation? >> i'm giving you my opinion. there really is nothing that they can do. i have been here now for a few days. bhatt a boat down here to put it to work. bp is doing everything for these people -- they have got a better than they have added a long time. it should not be put in that kind of a light. i don't know what else the government could do.

they have got all these people working, they got hundreds of boats down here, how many thousands of people. i have watched this go on in person for the last couple of days. boats are taking off every mooth -- every morning. i don't know what else could be done except bringing the national guard in if they thought we needed to do that. i just don't think there's anything that can be done by them that is not already being done, personally. i don't -- they stayed sitting on the sidelines, but it's something he don't know nothing about. nobodyyin the white house does except maybe the last vice- president. will leave that right there. i had been in the oil industry all of my life. i mean, there are a lot of

things that pushes to deep water drilling that don't have nothing to do -- we've got things in california and alaska. we do not need to be out there. but we are. >> i've been here my entire life. i am bound and determined to stay. >> i noticed that you have a bunch of signs out on the side of your restaurant. >> their frustration. you wake up, you go to bed tonight, you go to sleep and wake up, you see the same exact thing on the news. no progress whatsoever. they tried to say things to make you feel better but it is not working. >> president obama s giving a speech tonight about the oil spill. him? >> let's say. what could obama say that what

impressed me or make my opinion of him changed at this point? i don't think there s much he can say except he needs to stand up to bp and any one that tries to step on us, because in my opinion, this is why we're fighting an invasion from another country. it is noo just the gulf coast. it is our entire country. and as one of my signs show, we have obama surrounded by black representing the oil, and bp surrounded by a dollar signs. it is not just the pelicans and the animals out on the edge of the gulf, it is human life that is drowwing by the soil. -- this oil. >> tony hayward will testify

before a subcommittee of the house energy and commerce subcommittee. that is live thursday on c- span3 and c-span.org. tomorrow morning on "washington journal, klaus corke simon -- 1 "washington journal," simon lomax and scott garrett. and walter isaacson will talk about the u.s. mmlitary using dioxin can eminence during the vietnam war. according to a new report, 150,000 children are still filling the effects of the contamination. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> it is campaign 2010 your way3

we make it easy to follow the primary season from the campaign trail and the debate today -pvictory in concession speeche. all free online anytime. >> now hearing on afghanistan including president obama's 2011 goal of starting the withdrawal of u.s. troops from the country. the head of u.s. forces in afghanistan and iraq, the general david petreaus, testifies before the senate armed services committee. the general fainted about an hour into this hearing. he said it was due to dehydration. >> good morning today. today the committee receives testimony on the progress in afghanistan from under secretary of defense for policy secretary

flourney, and general david petreaus. general petreaus, please extend the thanks of all of us to the men and women serving in afghanistan, for their valor, dedication, and service to the country. they deserve our support and i know this committee gives them their full support. >> of would be happy to do that. >> last month a milestone was reached when it was announced that for the first time more u.s. troops are serving in afghanistan than iraq. this month marks one year since general stanley mcchrystal took command of the naked-let international security assistance force. the news from afghanistan recent weeks has been largely negative. the increase in casualties among u.s., coalition, and afghan security forces.