[captioning erformed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] mmf has to sign off on these. now with the federal regulator who is signing off on these plans, why they not at this table? we have yet to have a hearing with the federal regulator who has a role in this disaster. you are here giving your time and testifying. the federal regulators who are responsible for approving these plans, who approved the inspections of the blowout preventer -- there is no excuse

for this. if we are serious about getting to the bottom of this, we will have the federal regulators here so we can talk about the real things that were done -- and i want to get to the report from the secretary of the interior. and we have a copy from the majority of the commission, that the secretary of the interior was using as the basis for his ruling, they said that they believe that this report does not justify the moratorium as it is written. and the changes made in the wording may be counter to the law. the secretary should be able to think whatever he believes is correct but he cannot use this to jussify his political decisions. the majority of the members of this commission, that they have been hiding behind, the president has to stop putting

politics over science, and actually focus on his job, which should be directing this response. you should pay the bills and the president should be the quarterback on the field. the local leaders should not have to go to you for approval. this is still not happening and this is something that needs to change. i would like to submit this for the record. >> without objection, this will be in the record. and for the record, we've had testimony before the committee, with the department of the interior and the coast guard. >> will the gentleman yield? >> and we have the deputy secretary of the department of the interior. >> the only day that we actually had testimony is the day that

the secretary was conveniently why have we not have the ability to reschedule and have them come before the committee. they will not give us the information on what was done to the oil rig. >> this was the day that this person resigned. but the person who came to substitutes was someone who is higher in the rankings inside the department of the interior. >> but they do not work for this agency? >> the chair recognizes a member of the subcommittee? >> >> i find it incredible but some people want to blame the president, the same people who do not want the president to intervene against private industry.

they say the president should somehow do something. tonight, we will hear the president saying a lot of important things, and he is trying to do a great deal. i want to read some quotes and nasty to comment on them, these things that some of you have made. use of that industry has developed the technology and the experience to produce these resources safely with the minimal environmental footprint. in 2009, he said that you believe you have the capability in the experience to develop these resources and not compromise environmental performance. the ceo of chevron told congress that all the offshore areas could be developed with minimal environmental impact, and in 2009, you told congress,

for those who continue to question the safety of the offshore energy operations, i can only talk about the record in the gulf of mexico. if we cannot believe what you had said in those days, how can we believe anything that you say right now and any thing that you will say in the future? we were told at everything would be fine. this is one of an accident -- hell of an accident. how can you give us your assurance when this means nothing? do you have an answer for any of these things? >> i will stand by my statement with respect to their performance. >> do you believe that industry has gathered the experience to lead a minimal environmental footprint? >> with the procedures that have

been developed by the industry are followed, this has been the case. >> how can we feel comfortable about this process and that the technology will be followed. this is obviously not what happened here. >> are you asking me? >> i am asking you. >> we did not have the problem. i cannot answer this. >> perhaps he can answer this. >> the tragic accident that happened is going to have a combination of factors that will be part of the decision process and the equipment. the investigations are important to understand how this chronology has worked. i do have confidence that we will understand what happened here. i have strong confidence in this, and i believe that there will be improvements that will be made so the industry will get back to work.

>> let me ask you this. what infuriates the american people and myself, is that after the accident, every single day that bp was trying another method of trying to plug the hole. and this was failing every time. this is mind boggling to understand why there were not safeguards in place oo technology in place, so that you would know immediately what to do. >> this is unfortunate, this particular incident took place when the rise a package did not come up on the blowout preventer. we had 4,300 feet coming off of phis, and the access to that, to

be able to do anything from the top -- >> it never occurred to anybody that this could happen? >> not in that way. nobody could predict this. it was supposed to release from the blowout preventer. >> does this mean that oil drilling is inherently risky? >> there are risks, as was mentioned a few moments ago. i think that the systems -- that are available to the industry -- the important resources here can be developed. >> what is this only seem to happen in the united states? there was the exxon valdez, and there is drilling in the north sea and we do not hear about things like this. are the oil companies in the united states cutting corners? >> i would say that there are unfortunate tragedies across the world.

probably the worst disaster in history was in the north sea. we have these things happening across the world and we have to improve from each one of them. >> does this show that oil drilling is inherently risky and there can always be a disaster? >> the track record is overall, very strong. but we have this tragic accident that we have to learn from. >> nobody is saying "drill baby drill" anymore. it is ridiculous that this could happen. and there is no response. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we now recognize a member of the full committee, the gentleman from new york. >> thank you. i am wondering if we're all not saying the same thing. and that is that bp should not

be in charge of anything in this operation anymore. they have said, in different ways, that there is very little credibility that you have in telling us what is going on. these numbers have been wildly underestimated. it is very clear that you are conflicted when it comes to settling claims with people victimized by the negligence. you want to pay less and they want to get more. nor control over the access to the media, you are conflicted. and you want to portray this in a certain way. members of the media want to know if you are telling the truth. and even people frustrated with the president are asking why we trust you to do anything. and i think it comes down to the basic notion that before gentleman to your right, they basically said that the well- managed company that was doing

things responsibly would not have had this issue. they would have had this information and they looked at this and say that corners were cut, and that there is no credibility in the basic elements of how this was done. and i wonder what you say to the american people when they say, by any of this should be believed. what have you done to establish any level of credibility. even your supporters, the people who will go to their political and saying, "drill baby drill," the president is responsible for trusting you. i do not understand why, on any level going forward, you should be in charge of this. why should this process be under any control of british petroleum. why should we not take the money that will be paid off in the

billions of dollars and give this to someone independent and they will say, which claim is legitimate. why should they have this in their control? >> we have been very clear from the start. we will pay everything that is legitimate. we have set up the network. >> what depends -- what makes someone legitimate? >> do you believe that you are conflicted in deciding if you will pay money that you will have to pay to victims. are you conflicted? >> i think this walks the line -pof being a rhetorical questio. you are clearly conflicted. let me ask about the access to the media, trying to find out what is really going on. there are some reports that in trying to get access, a member of the media would have to check with bp bout if they get aspect

-- access to the largest ever environmental disaster by bp. do you believe you are conflicted in having any decision making role at all in whether they will be able to get access home to the environmental disaster that they created? >> i am not familiar with the protocol. >> under no circumstances should any member of the media who is wanting to get this information ever have to call them to get clearance. >> they may be acting under instructions of unified command. i am saying that i do not know the protocol. >> this issnot the question i am getting into right now. i want to know if under any circumstance -- should anyone who has been so horrible at making decisions -- the one thing that we know from this hearing, with complete certainty, is that you created the problem with your own negligence, with your own corner

cutting. and this is not someone like you who wants to reduce the amount of drilling. it is the gentleman to your right is says that we should be doing more of this. in this context, why should the american people, when bp says something, should they not throw the newspaper over their shoulder? why is there any decision making left in your hands? what we have here is that there are opportunities for us to not make the same mistake over and over again. if we know they're conflicted about truthful information, any access to the american people should not go through them. if they are wanting to understand the costs, as they tried to take as much as they can, why do they have any of these claims? and why should there be any decision making at all?

and one thing my republican friends who want to criticize the administration, maybe we do need to have them involved in less, with anything to do with the environment and the citizens going forward. you are saying that we are going to pay all the legitimate claims, i want to know who will say what is legitimate. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we're going to recognize two members not on the committee, and they represent the gulf of mexico. we will begin by recognizing the gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you. the oil disaster has caused great economic impact in my district. hundreds of businesses have closed and thousands are out of work. mr. mckay was asked to resign.

in my culture, we do things differently. we would give you a knife and ask you to commit hara-kiri. what they would like for me to ask you to do. without having been said, this process has been -- this has been dismal. and one week into the oil spill, i approached bp about establishing an account and i received no response. and now that the president is asking this, what would be your response. >> i do not think any decisions have been made on the trust account. we have said that we will pay all legitimate claims and the whole company will stand behind this. the decision for the trust fund

has not been made just yet. >> i have hundreds of constituents who say that they are legitimate and you are saying that they are not. how do you respond? >> i do not understand the individual claims. if these have been submitted, have they been rejected? >> they have been delayed, and if their life is on the line, they cannot afford the delay. >> i know that if there are issues, that we should talk about offline, i will be glad to do this. >> i want to ask a question to the panel. the moratorium is affecting louisiana in a very tremendous weight. do you have the technollgy to

know where the oil reservoir is? to you have the technology to know this? do you know how deeply that you have to drill before you go into the oil reservoir. >> let me just say, to a reasonably high degree of accuracy -- >> what is reasonable? >> i would have to get an expert to tell you, in the gulf of mexico, how many feet -- how many feet below are you? >> what group exists if you were going to drill an oil well, possibly? what are the risks involving that? would there be a tremendouss risk, minimal risk, is there a risk of having a blowout like we did over the deep water horizon?

>> in response to another question, most -- a lot of these issues and blowouts have occurred prior to ever reaching the objective. hazards with shallow gas and overpressured salt water may lead to well controlled problems. the issue is that you do not have a lot of oil coming out of the oil well. there may be natural gas coming out instead. this is a risk-management process, to build with the objective. i have two concerns. the administration will need extra time to implement these protocols, but on the other hand, i am in the process of losing thousands of jobs in indiana.

well allowing companies to drill partially, without allowing them to tap into the oil reservoir, will this create tremendous risks? the reason i am looking into this solution is because, it will allow the administration time -- we will try to keep the oil rig into not throwing anything out. >> i have spoken to sen. about what is taking place and the industry has made department of the interior has made recommendations, it is

important that they be adequately staffed, to the revised permitting that is being put in place. >> the time has expired and the gentle lady from taxes is recognized. >> thank you for your courtesy. so many of us have indicated that we have come from the region where so many constituents have been impacted, -pevery single day by the conditions that we are facing. and in the area of the gulf, we consider ourselves family. so many of my constituents are related to the energy industry. the gentleman before me has a major opportunity that i think has been characterized by my colleagues questioning today. there is a high degree of mistrust by the american people.

although after 9/11 and the tragedy and the terrorist acts, america did ggt back on their airplanes and they were buying into the fact that this is part of the american life. i think you have a major challenge, because you are looked upon -- maybe we know you in the local communities but most americans have no stake in the energy industry. most of these discussions on national energy policy is divided. the logic will appeal to the other people if this is appropriate and they will castigate people on the other side. and i would like to raise the quession of making the discussion of national energy policy. we are not characterize from regions, or what pollticcl party that we are from, or the ethnic

background. we come together and we begin to assess how we can restore the faith of the american people that this is an industry that is part of the national security. you do not know us and you do not want to know us. i will ask this very quickly. the main visual that has been shown, is the oil in the water. my question for each individual here, what is your willingness of an investment in the fund that would immediately -- the immediate long-term issue of the oil in the water. beyond the explosions and a loss of life, i have met some of the victims' families, and that offer them my deepest sympathy, as i did when some of my constituents were working -- what is the investment that you would be willing to make?

may i quickly ask you? and because my time is short, we will go down these lines in an answer. >> congresswoman, we already speed money and there are academic studies under way. and i think that these commissions should consider the accumulation of what is currently under way in containment and cleanup, and see if this is being spent on the right things. and the commission to play a great role in accumulating this to discover if this research needs to be better-focused, especially with what we have learned from this incident. >> would you be willing to have a fund set aside? >> we are willing to participate. >> this is marvelous. >> we are absolutely willing to participate. >> we have announced that we

have $500 million -- >> the industry may come together to design this and give more expanded and sophisticated recovery plans? yes or no? >> based on what we have learned from this, we will all want to do this. >> we will go down the line. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> there are a number of legislative positions moving forward. i would like to know if you support the removal of this cap, long standing. we have said that this is irrelevant. >> i think it is time to look at the whole program. >> i think that we should look at considering raising this, with this judgment. >> we have to look at raising at a way that will make this

compatible with the appropriate development that congress andd the administration desire. >> based on the incident, the question of the oil spill -- will still needs to be revisited. what is the purpose of the trust fund, and maybe you would give us guidance on how to set the cap. >> there are females in these materials that say that this is a crazy well, and someone else was making comments about this, and there is a problem with the claims process. we have to say that this is not working. i will ask you -- he will be before the committee, quickly, pill you please answer with the establishment of a separate claims process, to make these determinations? you cannot make this -- that all of these restaurants are in shambles. will you consider this?

can you accept this process? >> we will have the independent mediator who will help us, and we are looking at other suggestions for improvement. >> i do not believe that this will work, and i think that we are dying in the gulf, beyond getting back to this issue of the moratorium. you have people losing their jobs. you have to improve this system and you have to move right now. >> her time has expired. the chair makes a request that3 questions, for the record. and without objection, so ordered. this has been a very historic hearing, we are in a very historic time. this is the single worst environmental disaster in the history of this country. the american people want to know

how this happened, and why the response is so inadequate, and what we are going to have to do to make certain that this never happens again. that is why the attention of the american people is riveted on this issue, and you gentleman, who are the ceos of the largest oil companies in this country. you said that you are not -- you cannot deal with these sorts of oil spills. with all the billions of dollars that you make, you apparently pannot afford the experts who can tell you, collectively, that walruses and seals do not live in the gulf of mexico, and also those who cannot stop this oil leak.

bp has 47 leases, and exxon mobil has 14. chevron has 51. shell has 28. conocophillips has 10. you do not pay any money in royalties, to the american people with the people of the guuf of mexico, for the right to drill for oil, and make billions and billions in profit. when you are asked if you can't stop the massive quantities of oil that are now running the beaches, killing the wildlife and devassating the economy, you say that you are not well- equipped. the catastrophic impact is simply unavoidable. this is unacceptable to the people in the gulf of mexico. this is unacceptable to the this is unacceptable to the people of this