cut and the national program being slammed down, what would you do to keep the best and brightest teachers in our state, especially in the rural areas? >> we should not be talking about this. we should not be talking about teacher layoffs. what we need to make sure is it that money is not going to the teachers, students, and technology in classrooms, it is not going to the right place. .

. we will continue with our questioning right now. we will talk about immigration. this is in the forefront of our campaign. your estimate that this is a two-part question. how is there any possible way to know that illegal immigrants are in the stakes? >> that is the best guess.

i asked them to speak. illegal immigration shows that every state is a border state. i applaud jim brewer. she is trying to take her state back. the federal government has not done that. south carolina can do a couple of things. we can hold our employees accountable. who they hire is who they say they will hire. we will enhance our immigration laws with some common sense additional things like what they did in arizona. we can implement a plan where we train our local and state law- enforcement officers on how to enforce immigration law in south carolina. we are doing it in charleston and buford. it is actually working. we can be masters of our own

destiny. >> you say that workers earn $86 million a year. say that we did for all of them. who will fill these jobs? a lot of them are hard labor jobs. >> i hope that they would the south carolinian. the last i checked, it was 11.6% unemployment. we are looking to put people back to work in south carolina. if they are here legally, god bless them. we have laws to do that. if you want to come into this nation and do it legally, god bless you. if you or knowingly and wantonly breaking the law, then we will do what needs to be done and that is to enforce the law of this land and get you out of this date. >> before we move to the next question, i would like you to weigh in on the illegal immigration issue.

>> i amoco sponsor the illegal immigration reform. as the daughter of immigrants, we are a country of immigrants, but we are also a country of laws. in when you give up being a country of laws, you give up everything. >> south carolina passed a little reform. there are penalties for breaking that. they did not put the first dollar in the prosecution fund until we start looking at the stimulus package. that is why government needs to be accountable. they cannot just tax something, we have to know that works. the question that you ask congressman barrett on what you would do for these jobs that we cannot fill, and we need to

expand our worker visa program. those farmers and contractors and people who cannot fill those jobs, there is a way to do that legally. >> let me ask something personal. the national media has asked you about your faith. we got one question today that asks -- that says that all things through got are possible. are you a christian and where do you attend your parents' church? what i am very proud of my parents. i am proud of everything that i know that i am today. i will never apologize for that and i will continue to be proud of everything they have accomplished in this country because they remind us every day how lucky we are to be here. i chose to become a christian woman. my husband is a christian man to read when my parents asked me to

go to their church, i absolutely go to their church. the bottom line is that i chose the christian faith and what i know about christianity is that they are all excepting and they try to bring more people in and they do not judge people. i attend a methodist church. >> i think that people do not understand. could you explain a little bit about the difference between christianity and what led to your conversion? >> my older brother and i decided to go with the christian faith because it works for us and it was something that we decided to do. i do not want to talk about anything against the face of -- the fate because i am proud of it. the decision that michael and i made is the decision that works for our family. we continue to work and walked and strengthen our relationship with the lord.

that is something that we will continue to do. i am very proud of my parents and i am very proud of the way that they raised me and i do not want to say anything negative against them or that they. >> how do your religious beliefs play a role and what you do every day? would your religious beliefs influenced the important decisions that you make? >> is who i am what i am as a person. it drives the way i live. i am a sinner saved by grace and i serve the living god who is jesus christ. when i talked to my children and i talk to schools, i say that thiigs are not shades of gray. there are absolutes in our life. i try to live by those every day. my children were actually saved during miss campaign and win or

lose, that is important, but the big thing is that my children have been saved and that is a good day in a day. >> let me ask another sensitive subject. if elected governor, you would be working for all of the people in the state. the question is, as we look at the television ads, we do not see a lot of racial or ethnic diversity. why not? >> you are looking at a minority female. >> obviously, you represent a diversity, but why do we not see more diversity on the republican side? >> i do not know about the commercials as much as i do about the state. as i talk about joining the movement, i think that the tea parties are not a party at all, they are republicans, democrats and independents that want to take their government back.

those are all faith and all minorities. they are coming together and saying that they want to take their government back. you can talk about commercials, but i will talk about what i see on the campaign trail, but i have never seen more people inspired. i want to make sure that we work for all people in south carolina. >> congressman barrett, when you play these ads on the air, you hope to show the people who you are reaching out to. i know that the republican party is trying to be more diversified. there were decisions like that been made when you came up with your campaign plan? ? >> i have diversity in my staff

and in my district. it is my job to serve everybody in the third congressional district. i do not care if they are rich or poor, black or white, male or female, i do not care who you are or if you are in my district, we will have everybody helped everyone in our district. until we pick up the bottom boat and raise that level, then we are all going to suffer. i do not care who that is. we all need to be more sensitive to that. >> the next question is about mitt romney who will be here tomorrow. he endorsed your campaign early on. if you are asked to be his running mate, would you consider it? >> know. right now, i am running for governor for south carolina because i think that i can bring true change.

just like i said i was not want to be part of the-distractions, there are positive distractions, but that is not what we are thinking about. we are thinking about making a true difference for the people in the state. that is a firm note. >> voters are looking for results. please name three of your most significant accomplishments since being elected in 2003 to represent the third district. >> i thought you were going to ask me about fred thompson. i am scratching and clawing to make a gubernatorial wringer. and being part of the bush tax cuts was a big thing. making sure that people can keep their own tax money, that is a good thing. getting the national lab status down in that neck of the woods and making sure that nuclear sure to programs are first and foremost on my mind, especially

when it comes to my district, but whether it is state or federal, it is helping me define partial birth abortion. it was a wonderful moment in south carolina and i do not think that anything i could do in my political career could come close to that. >> putting that same question to you, you talked about the state legislature and you mentioned fighting those battles for 2.5 years. voters are looking for results. if elected, please name your three most significant accomplishments and during your term? >> my 2.5 year battle to get legislators to vote on the record. when you get a good government, you can have a work and government.

-- a working government. this passed the house and it will pass the senate. it is one of the hardest times i have gone through, but it is one of the best. people can see how the legislators vote. this affects the small businesses of this state. when people on the coast were losing their homes and had to give up their businesses, i worked on a flight for tort reform. >> to let us know how you did, we will have much more coverage coming up at 11:00 p.m.. >> the winner of the republican runoff will go against the state

senator and that is this coming tuesday, june 22. >> you still have time to vote absentee. you'll probably need to go in person. the polls are open from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.. thank you for watching. good night. >> former deputy director of the fbi and cia offer perspectives on u.s. counter terrorism efforts. live coverage. >> claudia right is facing jim matthiessen. this is about 20 minutes.

>> this is sunday edition with bruce lindsey. >> in the sunday edition, >> i am a democrat. >> a congressman faces a challenger. >> i believe the people come first. >> a conversation with jim matthiessen and clear right in this addition. -- with jim matheson and claudia wright. >> this is not want to be a formal debate, but rather a conversation in which our guests will be able to differentiate their opinions. i have asked them to give a self introduction and i will ask jim matheson he would go first.

>> you know me. you know that in my time in office i've always put utah first, and i am proud of the fact that i approach every issue with the notion of solving problems and making progress. i've listened to people in utah and they've helped guide me in how to make progress on issues. so whether it's stopping foreign radioactive waste from coming to utah or whether it's resolving very contentious public lands issues and moving the first major blm wilderness legislation in 25 years. whether it's standing up for utahns who are looking for jobs in this down economy, as the only member of our delegation who would vote for the stimulus package, i always put utah first. i value the relationship that we have. thank you for your help in making me such a good congressman by your input. i tuesday. >> i am running for congress because i believe that the

people come first. not the lobbyist, certainly not the corporations, not the banks, not wall street. i believe that a different kind of politics is possible. one that replaces dollars with citizen engagement. one that allows elections to be publicly financed and making our representatives accountable only to their constituents and not to the next election or the dollar. i believe that i have traveled all over the state, talked to many people and have become increasingly aware of the unique hope that you would find it in your hearts to support me. >> as the only democrat in the bunch, he has been elected five times, why you as a democrat want to knock him out? >> i believe that in fact over the past decade, my opponent has moved consistently to the right. he has in fact kind of disenfranchised himself from his base. i believe that was made very evident in the mass

meetings march 23, when his representatives across the state were heckled and booed. i believe that that had to be a terrible day in his political career and i don't think he was aware until that day how far from the base he had moved. so i think it is time to reexamine this. take a good close look and see if this is the kind of representative you want to have. >> >> it's easy to throw out have you moved from -- generalized statements. the facts just don't bear it out. one thing i've always been proud of in my career in public service is that i've told people that i am what i am. i run on the politics and the values and the approach i learned from my mom and dad. i've told people, you know you shouldn't expect to agree with me on every issue, but you should expect that i am going to take a thoughtful and common sense approach to every issue. i think that's what i've done. and for the vast majority of folks in our state, i think they know

that and they are comfortable with it. i think we got to be real careful about just making general statements about 'oh he's moved to the left or moved to the right.' it's funny. the republicans say i am too far to the left. we have some folks in the democratic party saying i am too far to the right. but i think i've been pretty consistent all along. i you want to talk about. this notion there's been some change, i just don't buy it. >> lets talk about health care. not a single republican in the house voted for it. you crossed and voted against it with the republicans. why did you do that and is an example of disenfranchising the base? >> i do not think it is crossing over to vote with republicans. as i have listened, my constituents want access to quality health care. those are the goals we agree on.

i think that the legislation ignore the issue of real reform of our health care issue. the pharmaceutical industry supported this legislation. i think that we need to be careful about saying that this is a parcel -- a partisan issue. we need to allow for a sustainable health care system for everyone to use. we do not want to go down the path that massachusetts has gone up where it passed a coverage only bill and one in five people are denied access to health care because of cost. >> republicans are running on repeal of the health care bill. would you vote to repeal of? >> there are some components of this bill that we believe in. no longer can the insurance companies deny coverage for pre- existing condition. >> are you having your cake and

eating it too? >> no, i suggested that there is a lot to improve this bill. there are components that should not be repealed. >> you would have voted for the health care bill? >> i would have voted for the health care bill. i think we need to put some caps on pharmaceuticals. my opponent in 2003 voted to deregulate pharmaceuticals. he talks about that this does not control pharmaceutical costs. i believe that we need health care and i believe that many things need to be done across the board. i would have voted for this health care bill and i would have voted for the one that had -pa public auction. >> in this state, your electability is not in question but some say that yours is. >> i believe that anybody who is

watching politics right now would realize that there is a political realignment going on. we have increasing numbers of democrats. moderate republicans chose to go to the democratic convention. i think that the leadership of the republican party has been so far to the right that many moderates and independents think that they have more in common with democrats. i would think that anyone in the state has to address top to bottom issues such as love to write. -- left to right. we need to look at holding wall street and the banks accountable and extend our antitrust laws to include banks. we need to reinstate blast stiegel. >> that is the second time you mentioned that. what is the virtue in that for voters? >> we have always had political

and ideological differences. i believe that this prevents our politicians from being as pragmatic as they have been. rather than making officials to look at the public good. >> public financing of elections, what is your position? what i think that we need a more level playing field. i think as a good objective. i think in our current situation, asking taxpayers to pay for political commercials in campaigns is not going to be perceived very well across this country. i would submit that there is another issue. the number one issue that we have had his jobs and the economy. my opponent thinks that his campaign finance reform. we have to get this country

going again. and we have taken some steps including the economic recovery act that i supported. we have to get our priorities down in terms of where we go in terms of placing emphasis. i think campaign finances important, and i worst of the dialogue was maintained -- and i wish that the dialogue was maintained. they come in and dilute that dialogue and overwhelm that dialogue. that is the discussion we are having right now. we face the threat of that this november and i think we need to focus on that. >> let's talk about the news of the week. on thursday, a man was executed. do you favor the death penalty? >> i believe that we should

prove guilt or innocence and i am open to capital punishment in the case of horrible crimes. >> i think that capital punishment is archaic and until we have a way of being able to help reform folks that there may be some cases where capital punishment is necessary. i also believe that capital punishment is something that we need to look at very carefully. we are executing someone in the name of our state. >> the deep water horizon issue is still polluting the gulf of mexico. do you support further deep water drilling? >> i do. i think that we need to get to the bottom of this in terms of what kind of regulations are in place. were they enough?

were they in place? i think that we need to review the case of deepwater drilling. i think there were not enough and i think that we have men on the proper form that went home to their wives and put their affairs in order because they knew that it was dangerous and i wonder why those were not enforced. i do not necessarily blame my opponent for that, but over the past 10 years, those regulations were set and i think that we need to look of the enforcement as a society and as government officials, that is our number one job, to protect the people of this nation. >> what is the role of congress? what should congress be doing? >> i would support the

moratorium that the president called for. i jump on that right away. congress should know what is going on with the department of interior, which has the responsibility to rule -- to enforce those regulations. congress has a responsibility to find out if these regulations need to be updated. it turns out that there is a significant amount of hearings on the oil spill, none of with that i have participated in, and i think it is important to hold bp accountable. and that is the role of congress. i think they're moving in that direction. >> let's take a brief break for commercials. we have jim matheson and who face each other in the -- in the election. >> "the new york times" profiled

this race and said that it was an opportunity for party crashers and republicans to come in and make waves. what are you doing to ensure that this is not negative income pad -- impact your candidacy. >> we are trying to induce the party with new blood and people who have not been participating in the electoral process. i believe that republicans are out there with the senate race that needs to be determined. i think that they will vote in that race. >> your web site says that everybody can vote. and the benefit from this kind of crossover? >> i might. -- the benefit from this kind of crossover? >> i might.

>> they will not be read -- a day will not be voting in the republican primary. did you expect this kind of mr.? >> i am concerned about that kind of mischief. if you type in my name, it will take you to their website. i think that is wrong. i suspect that some mischief is being played out there to generate turnout because they know that that gives the republican the best chance to win in november. >> arizona has adopted a law that would require police to stop anyone who may be in the country illegally. is that a good idea or a bad idea? >> is unfortunate that the states are setting immigration

policy. the substance of the law is wrong. as the chief of police has said, this could create greater problems for law-enforcement. it is an emotional and irrational response to a situation. i do not want to diminish the importance of border security issues, and there are some serious issues in arizona, and it has manifested itself in this law, but i do not think the law is in the right direction. >> i think this came from a very specific drug problem that erupted across the border that made city's unsafe. we are not in that situation. i think that was used as a guide to pass a law that is a racial profiling and will not stand up legally. i think that we need immigration laws that work with a fluctuating quota system. we need temporary work visas and

permanent work visas for those that choose to go past permanent workpieces would then be able to have an avenue toward citizenship. >> what about the millions that are in this country illegally now? what would you do for a solution? >> if you have been here for less than to-five years, you can get a temporary work visas. if you have been able to support your family and the kids are taking english, they could get a permanent work visa and then you can work from there to see who would qualify. you just apply law evenhandedly across those that are here and those of want to come. >> you broke with your party back in 2001 and voted in favor of the bush tax cuts. of that tax cut is about to expire, should it expire and go where should be expended --

extended? >> i agree with president obama on this issue. let's go back to 2001. we faced a six trillion dollar surplus over the next 10 years. that was a long time ago and things have changed. the lowest rate at which income is taxed used to be at 15% and lowered it to a cheaper rate so that folks have a lower tax burden. >> last year, roughly 40% of americans owed nothing and 71 million filers had no tax liability at all. >> in when you include social security and medicare, a lot of folks in lower income circumstances are paying a greater proportion of their income than others treated i am all for looking at reforming our tax cold. -- our tax code.

i think we have to be careful about the statistics because income tax is one thing and social security and medicare are another. >> do you have a tax policy proposal? mr. obama says that taxes should not be raised on anyone unless they have incomes over $200,000? >> i would agree with that basic premise. i think that the bush tax cuts give a huge benefit to the wealthy. i do not think that they are paying their fair share. >> how should congress use tax policy to address 9.7% unemployment in this country today? >> one of the things that we need to do is take a look at how bailout money continues to be used. we need to encourage small business loans. democrats and republicans agree that the fastest way to put people back to work this through small business. it is one of the areas that we agree on an adjusted to finance

it and get it done. -- and we just need to finance it and get it done. the stimulus money given to banks covers the assets of the bank. i think that the stimulus package that obama pushed forward is a much better program. the bush administration handed out dollars with no strings attached to banks and said that we would like you to help with mortgages and we would like to to help the small businesses, but it has not been used for that purpose. >> i voted against the bank bailout. it was presented as a plan to deal with mortgages that were under water. when it comes to the economic stimulus package, it has had an impact.

it is all about trying to mitigate one of the worst economic downturns since the depression. i think it was the right thing to do at the time. let me be clear. i am not talking about upper income. i think that it should expire. we should have a much more balanced policy. >> the time has been going by very quickly. >> i always enjoy having the chance to meet with constituents and get their ideas. of their ideas have been what made me a better congressman. all of my legislative proposals, all of my achievements about solving problems in getting things done for you talk, we've worked together to get it done. so whether it's banning foreign radioactive waste, whether it's moving our economy ahead, whether it's all in wilderness issues in washington county or

it's getting a new wilderness bill for salt lake county and others, i always put utah first. and again i ask for your support this tuesday. >> i would like to explain that i am here because i believe that a different politics is possible, one by encaged citizens and i do believe that in fact is elected, i would like to hold an person town meetings so that i can see my constituents face to face, know when they're happy, and know when they're unhappy, know when in fact they are indifferent. i think it is part of the obligation of the congressperson to inform, to explain and certainly to listen. and i appreciate the citizens of utah and the support. thank you. >> we will be back with a final word after this. >> ever since the utah primary election was moved to june, voter turnout has been low. today, we profile of the

democratic contest for the second district. republicans have a contest for the senate. in district acosta state -- in districts across the state, in some cases, the outcome of the primary may be more decisive than the general all action in november. -- general elections in november. we have posted links to the candidates web sites on kso.com. thank you for sharing part of your sunday with us. we will save a space at the table for you next week on " sunday edition." >> coming up next, a house

hearing on oil rigs safety. then it is "q&a." and in your comments on " washington journal." >> both chambers of commerce -- congress are in session this week. votes on nominations start at 6 eastern. then in working on a bill to extend tax breaks and jobless benefits and a bill that creates a $30 billion fund to help small businesses get credit. the house is back on tuesday at 12:30 p.m. eastern and at 2:00 p.m. for legislative issues. later in the week, possible consideration of a measure that would set new requirements for campaign advertising.

expect work on a 2010 spending bill aimed largely at funding military operations in iraq and afghanistan. the house is live on c-span. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and on line and you can connect with us on twitter, facebook can you to and signed up -- and sign up for e- mail. >> on tuesday, executives from the five major oil companies testified at a house subcommittee on the hill. the executives faced questions about offshore drilling for it but also were asked about questions about oral skills and energy policy. this portion of the hearing is about 3 hours 14 minutes.

[gavel pounds] >> 57 days ago, in the dead of night, the worst environmental nightmare in u.s. history began. on a screen here and in homes across the country, we see the live video of tens of thousands of barrels of oil, billowing into the gulf of mexico every day. for years, the oil industry's war this could never happen. we were told the technology had advance -- for years, the oil industry swore this could never happen. bp said they did not think the rig would sink. it did. they said they could not handle an exxon valdez size spill every day. they could not. they said it was 1,000 barrels per day. it was not, and they knew it.

the other companies here today will contend this was an isolated incident. they will say a similar disaster could never happen to them. and yet, it is this kind of blind faith, which is ironically the name of an actual raid in the gulf, that has led to this kind of disaster. in preparation for this hearing, the committee reviewed the oil spill safety response plans for all of the company's here today. what we found was that these five companies have response plans that are virtually identical. the plans cite identical responss capabilities and tout identical, ineffective equipment. in some cases, they use the exact same words. we found that all of these companies, not just the p., made the exact same assurances.

-- not just bp. three companies have provisions for protecting walruses. two plans are such dead ringers for bp that they list a phone number for the same long dead expert. the american people deserve oil safety plans that are ironclad and not boilerplate. we now know the oil industry and the government agency tasked with regulating them determined that there was 80 chance that this kind of undersea disaster -- a zero chance that this kind of disaster could occur. when you believe there is is

zero chance of a disaster happening, you do zero disaster planning. the oil industry has invested nearly zero time and money into developing safety and response efforts. the oil companies before us today amassed nearly $289 billion in profits over the last three years. they spent $39 billion to explore for new oil and gas. yet, the average investment in research and development for safety, accident prevention,

and skill response was a paltry $20 million per year, less than 1/10 of 1% of their profits. the oil companies may think it is fine to produce carbon copies of their safety plans, but the american people and -- expect and deserve more. it is time to expect more from the oil industry, and that needs to start today. first, congress must ensure that there is unlimited liability for oil spills by oil companies. while we try to cap this well, we must lift the cap on oil industry liability. second, congress must also enact wide-ranging safety reforms for offshore drilling. if oil companies are going to pursue alternate-deep drilling, we must ensure that it is all true safe and that companies can respond ultrafast -- and it is ultra safe. the free ride is over. right now, every single one of the company's here today and dozens of others are drilling for free in the gulf of mexico on leases that will cost american taxpayers more than $50 a billion in lost royalties.

and fourth, we must ensure that new technologies are developed for capping wells, boosting safety, and cleaning up spills. i will soon introduce the oil sos act to ensure we have 21st century technologies in place. finally, america must move to a safer, clean energy future so we do not have to rely as much on oil to power our cars and our economy. the american people deserve answers from the oil industry, and i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. i would like to recognize my distinguished colleague from michigan, the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from michigan.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you you for calling this very important hearing. what happened on the deepwater horizon rig was a tragedy. the loss of life was heartbreaking and the environmental damage that worsens by the day is gut wrenching. it needs to be made crystal clear to all involved that the polluter will pay. the american taxpayer should not and will not be on the hook for the cost of this accident, both economic and environmental. nor should consumers to be punished with tax increases passed in the name of the bp spill that will only serve to add cost to hard-working americans and further weaken our economy.

we now have the opportunity to look bp america in the eye and demand they fulfil their responsibility for the disaster in the gulf, and an important step is the creation of an escrow account that will assure -- american taxpayers are not left holding the tab. in the wake of this tragedy, we must work together to find solutions that will protect consumers, taxpayers, and our national security. the cleanup has been too slow, way too slow and too indecisive. we want answers. we have to work to ensure that a disaster like this never happens again. when that rig exploded and its millions of gallons of oil leaked into the gulf of mexico our economy and our national security posture was weekend. i am aware that each witness was given a lengthy list of questions in advance of the hearing. questions about rig safety and questions about chemical dispersants. legitimate and constructive questions that will help us forge a solution-oriented

policy. i am disheartened to learn that a few of the questions have nothing to do the disaster -- with the disaster. it is only to push an agenda. some of those questions are -- how much is your company investing in the deployment of renewable, alternative energy? what steps do you believe the u.s. government should take to reduce the threat posed by climate change? do you support an economy-wide cap on greenhouse emissions? would your company be able to pass the costs of purchasing emission allowances to its customers? frankly, i would prefer to bring up the cap and trade bill again on the house floor, because i am convinced that this year it would fail rather than pass with the seven vote margin

it did last summer. but that is not the issue at hand. instead of taking time to talk about cap and tax or cap and trade, let's figure out how to cap the well. we are not here to discuss climate change, but rather, what each of our witnesses think went wrong on the horizon rig. let us not forget what is on the line here -- jobs, the environment, our economy, and national security. three years ago, when bp was caught increasing the discharge into lake michigan, i joined with the great lakes caucus and

other colleagues on both sides of the aisle, across the great lakes, to beat back the attempt to increase pollution in our lake. we did not take a partisan posture. we worked together to solve the problem. we need similar bipartisanship here today. the gulf of mexico accounts for almost 1/3 of u.s. oil production. if we eliminate that supply and our dependency -- then the dependency on foreign oil will indeed go up. saudi arabia will be happy. hugo chavez will be popping champagne. the team of engineers tapped by secretary ken salazar to examine what went wrong on the rig recently wrote, "we believe the blowout was caused by a highly improbable chain of human errors coupled with several equipment failures and was preventable. the petroleum industry will learn from this. it can and will do better. we should not be satisfied --" just wait for a second. "we should not be satisfied

until there are no deaths and environmental impacts offshore ever. however, we must understand that as with any human endeavor, there will always be risks." let's learn from this awful mistake, fix the problem, clean up the gulf, and move forward to fixing our ailing economy and creating private-sector jobs. i yield back my time. >> the chair recognizes the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from california, mr. henry waxman. >> thank you for joint -- for holding this hearing and for your tenacious work. your efforts have kept congress and the american people informed about the environmental disaster unfolding in the gulf of mexico. yesterday, chairman steve back and i released a letter describing a series of questionable decisions made by

bp in the days before the blowout. time after time, bp appears to have taken shortcuts that increased the risk of catastrophic blow outs. one of the central questions for today's hearing is whether the other oil companies are any better prepared than bp. last week, after receiving a request, the committee asked each of the five major oil companies for their oil spill response plans. on paper, they are very impressive. each document is more than 500 pages long. i will hold up the document that is the contingency plan. but what the show is that exxon mobil, chevron, and shell are no better prepared to deal with a major oil spill than bp. the same company, the response group, wrote the five plans and described them as cookie cutter

plants. much of the text is identical. four of the plans discussed how to protect walruses, but there are no walruses in the gulf of mexico. we analyzed two key parts of the plans -- the provisions for stopping the blow out, like the one that is spewing oil across the gulf, and their worst case scenarios. we found that none of the five oil companies has an adequate response plan. it is instructive to compare exxon mobil's plan for controlling the subsea blow up with bp's plan. here is what bp says. "in the event the spill source cannot be controlled by the facility operator or remotely with a safety system, bp will activate the oil spill response plan and assemble a team of technical experts to respond to this situation."

here is what exxon mobil says -- the text on the screen. "in the event the spill source cannot be controlled by the facility operator or remotely with a safety system, exxon will activate the oil spill response and assemble a team of technical experts to respond to this situation." the plans are identical. and so are the plans for chevron and conocophillips. shell says it would use the same strategies of top kills and a jump shot that have already failed. each of the plans include a section on responding to worst- case scenarios, involving offshore exploratory wells. . .

. .

.

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2008]

[captions performed by national captioning interests tute] >> i want to ask this question to exxon mobile and to chef ron. -- chevron. if we were to maintain this, how does that affect the energy you

get to america? do you look for that energy somewhere else or perhaps even import it from somewhere else? >> well, we will redirect our human resources, the technical talent, to other parts of the world, and we will redirect the riggs and the equipment -- rigs and the equipment elsewhere. >> what is the spread rate? >> well, on a deep-water well, it is about $1 million a day. >> do you echo what he just said? >> yes. the costs are similar to what mr. tillerson mentioned, and we will redeploy people and rigs if we are unable to put them into service. >> i have heard that the chinese oil company service are drilling off the coast of cuba, which means they are drilling off the coast of florida.

do either of you have any reason to believe that the chinese oil companies are more concerned about safety than u.s. oil companies? anybody? >> i can't speak to those companies. >> have they done anything that's more innovative than united states oil companies? have they done anything that you're aware of? >> i'm not aware of anything. >> last question, we have heard a lot in the scientific community about new ideas to once you have an oil spill to insert natural organisms that biodegrade and turn it into nonharmful services. we p -- want to prevent the spill. if we can't prevent it, we want

to stop it. is there a hope that you will have organisms that biodegrade the organisms quickly so that it doesn't hurt the environment? anybody? >> i would only comment that in effect that's part of what the disbursement action does is reduce the oil to very small droplets and then the natural micro organisms that live in the environment are able to break that down more quickly. the disbursements have been tested and are actually less tocxic than deterge -- toxic than detergent which you would flush down your sink every day. >> let's go ahead and stop this spill, figure out a way to keep it safe in the future, and keep our environment safe and growing. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> the gentleman recognizes mr. dingle. >> gentlemen, yes or no. you have seen this increased safety measures for the intercootinental shelf. do any of you have any recommendations to the information contained therein? >> i looked at the task force, and there was significant input. as i have looked at specifics of what's fl in there, there are some areas where i am concerned they may be troo introducing more risk in their effort to improve the safe operation. they may actually be increasing

the risk in some areas. so we want to have a thorough discussion with them and others, what risk are we trying to mitigate? are we increasing risk in the operation? i think it is a good document. it is a good start. most of it we would strongly support. a lot of it we are already doing. it is not going to be a difficult compliance issue with us. there are areas in there i do have concerns about. >> does that gentleman generally address your feelings? >> thank you. >> now, i note that this would be of concern here i think to mr. mckay. these ramps were supposed to cut through the pipe in the case of emergency and stop the flow of gas and oil in the water.

due support the idea that we should have double or redid you understandant ramps? >> we believe we need to have additional redundancy, yes. >> how many do you have down there to catch the oil? are you going to run out of capacity to receive the oil that you are retreeving? >> we have two, as of today, receiving oil.

we should have an additional two outfitted by july. that's not counting skimmers and other vessels picking up oil from the surface. in terms of taking oil from the well, we have roughly six that would take direct production in the near future. >> i would note that you twr diverting some of the retreefed -- retrieved oil. we will be burning oil today. >> now, gentlemen, you were

supposed to have a plan to address spills or catastrophic events. i'm assuming that each of you do. what is the date -- first of all, is that plan for the whole of your operation, or is it for item-by-item or specific site by specific site? starting with mr. tillerson. >> there is a gulf regional plan. then there would be a plan to support that well's activities and operations. the aspect of the plan, the coo kie cutter idea should not come as a surprise, because the industry has relied on sharing of resources, boats, booms, skimmer equipment. in working with the coast guard and federal agencies, what we

should have is a unified plan. it doesn't plath matter whose well has the problem, when it has the problem, we need to be able to respond with everything we have available. >> could each of of you submit the date of those plans. you don't have to do it now. i want it to be submitted in the record. now, i am troubled here that everybody is blaming the administration for the events that are going on down in the gulf area. i'm curious, what is the practice, if you please, starting with mr. tillerson, with you. does the federal government take over when there is a spill to clean up, or is that the

responsibility of the operator? >> well, the coast guard has command of the incident after you have the spill. the responsible party then works in the unified command structure with the coast guard on the spill response. so the coast guard does ultimately make final decisions on your actions. your actions have to be approved by the coast guard. the coast guard makes decisions on when clean-up should be undertaken and when you should stop. >> mr. mckay, do you agree with that statement? >> i do. the incident commander is the coast guard. final decisions are by the coast guard. i also agree with the statement that much of this is collaborative in terms of decision making.

but the final decisions of resources -- >> if you please, mr. mckay, in the case of the event we're doug discussing here, has the coast guard made any recommendations with which bp did not agree? >> no, i don't think there have been any ideas with which bp did not agree. i think major decisions have occurred under that structure with our support. >> has there been conflict between the administration and bp with regard to the clean-up that has been going forward? >> on spill response, within the unified command structure, there have been dways about de-- debates about when and where and how, but i think all the major

decisions that have been made have been supported by bp. >> is it your opinion the clen-up should be the sole responsibility of the operator? >> i think overall the command command structure in the way the national plan works is effective. i understand everyone's frustration to how long this is taking, but the spill response has been pretty effective in terms of dealing with it on the water. it is unfortunate we can't get it stopped at the source right now. we are doing everything we can to do that. i think the command structure has been functional.

>> in one recommendation that the secretary has made, he recommends that there be the final zation -- finalization of a rule to very well rebust safety and management issues for off-shore drilling operations. when this began the off-shore petroleum industry raised concerns about it. gentleman, you are all members of both bodies. is there anyone at the table who would not support the finalization of that rule? i notice mr. tillerson, you have the same problem i do. i'm not coming through very

well, i'm afraid. >> i just want to be clear what you are referring to, sir? >> would you support the finalization of that rule, sir? >> i'm not sure i know what rule you are referring to. >> well, the secretary, in one of his recommendations, is that the finalization of the rules requiring drilling -- rather operators drilling wells to very well robust safety and environmental management situations for off-shore drilling operations. my question to you, gentleman and the panel, is would you support such a recommendation? that's known as the sems rule. >> i would have to go back and look at the specifics, congressman, quite frankly.

>> would you each submit your points on that, please. >> thank you for your questions. >> is there any idea that you have at this point that would stop that leak from occurring in the gulf of mexico? is there something you could share with us this morning that has not been done or tried that will bring a rapied conclusion? we know bp does president have that idea. do any of the rest of you. >> we provide our experts to assist, congressman, and i'm not aware of any ideas beyond those that have been employed. >> no ideas have been suggested that have been taken up. >> now, again, with everyone with the exception of mr. mckay, 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 this situation in the gulf? mr. tillerson? that's an affirmative answer? >> i've had very brief conversations. >> with the president himself, or with his advisors? >> both. >> any of the rest of the gentlemen? >> i've had a very brief conversation, but not with the president. >> let me ask you a question. a week ago we went down to the gulf and had testimony on a field hearing oversight. we heard of two of the ladies that lost husbands on the rig. mr. president, you were present at our first session, and i didn't get a bit of information from yourself, transocean, and the blow-up manufacturer that was here. i learned a lot more from those two ladies talking about e-mails th they had had with their

husbands, phone calls they had with their husbands when they came home for visits. it seems to me there was a lot of concern about things happening on the rig. i've never worked on a deepwater rig. have any of you worked on a deepwater rig. >> not a deep water rig, but i've worked on rigs in my career. >> i go home and complain about mr. markey a lot. but is this unusual to go home and have that level of anxiety that these men were sharing with their wives about the safety on an off-shore rig? >> congressman, i haven't looked at their testimony in detail, so i can't comment directly to that. there are circumstances we're interested to understand, and

it's incomplete at this point. well control is part of drilling. you are trying to drill into the forces of mother nature and hold that back until you can secure it. it is common to be dealing with well controlled issues on a well in a routine manner. the reason you have the well design and the layers of redundancy and all the training is so you can deal with those. it is not uncommon to take a gas kick in a well and have to circulate that kick out and restablize the well so you can continue your operation. to do that you have to have good well teth and -- integrity and people that know what they are doing. that's why i said, if you have those things, you can deal with well control issues and not lose control of the well and have what's happened out there. >> have any of you ceased

operations on a well because it was difficult to control? >> yes. >> the answer is yes? >> yes. >> so that does happen? >> yes. >> so who would make that call? would it be transocean? would be it bp? would it be the owner of the platform or the driller? >> we, as the owner of the well, or the operation, would make that decision, and depending on what the severity of the issue was and what was the mistake, it would be made by a line manager somewhere in the drilling organization, but there has been at least one instance that came all the way to mie my level. >> let me ask you a question. in your testimony you talked about natural gas and the use of natural gas as one of those bridge fuels to the future. yet, we can -- of course we can extract a lot of natural gas on land where it is not an issue with drilling down in the gulf, but we also have issues of where

that drilling is occurring, because it is occurring closer and closer to civil zation, and sometimes right on top of civil zation. mr. tillerson mentioned the loss of the public trust with the energy industry. what are you doing to create the best practices so that people on land who are nearby to the gas drilling operations can have the comfort that their safety is protected, that they are not being exposed to benzine and hexzine. how are you taking a leadership role with the industry to be certain that those things are being handled appropriately? >> well, we have a great deal of experience as an industry. it is most important how you

very well the infrastructure, and as you get the gas you bring it to the pipeline in a way that is very secure and safe. we feel that by doing this in a proper way, that meaning the plan and design, and we have many, many decades of experience that this can be done. there is nothing really that unique from a technical point of view about our ability as an industry to very well the gas resources, conventional or nonconventional, that can be developed in north america. it's a tremendous resource. our country is blessed with natural gas. it is not just a transition fuel. it is an innovative part of the energy that we're going to need for our society and for our economy. >> i may have some additional questions for you, and i would appreciate you working with our office so that we can be confident of those best practices. i will tell you in my neighborhoods, it may not be as

secure as you think. i yield back, mr. chair. >> we thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the chairman of the oversight and investigations, a subcommittee of the gentleman from michigan, mr. stupak. >> we talked about the five areas where bp should have done things differently. they use the word "nightmare well" in one of the wors we looked at in our report. i was struck, you indicated in your testimony, based on the industry's extensive experience, you state that what we do know is when you properly design wells for the range of risk anticipated, follow the established procedures, build in layers of redundancy, properlyly inspect and train equipment, train operators to conduct drills, and focus on safe operations and risk management,

tragic incidents like the one we are witnessing today in the gulf of mexico, should not occur. today's same words are there today in the paper, but they are attributed to an exxon representative. i mention how in your 500-page response plan 40 is on press, and you all have to stay on script. i have to compliment you, you are all on script. you are using the same words. that was the problem with the words mr. waxman pointed out in his testimony. so what are you talking about, if you are all on script. if that was you and the blow-up happened on april 20, if you had received the call that there was a sub-sea blow at your well instead of bp's, would you have been prepared to stop the leak and prevent oil from reaching

the sensitive coastal areas? would your company have been ready, mr. tillerson? >> we would have been ready to implement our oil-spill response plan. >> that's that nine-page plan? >> that's the 500-page plan you referred to. >> 40 on media, nine on oil removal. that nine pages would have been able to prevent the oil from hitting the gulf shores? >> the nine-page plan would have done what the nine-page plan says it is intended to do, and it says to the maximum extent chiropracticable. -- maximum extent practicable. >> our emphasis is on prevention. >> what would you have done? >> before the incident? >> yes. >> we would have exercised stop-work authority. >> ok.

your well blew up. what would you do? >> we would activate our spill response plan. >> that's about 5 pages in your proposal, right? >> yes. to remove the oil. >> see, my concern is, chevron and shell's worst case scenario is 200 barrels per day in their response plan. exxonmobil's is 136 barrels per day. that's more than what's currently leaking into the gulf. so on paper these plans might seem reassuring, but reality shows you can't prevent the oil from reaching the gulf shores. so there tillerson, exxonmobil states in their response, that exxonmobil is prepared to meet all the commitments in its permit, including those involving a worst-case scenario. do you stand by that statement? >> i do. the permit does not guarantee that the oil will not get to the shore, nor does it guarantee that it will all be contained.

>> we're at what, at the most, 40,000 barrels today? >> i don't know. 40,000 i think is what we've been saying. so exxonmobil's worst case scenario is over 160,000 barrels per day. how can you say that you would be able to contain a spill that's four times bigger than the same spill using the same plan bp has and the same contractor bp is using? >> as i said, we would use the plans practicable in response to what the regulatory bodies provide. >> bp relied on marine response to -- so if you can't handle 40,000, how can you handle 166,000 per day as you indicated? >> the answer to that is, when

these things happen, we are not well equipped to deal with them. >> so when these things happen, we can't handle them, correct? >> we are not well equipped to handle them. there will be impacts, as we are seeing. and we have never represented anything different than that. that's why the emphasis is always on preventing these thrings from occurring, because when they happen, we are not very well equipped to deal with them. that is a fact of the enormity of what we're dealing with. >> but they do happen. >> they just happened. >> mr. waxman, you said, cookie-cutter plans, and we call upon the same resources. the resosheses for bp are not enough. so no matter which oil companies are here before us, the resources are not enough to prevent what we are seeing day after day on the gulf. not only the loss of 11 people, but we're on to day, what, 56 or 57 of oil washing up on shores? there is no other plan, there is no way inform stop wlats

happened until we finally cap this well, correct? >> that is correct. >> but for the grace of god, there goes i, right? it's bp this time, it could be exxonmobil tomorrow, it could be -- >> not if we follow our procedures and practices. >> but if it does, we can't handle it. worst case scenario is pie in the sky and oil in our waters and on our shores? >> it is a scenario that the mms and the coast guard require us to calculate using their methodologies. but to your point, and i think that's all that matters, we have to take every stape step to prevent these thrings from happening, because when they happen, it is a fact that we're not well equipped to prevent any and all damages. there will be damage occurring. >> we satisfied the application, but in reality we can't respond to a worst-case scenario. >> we are responding. a response is underway. it is having some effect, but

there is no response capeability will that will guarantee you don't have an impact. >> if we can't handle 40,000, how can we handle 166,000? >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. >> that you, mr. chairman. i have 3,000 facebook followers. i posed a question that i'm going to get a chance to visit with you all today. i got 22 questions and responses, and we chose five of them. the first question is from randy from greenville. he said what will be the impact on the u.s. economy by stopping off-shore drilling, and if i were to say the moritorium affects 46,000 jobs, 330 million in lost wages, and if it goes for six-month more tore --

six-month moritorium, that would be -- would those numbers be correct? i'm seeing some nodding. so the second question is, we haven't heard anything directly from the workers on the rig that saw what happened. i was talking to my good friend. brian says i want them answering questions. i've heard smg nothing but the story that some methane gas came up through the line. i know at the field hearing last week they did have the widows. i think during that testimony they also said we need to be drilling. i think what we're learning is there is lost live hood -- livlihood because of the disaster.

lively hood >> another question is what do you do in regarding conforming to emergency responses in relationship to a disaster of this magnitude? my friend michael doyle how long it took tt get an emergency response to this area. i would suggest that the industry start talking about a consortium of an emergency response team that we can mobilize. i think mr. stupak has emphasized that. this is something with which we have been overwhelmed. so part of that plan, i think we form an emergency response team. hopefully this will never happen

again, but it would be nice to have if we are in that venue. >> we have a refinery locally in my area, i'm very proud of it. he says what risk do we face on land-based facilities as well? i think the story that's not told, and joe barton mentioned this a couple times, but you are in the deepwater because that's where major oil finds are, and i have marge natural oil production in southern illinois and it is about a barrel a day. we still produce. we are the 10th leading state. it's not very much, and we're proud of what we get out of the ground. since i've been to the refinery

there, numerous times, one thing that is important, if we're talking about all the above energying strategy, -- energy strategy, and i'll talk climb ate debate another day, but we can agree on north america energy independence. what you are doing is bringing tar samples down through a pipeline that can be refined in the midwest so that we will be less dependent on imported crude oil and we may not have to be in places that are tough. so that's a shout-out. i have also talked to this committee numerous times about cold or liquid technologies. that would be another way to displace our reliance on imported crude oil and stuff.

>> at the peak, there were 4,000 construction jobs. they are good paying, big number jobs. i have always used your refinery there. in this economy to have still on site in addition to 2,500 jobs that energy security. that's not including the 750 full-time jobs that are there. so energy security is part of this debate. we're in the deepwater. a vast majority of time. we need low-cost energy to make us competitive in the world today. >> i hear from michelle from

assistanton, how much money are they spending to put safety measures in place. let me ask this question, so i get at least one response from you, instead of my fi plsm libuster. -- filibuster. >> it would not represent a huge additional cost for the daily spread rate. i think the real question that we want to look at is, when you do that, do you change in some way the safe operation of the mechanisms you have which have worked very well for 14,000 wells. we just want to be careful that we understand. it is not really a cost issue. >> i have been told $15 million. we have been told this is a requirement in other places around the world in some operations, so that might be something that the panel might want to consider. can anyone address this debate about lifting the cap?

helpful? harmful? for current operations and future operations. don't be smy. -- shy. >> given the situation that we are facing an unprecedented event that we never expected would take place, so obviously given the situation it is appropriate for us to take a look at the cap. it most likely needs to be raised. doing so, i think the industry needs to come forth, and states and federal government should come forth and make a good decision on what that cap should be. we are facing an unprecedented situation, and it needs to be evaluated and changed. >> i would just comment it is a question of financial capacity, general funds that would be made available from industry contributions, insurance, in total that can realize an effective system for insuring

their funds are available for responding to an incident like this. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman recognizes mr. doyle. >> would you all agree that america's confidence in the ability to go to deepwater safely has been shaken by this statement? and it is in all of your best interest to restore the confidence, because we want this resource, but this price is way too high of a price to pay for it, what we're seeing right now? let me ask you this question. i get asked this a lot. mr. tillerson, you said we need to stop this before it happens because once it happens we don't have a good way to stop what's going on here, right? a lot of people have suggested this idea of why isn't it required that we drill a relief well at the same time we're drilling the main well so that if this situation that is

occurring right now, if that relief well was already drilled and sitting there, that we would have been able to cap this well certainly a lot quicker than we're doing right now. i'd like to hear from each one of you whether or not you think it is a good idea to require that a relief well be drilled simultaneously with the main well as a condition for future drilling. >> i would say you just doubled your risk. this is an exploration well. it means you are drilling in an area that's not previously been drilled before. if you look at the history of well control drills and blow-outs, most of them have occurred on the way down to the objective, not once they reach the objective. they are caused by shallow gas hazards, they are caused by unknown pour pressures on the way down to the objective. so if you have two wells going down at the same time, it just means you have now increased

your risk of having a problem in both of them. i don't think it is a viable nor necessarily a good risk management option to consider. >> next. >> we favor redundancies in the well design and in how we drill our wells. we don't think that a relief well will reduce the risk, and we don't advocate it. >> we feel that fime will show that this -- time will show that this incident and this tragic accident certainly could have been preventable. but what we have found is that the response to such an unprecedented situation is inadequate. the question is really, what could we or should we be doing to improve our response? because the only certainty that we see today is a relief well. i think we need to spend a fair degree of time and money and resources on technology so as to improve our capeability on the seabed to contain and capture

out-of-control wells. second, i think technology-wise we're going to have to do a much better job of when oil gets on the water, to contain it in a smaller area and have more capeability to handle it. and third, is i think we also need from this incident and situation, a far more effective and efficient approach with respect to oversight and regulation. >> thank you. >> i generally agree with the comments that have been made. i think to go back to one point, though, the real funt is the redundancy, meaning the multiple barriers in the way the well is drilled. those need to be testable, verified, in place barriers. that's the opportunity. >> mr. mckay. >> yes, i generally agree and i have learned quite a bit about the capeability that can be developed going forward. >> i appreciate your response. it seems to me that since the only solution left to us at this point seems to be to be to get

that relief well down there, a lot of people are asking the question, why isn't one there in the first place, and it seems to me, i read it would cost $100 million to build a relief well. i'm sure bp wishes they spent that $100 billion before they spent this one. it seems to me i don't understand a better answer to stop this when it happens. the thought it takes two months to do that while all that oil comes out of the ground seems incredible to me. let me ask in the time i have remaining, in 2000 the best cementing practices were implemented for off-shore drilling practices. we know now cementing was a factor in what went wrong here operators were using unregulated cementing procedures. in light of the recent events

that we see here, i would like to ask each of one of our witnesses if they think cementing should finally be regulated, if there should be a standard for it. >> well, i think as is footnoted in chairman awaxman and congressman stupak's letter, the a.p.i. already has a number of standards and recommended practices for cement and cementing operations. i think many those been followed, at least that element might have been eliminated. >> but it is a voluntary standard, is it not? there is no penalty for not following it. >> i guess not, other than whether you want to live with that risk. it is a risk management decision. >> i ge my question is whether or not we have voluntary best practices that we count on you guys to implement or whether we make sure they are implemented. >> and whether you can keep your

regulations up with the technology. >> yeah. thank you. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you, gentlemen. i think every american wants first and foremost to see the flow stopped and see the area cleaned up. i'm afraid many want to exploit this as a crisis recognizing that you should never let a good crisis go to waste, as mr. rahm emanuel said. i want to begin by asking each of you this question. is there more that you or your company could do or are there assets you could deploy to assist in stopping the current flow or cleaning up the current flow? yes or no or a brief explanation.

>> we have made everything available that we have. >> i'm not aware of any resource we haven't made available. >> it doesn't mean everything weaf offered has been used. but it has all been made available, yes. >> were you asked to make that available by the president or were you asked to make that available by bp or on what basis did you make that available? >> well, we made certain equipment and facilities available immediately after the incident occurred as part of our industry mute twalized response. we then were contacted subsequent to that, at least i was, by admiral allen requesting specific needs they had and wanted to know if we had any other way we could help them with those needs. >> a similar response in that we made equipment available, and then i did receive a call from tony hayed withward on specific individuals. -- by tony hayward on specific

individuals. >> there has been a lot of focus on what you do after the spill occurs, but it seems to me, everything that went wrong went wrong before the spill occurred. indeed, there was a lengthy op-ed placed by mr. hayward on may 25, and last friday, the president of sampson oil and gas company wrote a letter which the "wwll street journal" published. in it he says this is about human not system failures, and he cites a series of red flags having to do with the incorrect cementing job and other things all based on the testimony by bp before this committee earlier this year where the bp came in and was asked about what it did and what tests it performed. the failure to get a top plug.

i would like to know if each of you have -- each of you have indicated this is not the well you would have drilled or you would not have drilled it in this fashion. have any of you happened to read this letter to the editor? >> i've seen it. >> has anybody else seen it? mr. odom, you saw it? you've seen it? mr. tillerson? you have not seen it. of the three of you that did read it and see it, did you agree with it? specifically with the fact it cites a number of red flags that should have been indicators or different procedures should have been followed going forward? >> i have evaluated it and the merits of it but the basic content is consistent with concerns elsewhere. >> mr. mulva? >> in drilling these types of wells we look at how the well was drilled based on publicly

available information. we wouldn't have drilled the well that way. we feel it is most important to have two barriers to contain or control the hydrocarbons verify -- verified and tested by pressure, and in those two barriers, the blow-off preventer is not one of the two barriers. >> referring to the letter, the piece that's consistent from my point of view, yes, systems are extremely important. they have to be right. the other critical element is the human side of that. our philosophy is we focus on that culture, a safety culture. a culture that stops work if something doesn't look or feel right to anybody on the site. anybody on the site, whether it is a shell employee or not, can stop that work. that is critical. >> wocx -- without objection the letter from the gentleman from arizona will be included in the record. >> i believe the president has

instituted a six-water moritorium on deepwater drilling. that moritorium was based on a report requested by the interior secretary called the increased safety measures for energy development on the outer continental shelf. i assume you have all seen that report? it was held up by mr. dingell earlier? that is correct? you are aware the seven scientists that worked on that report have now indicated a letter that it was modified after they either wrote it or refeud its content and that they do not -- let me quote -- those seven scientists have said "we believe the report or unmodified report does not justify the moritorium as written and the moritorium as changed or implemented will not contribute measureably to increased safety, will have immediate and

long-term economic benefits, and they say changes made in the wording of the report are counterproductive to long-term safety. have you reviewed their letter of concern to the secretary of the interior? >> any of you? >> i have not. >> it says "we do not agree with the six-month blanket moritorium on deepwater drilling." it says "a blanket moritorium is not the answer. it will not measureably reduce risk. it will have a lasting impact on the nation's economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill." >> i've seen those recommendations. they seem to be upset that their report was altered by the secretary of interior they wrote it and sent president. i want to know how many jobs

will be lost and what the consumer impact will be if the consumer impact -- if the moritorium is broad, and do you think it is needed? the scientists think it is overallly broad. >> i understand the motivation for the moritorium and the desire to have a, in effect, a stand down to ensure that the ongoing operations are being carried out safely. now, the department of interior secretary, salazar did immediately order an inspection of every deepwater rig. some of those inspections were carried out twice. there were no concerns about deefficiencies. i think in my view, the moritorium was unnecessary in terms of the extent and the length of it, and so i would -- you know, i would hope that that could be revisited very quickly. >> mr. watson. >> if the other three gentlemen could say they agree or disagree.

>> i would agree. >> thank you, sir. mr. mulva? >> with respect to the moritorium -- >> the gentleman needs to just say yes or no. >> i apologize. the gentleman's time has expired. >> the gentleman recognizes -- the gentleman from washington state. >> this is not one simple human failure running through a stop sign. it was going through one stop sign after another, no batteries, high -- hydrolically not fixed. we get an e-mail from someone that said, who cares, it is done, end of story, we will probably find a good cement job. if the airlines industries

operated this way -- one of the problems is the culture. i think in is a question about the culture of british petroleum, whether it rewards safety performance. mr. mckay how many people have lost their jobs as a result of this disaster at british petroleum? >> i don't know of any yet that have lost their jobs. a couple people have been placed on administrative leave as investigations are conducted. >> do you think that will hatch over time? >> it is hard to speculate, but i assure you that if the investigations show that people made mistakes they shouldn't have made, that could very well occur. >> we will be watching. in the u.s. navy they would have a culture that would respond to this adequately. my constituents are not

impressed with the response yet from british petroleum in this regard. second, we want to ask about whether or not the industry has made appropriate investment in improving safety in off-shore drilling. we are going extraordinary deep in the water as our oil supplies dwindle, and the risks increase. i think everybody acknowledges that. so the question is, what is the industry investing to try to determine that? british petroleum, we asked these questions to the five companies here. british petroleum said they spent $10 billion in one year for research in off-shore safety investments. how much did british petroleum pay its c.e.o. last year in relation to that $10 million you spent on trying to come up with safe off-shore drilling. >> i don't know his exact pay. >> the published reports show he was paid about $36.5 million. you paid your c.e.o. three times

more than you spent in your entire research budget to determine how to reduce the catastrophic -- the risk of catastrophic failure in the oil field. do you think that is adequate prioritization for a company in your business? >> i don't know his exact salary. >> you are not alone on this. connoco spent .008% of its profit on trying to improve off-shore technology. exxon spent .08%. bp spent .06%. those are not huge numbers. i think it is parent -- apparent given this risk, and the risk of going deeper in water, we encourage the industry to make bigger investments to pref -- prevent these situations from taking place. the third thing i want to ask

the industry about is the investments you are taking in an attempt to prevent invisible oil spills. does everyone agree that every single oil well you drill and we use there is an invisible oil spill because we burn it. it makes carbon dioxide, the oceans are more acidic and they are 30% more acidic than preindustrial times because of the oil that comes from -- carbon dioxide that comes from burning fossil fuels. would you agree with that? >> i would not agree with that character zation. >> i do see a link between oil production and co2. >> i don't agree. >> del are emissions associated with our product. >> it's a scientific debate. i'm not sure if we can answer yes or no. >> actually, it is not a scientific debate.

there is no scientific debate about this. carbon dioxide makes the oceans more acidic. in your joint investment, as percentages of your gross revenues for energy sources that won't put carbon dioxide in the air are connoco .03% of revenues, exxon .1%, chevron .31%, shell .26%, and british petroleum, .09%. i have to ask you, to me those investments, and we appreciate any investment you make, but isn't it clear that at that level of investment we will not be able to solve this problem of pollution in the oceans caused by carbon dioxide. would everyone agree with that? let's start with mr. mckay. >> does the change-over and the transition of alternative energy will take a while and tremendous investment. >> let me ask you this question.

is there a degree that we have to up our investment in clean energy if we are going to solve this problem of carbon dioxide acidifying the ocean. >> please make it yes or no. >> these issues are too important and too complex. >> live at 7:00 eastern, your calls and comments on "washington journal." .

>> learn more about the supreme court in cspan's latest book. it can a conversation with all+ the supreme court justices active and retired, available in hardcover and as an ebook] >> this week on