>> the committee on natural resources will come to order. as a way of housekeeping, i am sure awe members know that at approximately 10:30 we are going to have four votes on the house floor. so we can plan accordingly. the committee is meeting today to conduct a hearing on a discussion draft amendment and the nature of a subs tucson to hr 3534, the clear act. introduced last year, it was the subject of two days of hearings last september and was developed as a result of a long series of investigations, hearings and prior legislative efforts, into the pressing need to reform the offshore and onshore

. >> further, it would have eliminated the minerals management service and replace it with a new entity. a disaster that struck the gulf of mexico was a game changer. as a result of a number of

hearings by this committee since that date, intensive investigations and review of documents by all those involved, the substitute retains but builds upon this in three main respects. it includes a focus on safety. not a prescriptive fashion, which could lead to the freezing of development, but more of a performance based approach. second, taking a lead from our witness today, the secretary of interior, it replaces the former mineral management service with three entities separating leasing, policing and revenue management and providing resource management

and environmental enforcement. third, the substitute would establish a gulf of mexico restoration program to provide an explicit statutory basis for what would be a long-term effort to address the devastating impacts of the disaster on environment and on local communities. i would note that none of the funds authorized or made available may be used with any cost for which bp is liable. this substitute clearly reads discussion draft. it was made available one week ago and we will not go to mark up until july 14. i am providing ample opportunity for all interested parties to provide us with their views on this document. i hope that will go up into members of the committee that

are not physically present today. i urge you to contact the committee as soon as possible as the mark up will occur on the second day after we return from the july 4 recess undoubled like to be able to provide the markup vehicle as soon as possible. i now recognize the ranking member. p> mr. chairman, this hearing should continue to focus on the crisis unfolding in the gulf of mexico. at this very moment, the well is not camp and oil is still leaking and washington to wetlands and beaches, threatening environment and wildlife. families are out of work. the gulf states are struggling to get the resources they need to respond to the spill. unfortunately, instead of addressing the immediate crisis at hand, there have been

attempts to use this tragedy to impose a job killing capt trade national energy tax and push legislation that is unrelated to the spill or reforms in offshore drilling. just yesterday, president obama senior internal adviser wrote an e-mail message. it said that the disaster in the gulf be used to the din -- to interdiction to fossil fuels and pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation. the ongoing attempt by democrats to exploit this to promote a national energy tax is their best effort not to let the crisis to waste. it will not stop the leak. it will not provide relief to the people struggling in the gulf. it will, however, make the problem worse by increasing energy prices for all americans and send american jobs and companies overseas.

the bill but we are discussing today was promoted as addressing the deepwater hope horizon explosion. most of its 200 pages have little to do with this explosion and spill. there are numerous provisions completely unrelated to offshore drilling safety and reform. reforms are needed to make american offshore drilling the safest in the world for it congress should not get ahead of the fax and in a rush to write new laws. the only honest answer is no. there is too much the we do not know, yet. there are bipartisan document requests that have gone unanswered.

this includes the last inspection report on the blowout preventer. information has come to light about human errors that contributed to the explosion, but we do not know why the emergency shutoff valves failed to work. the blowout preventer is still 1 mile beneath the ocean's surface and will likely will not have the answers on what went wrong until it is retrieved and salmon. numerous investigations are underway, including the presidential commission which has yet to hold its first meeting. why spend taxpayer dollars on this commission? congress must know what caused the disaster and then respond appropriately. this will insure that congress is not just making reforms for headlines and local performances but making the right reforms to insure that american drilling is the safest in the world. it is vital that congress knows

what effect proposed new laws will have on american jobs, our economy, and our dependence on foreign energy. as we have seen from the administration's moratorium on deep well drilling, there can be severe, long-term economic impacts. solutions are supposed to help improve the solution in the gulf, not make it worse. in the reforms should not cause greater economic damage been is already being felt as a result of this spill. i yield back my time. >> the chair will move to hear from our first panel composed of hon. 10 salazar and he is accompanied by the hon. michael bromwich. they are from the u.s. department of interior. mr. secretary, we welcome you

once again to the committee and as i have done many times publicly, i commend you aad your department for the tremendous manner in which you have responded to this disaster. you have put all your resources available and i commend you for that response you may proceed as you desire. >> thank you very much. -- the key very much. we continue our efforts on this day with what has been a tremendous effort to solve this problem in the gulf. we are not resting and we will continue to move forward until we have the solutions with respect to relief efforts. i thought i would do a couple of things at the outset. first, i would bring the committee up-to-date on what is happening with respect to the

leak containment and the efforts to kill well. on the containment measures, about 25,000 barrels of oil were collected and contained and have been captured, notwithstanding some high seas that have been as high as 7 feet. over the next few days, the containment capacity will be built out and it will reach a capacity of 53,000 barrels a day and by mid july, the capacity that will be built out will be 60,000 to 80,000 barrels a day. those of us who have been involved in this effort from the beginning, including the oversight committee, we have order these message -- these measures to be taken. there are redundancies and efforts put into place to deal with contingencies like

hurricanes. moving into mid-july, the $80,000 -- 80,000 barrels that we are able to contain and then we will move upward with additional redundancy. secondly, we have always known that the solution is to kill this well. as of this morning, the current debt is over 70,000 feet for the relief well. the relief well has a target of 17,758 feet. in the next several weeks, it will be getting down to the target depth and hopefully the efforts to kill the small will move forward. that is a quick update on what is happening with respect to source containment. there are huge efforts under way to fight the oil on the sea and near shore and onshore with 7000 vessels involved.

the president ordered the authorization of the coast guard and so for the states have called up 2000 members of the coast guard. there are still another 18,000 that could be called up. let me move over to the subject of this legislation. last year, in september, i testified in front of this committee. the chairman indicated that you were a pioneer in this committee was pioneering an effort that was long in coming. today that when you have an agency that has such a critical set of missions, the collection of $13 billion a year on behalf

of the american taxpayer. assuring that the oil and gas production that is so important to this country is conducted in a safe manner, organic legislation is necessary. you were there, mr. chairman as well as many members of this committee along before this tragedy. i remember testifying in support of the moving forward with that legislation. an agency of some portions needs to have that organic legislation pann -- an agency of this type niese to have that or demand -- organic legislation. people have been terminated and there are people who no longer have jobs in that -- have jobs.

we have opened up a new chapter to what renewable energy is and we are looking forward to working with you. finally, in the last two budgets, we have moved to have the kinds of resources that can start policing these efforts from 2000 to 2008. the budgets of the president and the budgets of this congress have helped us get to the point where there will be submitted to resources that will be needed. that is if we're to do the job you expect the department of interior to do. with that, what i would like to

do is turn it over to mike bromwich for his comments. mr. director, our condolences -- i mean, congratulations to your new position. we look forward to working with you. you come from an impeccable background that is quite impressive and you are certainly the man for the job. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman, ranking members and other members of the committee. there is a statement that goes into my background that i gather is in the record, so i will not talk about that. i will be very brief. i will talk about three concrete things that have been done in the eight days that i have been on the job. the first is the renaming of the agency from the former mms to the bureau of ocean energy management regulation and enforcement. that was a decision by the

secretary to demonstrate that there is going to be a change in the focus of the agency and the focus will be on proper enforceable regulation and enforcement in a way that had not been the case over the prior years. the name is symbolic, but it is also real and it reflects a commitment to regulation and enforcement. second is the creation of an internal unit within the bureau which we're calling the investigations and review unit. it is something that i proposed to the secretary on my first day and something he approved on my second day. it is something that now exists and we are looking to staff it as soon as possible. this new unit will be staffed with experienced prosecutors, investigators, scientists and other personnel that will allow us to undertake prompt and

aggressive enforcement action with respect to allegations of misconduct against people in my agency, but also with respect to companies and other participants in the industry that we regulate. i am determined to be aggressive and this unit will help me be aggressive and i am determined to be prompt in bringing appropriate enforcement action. the third and final point is something that i want to announce this morning, which is that we are imposing a fine of $5.2 million on bp america for false, inaccurate and misleading reports submitted over a long period of time on into production on tribal lands in southwestern colorado. a lot of the work was done by southern travel auditors that discovered the problems. the problems were brought to the attention of bp america and the problems were not fixed. as a result, we concluded that

the reporting violations were not accidental, but in fact knowing and willful. this has been in the works for a while and it is not something that i produced in eight days. it is reflecting a seriousness of purpose. with that, mr. chairman, that connludes my opening statement and i am happy to answer any questions that i can. >> thank you for the announcement that you just made. i commend you and members of your agency that had been pursuing this for a number of years. mr. secretary, i am well aware of your support for protecting our american landscapes and your support for the great america

outdoors in your opinion -- outdoors. in your opinion, will this bill help you in the such efforts -- in such efforts? >> the answer is yes. president obama has initiated a conversation with america callefor places like montana and maryland and colorado. our view has been that it is time for america to move forward with a new conservation agenda that meets the challenges of the 21st century. as the chairman is well aware, the conservation fund has not been funded since its creation in the 1960's. how we move forward with that is important and we look forward to working with you on that issue. >> as you are aware, there are

many parallels between this disaster in the gulf of mexico and the disaster that struck in my congressional district just a couple of weeks before the deepwater horizon when we lost 29 braved cold miners in a coal mining tragedy. there are some that say we should wait for results of an investigation before we move forward, even though unsafe conditions are well-documented and continue to exist after the tragedies have occurred. the believe that congress should wait for the results of the ongoing investigation before moving forward on the type of legislation we are discussing today or is there a need to move forward, now? what's there is a need to move forward with urgency. frankly, the sooner that action is taken, the faster it is that we will be able to get beyond the tragedy and start standing

up the effort in a way that would be a safe manner. winning is not an option. >> let me ask you a further question about this legislation. and when advising safety standards, do you think that congress should advise a more performance base system or do we need to be more prescript of? would it be a good -- more prescriptive. -- more prescriptive? >> the organization that we created, it was an organization that we developed based on looking at norway and the united kingdom as well. after tragedy is that they had,

they came in and looked at how they were regulating the oil and gas development. that was a manifestation of the development. this was something that will be developed and there will be safety recommendations to be delivered on may 28. on the question of what is mandatory verses performance based, is something that we will be working on in the days and weeks ahead. i have a personal view on some of these issues, but i have not had an opportunity to work with mike on some of these issues, so maybe it would be a good idea to comment on that. >> do you see where i am going? i do not want to freeze in place by prescription standards

that prevents changes. you do not want to freeze in place what we have today. we do not waat to freeze the law. >> one of the things that is home to happen as the results of deepwater horizon is looking at all of the different issues that occurred on april 20. there will be a lot to be learned. this is nothing short the project in trying to bring that home. i do think that there ought to be a flexibility with the bureau over enforcement and regulation to make sure that we are able to develop those standards in a way

that takes advantage of the lessons learned. >> eyeball -- i agree with that. the prescriptions will be quickly overtaken by new technology. we should establish certain baseline sadder prescriptive, and as a secretary just said, -- baselines that are prescriptive, and as a secretary just said, to develop the technology over time. >> my time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am going to yield my time to mr. cass city, but before i do, on two other matters that are unrelated to this hearing, i will be sending you a letter and we would like to have a full and complete response. that is going out today. i want to yield to my colleague

from louisiana whose state is being affected. >> in the department of interior brief that was filed in the court in new orleans, doi denies that there is irreparable economic harm. given that 20,000 jobs would be laid off directly and as many as 100,000 will be indirectly affected. those are conservative estimates. is that not irreparable harm? >> congressman cassidy, i appreciate the question and we recognize that there are economic consequences to the moratorium that reimposed. we believe that the moratorium was correct when we put it into place and it continues to be correct because the dynamic situation that we see in the

gulf today. >> because i have limited time, is that not irreparable harm? 20,000 jobs lost directly and maybe even 100,000 indirectly? >> the greater irreparable harm would be if you have a devastation of the gulf coast and its communities in a way that cannot be recovered. we are comprehensive moving forward. >> i do not need to be read, i have limited time. i am very sorry. the engineers go through this and they said that a blanket moratorium is ot the answer. they say it will not reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation's economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill. here are eight experts gathered by the department to make a

decision and they feel as if the -- as if the blanket moratorium would affect thousands of workers and affect state and local economies suffering from the spill. we would, in effect, be punishing a large swath of people that are acting responsibly and are providing a product the nation demands. a blanket moratorium does not address the specific causes of this tragedy. we do not believe punishing the innocent is the right thing to do. the encourage the secretary of interior to define what he means. these are the experts. these are the scientists. what do you know differently than what they recommend? >> first, congressman cassidy, their job was to help us with the safety report and they did.

we will continue to get their input as well as input from others. secondly, the question on the moratorium was policy. do we have the oil spill response capability? can we ensure that we can move forward without the possibility of creating this kind of disaster again? >> let me ask you. in your report, you state that the permit to drill -- this is page 6 of your brief. these fellows, on their very first page, it believed the

blowouts was caused by human error and equipment failures. they say it was preventable. they say that this is not a black box. they say that it is defined and it produced at this paper that i am sure you are familiar with. per your brief, you decide whether they meet the best practices. why not reserve -- preserve these 20,000 jobs? >> let me answer this in the broadest sense because the committee and others have a great interest and where we are on the issue of the moratorium. we had three choices in front of us. we could simply move forward and pretend that nothing had happened.

there are some that were advocates of that. we have another option. some are advocates of this, that we bring to an end production in the oceans of america. that was a stop button. the president and i chose to move forward with a pause button because we believe that we have to learn some lessons to make sure that this incident does not happen again. as we move forward, we will adjust accordingly based on information, based on our ability to safety and environmental protection, and that is part of the process that we are undergoing at this time. >> i reeled back -- i yield back. >> the chair will recognize the two men from new mexico. >> welcome, mr. secretary.

i have a few questions regarding reform. my home state is not blessed with the oceanfront property of some of my colleagues on this committee, so i will focus largely on shore. what is the department doing to address some of the challenges that we have seen in the southern part of your home state and the northern part of my home state where the minerals are federally held and the service -- the surface is privately held and there are a number of inherent challenges that pop up between the surface owners and the folks who lease the minerals under the -- underneath? >> i will have the director and give back with your office on what it is that we're doing.

with respect to onshore issues, those are important issues and we have moved forward. this is moving forward with the categorical exclusions issues. it has the right kind of balance in terms of how we protect the environment and conversation efforts and allow development to occur. my own sense of this legislation, because it does deal with blm and mms, we have a crisis relating to the outer continental shelf, but there are some additional efforts related to oil and gas development. i would be happy to work with

all of you. >> you may have answered this when we started, but as the administration have in the information on full funding? >> the ministrations position on the conversation -- conservation fund, if you look at the president's budget, it achieves that. i would say that this is a time for all of us to commit to what conservation really is. we have thought about the concept. we took our resources and we

should return something back to the earth with respect to some of the money needed for conservation. that is a promise that is unfulfilled. billions of dollars should have gone into the conservation fund and have not gone there because it has been diverted to other areas. >> i appreciate that very much. it is an incredibly important part of this legislation you issued an order last year -- of this legislation. you issued an order last year. what is the status of that legislation? how're the fast track motions moving on? >> director abby and my team have been working on that very hard. we are looking forward to getting a december 1 target date permitting approximately

5,000 megawatts of power, mostly in solar and wind and geothermal in places like utah where you have wind, solar, and geothermal projects up and running in utah. it is a significant part of our new portfolio and it is something that the president has prioritized and it is something that we have worked with the congress to make it happen. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. secretary, everyone here believes and hopes that our priorities need to be to stop the leak, clean up the oil and address the needs of the communities and hold bp accountable. you have stated in the past and that under your watch, the department will take very seriously the importance of

science and peer review documents submitted by experts. according to recent press reports and releases from the department, after the recent offshore safety report was peer reviewed, it was then edited by political operatives by either the department or the white house to assert against the recommendations of the signers that a six month ocs moratorium was appropriate. the experts came out and announced this manipulation. two weeks ago, i asked the acting inspector general if she would open an investigation into how these changes were made, who made these changes and why those changes were misrepresented to the public as the work of the engineering professionals that the department have contract for the report. at the time, she stated that while she was not prepared to immediately declare that she would open an investigation, she could do so in the future in order -- future.

are you willing to cooperate with the inspector general's investigation into the political manipulations of this report? >> congressman, there were no political manipulations. my letter to the president, which i personally offered is very clear and it transmits the 30 day report to the president and it separates my recommendation to the president, which is a policy matter related to the moratorium. the fact is, i asked the national academy of engineering to be part of a peer review process in respect to the safety issues and i appreciate the work that they did very much. at the end of the day, the question of whether or not we move forward with drilling activity is the responsibility

of the secretary of interior. it is not the responsibility of the engineers or anyone else. >> and do you think that it is appropriate? >> i do not think there is an apology that is necessary. the fact of the matter is that i think that this crisis -- we should not allow politics or ideologies guide the issue that we face here in america. we're in the midst of a dynamic crisis. this continues. it is not just a one day thing to hit us. we are going to be in it for several more months -- caught

happ. ii am confident that the problem will be fixed and this gulf oil's bill will serve as a catalyst for a safer and more environmentally protective production of oil and gas on the continental shelf and it will serve as a catalyst for moving forward with a gulf coast restoration plan. this gulf spill will also serve as a catalyst for a new conservation agenda to move into the new clean energy frontier. in this crisis deals with these monumental issues of our time. >> i agree with you with what

the goals and intentions are and need to be and i agree that partisanship should not be a part of that. i am troubled that the experts have to come out and denounce the statement that was made that they had called for a moratorium when they did no such thing. they said that it presents other competing safety problems by having just a blanket moratorium instead of a more focused approach. i am troubled that they have to come out and announce that interpretation. -- i am troubled that they had to come out and announced that interpretation -- to denounce that interpretation. i have had additional conversations about the point of view on how we move forward safely.

we're moving forward with that. maybe some zero other demarcations are appropriate as well. i will not be pushed into doing anything prematurely role to two additional development. >> we have time for one more question before breaking for votes. the gentleman from oklahoma is next and i will leave it up to him to decide if he would like to -- not least you'll his time , but allows someone to ask questions ahead of him. >> mr. chairman, i was no. 27 the last time that the secretary was here, but out of deference to my senior colleague, mr. miller, i will yield all of my time to him. >> was that a unanimous consent

request? >> i think the judgment -- i think the gentleman. welcome, mr. secretary to the committee. my question really is, how do we decide who is going to get to play? what is the criteria for companies to now drill on the american continental shelf? i have a serious, longstanding concern with british petroleum. my other committee has chronicled over many years, dangerous, lethal behavior by of them repeated time and again in their refineries, on their pipelines and elsewhere under

their jurisdiction. now, we see many of the warnings that we received in the past. we're talking about cost cutting, about dangerous decisions that were ignored all the way to the board room time and again. i guess that the question that i have, i want to know if they are to be allowed to go back to a very dangerous place for the environment, a critical area to explore for oil. are they going to be allowed to go out there or into the arctic? i am sure that they have the technical capabilities to do it. i am not concerned about that. i am concerned about the ethics of this company and how they have performed in the past to measure their performance in the future.

this is one of the most competitive places to drill in the world. there are possibly some of the greatest returns to them. at some point, the american people are entitled to a standard. of the have killed their workers before and they pay some of the largest fines in history. you find them for -- you mentioned that you fined them for their behavior. this is like a poker game. you have to have checks or better to open. he should have a conscientious

corporate policy. which parties are going to get to play, and what are the standards that are going to be imposed? >> congressman miller, let me say that the standards and enforcement are absolutely necessary for moving forward. that is something that mike bromwich will work on with me. secondly, the question of past performance of companies, that is something that i will work with mike bromwich to see what is the most -- what makes the most sense. how you take into account past performance of companies' relative to what everybody might want to put into place. >> there are new standards that

have been created industrywide. that is already across the board with new requirements. you raise a very important question. that is that with a record of bad performance, should you evaluate applications differently? that is something that i do not have a firm conclusion on, yet, but it should be considered a relevant factor. also with respect to violations in the future, it is appropriate in my view that if you have repeat offenders, that should increase the enforcement penalties that are imposed. >> i appreciate you saying that and i hope that you continue that. it is up to congress to make

that clear. in the coal mining industry, we have patterns of violations. and when we see companies with horrible records that have been able to evade the law and put miners in deadly situations, i say this about bp. when i see the lives that they have put in jeopardy and the lives that have been taken, this is a complex workplace and i am concerned that on the questions of process management standards that are now being put into effect, that those were created by the american petroleum institute and no discussion with osha has taken place prior to this. osha has 40 years of experience working with these industries on those issues. i would hope that those would not go to final until there is an opportunity to walk this across that experience on how

those processes may be the important indicator of preventing ethics -- serious, explosive steps. >> mr. miller, on that point, the expertise of ocean at this specifically being sought. -- of osha is specifically being sought. i do not know whether this is a new recognition or not, but it is a recognition that we now have an plan to pursue in the future. >> i have sent you both a letter to ask you to hold for a moment before those regulations are developed by the petroleum institute, which may have to suggestions, but that should not be the sole determinant.

>> at the committee will stand in recess. >> >> the committee on natural resources will resume. the key, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity. secretary salazar, thank you for your efforts. i wanted to talk a little bit about the current process of lease sales. your office has halted the of

c.s. -- the ocs lease as far as looking at, pre-emptive -- at comprehensive steps. i do believe that we need and all of the above energy policy so that we develop all of our sources of energy to make sure that the market allows those to be lifted up a force which ones are most efficient. i support will and gas development as part of that mix. i also support when the development. i know that the administration have high hopes of developing off shore wind projects, and i appreciate your efforts to coordinate the issue, however, 17 months into this administration, mms has a had no lease sales and didn't -- and

there do not seem to be any schedule. as we talk to folks, it is an extended process. the agency said that they are not sure about how to go about this. it is going to take a significant amount of time before any turbines can be built and virginia has significant wind resources and significant interest of their. my question is, if the administration is going to slow oil and gas development, what do we expect to see with offshore wind? >> thank you for your service on the migratory bird commission.

with respect to the question on off shore wind and let me just say we are moving forward as quickly as we possibly can. i have a team that i have assembled to take a look at how we can expedite the effort. we have been working with all the states and have opened up an office in your state of virginia. this is a high priority and we will mmke sure that we will not fall behind the rest of the world in developing offshore turbines. >> that is critical. let me ask you about the oil and gas development. the lease process has been cancelled. i am hopeful that as we learn of the process that has occurred in

the gulf, i know there is interest in the lease process going forward. where do you see the future as far as time is concerned? >> congressman, first let me say that president obama and i have made it clear that we see an energy portfolio that very much pushes the new energy frontier for america but at the same time we recognize that oil and gas is part of our energy portfolio today. we will see efforts continue to develop in the oil and gas on the continental shelf and we will learn lessons from deepwater horizon in a way that

protect the environment with respect to -- the environment. with respect to virginia, it has still had to undergo additional environmental analysis and there are important conflicts that you and others need to be aware of relative to the department of defense and issues relating to that. that will all come out in that process. we look forward to working with him -- with you as we move forward. >> one last question, you said that we would do everything to make our affected communities whole. as you know, the seafood industry has been affected as well as the offshore oil and gas industry. as you know, that the fact transcends the borders of the gulf stats, it affects places like virginia. 65% of the oysters process in virginia come from the gulf.

it extends beyond the gulf state i just want to make sure you're doing everything to make sure we are focusing on not just making foxholes on the gulf, but other states like virginia and other east coast dates that are closely tied to the gulf seafood industry. i want to make sure that you are aware of that and that that will be kept in mind. >> thank you, congressman. the president and our team put together $20 billion in an escrow account where claims will be filed through independent the minister's. there is an effort under way. it will all be part of the process.

>> the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma and he promises the chair will not take out of his time the one minute and 43 seconds that the chairman took. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for allowing me to ask a question. ryan also want to thank our panelists for being here today. i want to say a special thank you. you are living with this bill every bell -- every day. i cannot imagine the amount of stress your under. all of the hours that you are putting into this, and we may disagree on different points of policy, but i know that your heart is in the right place and you're working hard to get this thing clean up as soon as possible and to get this leak stopped. i do want to say thank you. to the secretary, i also want to say thank you. sometimes we disagree on energy

policy along the way, but in indian country, we have worked well together helping out my district of oklahoma. i think that you're doing a tremendous job on the mms reforms. some of the concerns that i have are particularly in relation to the offshore. we have companies that have investments in the offshore. they are not bp and they are not exxon. these are smaller companies that have some investments and a more a story of -- and a moratorium is affecting them. because of the moratorium, this is costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars a day. i have visited with some of the executives and they feel that it is unsafe to have these rigs and

everything out there without a clear program, just sitting out there for six months. as you make your determination and as you take some of these recommendations, i hope you will also take into account the loss of jobs that is going on. now, to the onshore, i have some information that is interesting. they sent us this paper that says and natural gas and oil leases a definite maybe. it may be the lease will be issued within a reasonable time. after the cell -- after the sale -- during within a reasonable time after the sale may be the project would not be held up by legal challenges and maybe you will find oil and gas, but you will definitely have to play -- have to pay millions of dollars.

the natural gas and oil industry pays millions of dollars for this. each lease is at risk investment with no guarantees that energy resources will be found or that it will return any revenue to the lease holders. blm is holding millions of dollars of leases in utah, wyoming and colorado. that is $100 million of capital that is held by the federal government in a non productive capacity. the draft language of the bill, as an example, i would like to touch on this. there is a provision that eliminates noncompetitive leasing. let's say that you have a lease and not only one company bids on the project. this is an area where your not

having not a lot of companies bid on it because the geology is not proven or that this may be a wildcat. some would say that they are going to put this on the line and to roll up this lease and pay for it. here are some of the wildcat developments that have happened. . .

. . .

.

>> meaning the state owns a federal resource it's kind of

like what is theirs is theirs and what is ours is theirs. what would be your thoughts on that? >> i a grow. certainly, there's an inconsistencies in that policy. we see those provisions in on shore mining. you don't have the same kind of relati

relationship all the other aspects that are there >> denying the opportunity to work. it is also for the gf our state. in the sense that it alloys the other state

>> thank you to the gentleman. thank you for your patience. the hearing record will will be open for ten days. >> the full committee now stands adjourned.

>> today blake hounshell talks about the latest article. >> a look at long-term proposals for restoring the gulf coast region with paul hairy son and we'll chat with peter decoursey on pennsylvania's budget short fall. that's live on c-span.

testifying about lost and mislabeled grave sites.

this is 1:50. >> today, our committee receives testimony about the management of arlington national cemetery. welcome to you both to the armed services committee. i'm angry, period. angry is generally not a useful

emotion. in light of the resent revelations about the management of arlington national cemetery. i'm downright angry. this is our nation's most hallowed ground. this has resulted in a web of errors. how in the world could this happen. behind what seems to be a burial service, this seems to be a barley functioning team operating with no over site

there's clear evidence that in 1992, the army was aware of a level of discord that would not have been tolerated in any other operation. let me make clear that the uniformed services that proudly conduct the services of burr yell are not part of the problem. gien the limited nature of

investigation, there are 200 irregularities's yited with the grave sites may be a fraction of the problem all the operations must be undertaken the american people and our military families expect that those who ware we look forward to your testimony hoer today.

taking the necessary steps to restore the public's confidence. i'm committed to the work to make certain the errors are never repeated the evidence

provided goes far beyond none compliance by overworked contracting officers i find these practices unacceptable.

it appears the army has filled to increase the dramatic more of our world war ii and korean war veterans pass on. the staff at arlington has steadily decreased. until this investigation become public, there was pressure to cut even further.

they receive a complete account requiring a massive effort and consider blt amount of resources and time without objection, we thank the gentleman from california

>> we'll do everything we can to provide as much we can as possibility i have a great appreciation of the role of this committee. i want to do everything we can

to support this i had a rather lengthy one. i thought it was appropriate given the serious nature of this issue time is more important. i share all the anger with you. i learned of a review asking the inspector general to examine the

policies. the inspection based on the things i heard then to include an expansion in the insurance programs and the contracting procedures. we ordered a complete investigation. on june 8th of this year, the lieutenant general submited his reports including 76 factual findings and making 101 recommendations for improvements. you know the findings of that.

we posted all of the inspection reports that evolved out of these efforts.

>> a call to the group to support the executive director and make the corrections unveiled in the report. the creation of the army national cemetery advisor to provide review of near and long term activities. former senator bob dole and max cleveland agreed to assist us >> i reached out to my friend and colleague.

we are finding a better way forward. i ordered an all-inclusive study to make sure we have the cape abilities and resources to meet the needs. i have ordered full audits of all the contracts. we don't know what we don't know but we are working hard everyday to find out everything possible as to the who, why and what of the failures.

for 146 years, the army served on hallowed ground. it was found in resent days and years, we have lost that commitment the army is doing everything possible to right these unimaginable wrongs. it set us on a better path. i rely upon my written statement in tsz commission to complete

the record >> thank you members and the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the issues. the secretary has complained the discussion and related investigation into the matters

>> can we expect an audit of all the grave sites with technology that is modern and up to date. where are we on that? >> we have already be gun to examine the graves.

it is a lab orrious process under the procedures availability. it's our intent to do what you suggested. that is to collect the site map and documentation. to do that for some 330,000 graves is going to take a better record keeping system. i have directed the technology directors of the army to engage at arlington and move forward as quickly as possible.

i would say as well through the generosity and graciousness of the private sectors. we are exploring the possibility. there are legal issues there. as soon as the it problems are solved, we will begin the process of checking and cross checking all those records for some 330,000 graves.

>> the army obviously was well aware of the disfunctional relationship between the sup superintendant and the inspector. the expanding general did council. to doe tail. there were some efforts as to how it was allowed to continue

for so long. how it was allowed to continue, the major issues around general order 13. i suspect when motivated it in effect was placing everyone in charge, no one was in charge. at least in part, circumstances were allowed to continue. having said that, for whatever reasons, it should never happen. what we are trying to do now is take the steps necessary to set the path more clearly in the

future. we have restructured the process and the lines of authority are pretty clear. as we go forward, we'll skam inthe rye structure as appropriate. >> should the army continue the responsibility foremanaging the cemetery? >> as you know, those questions are for the congress and president to answer. i can give you my personal perspective. i can think of my other agencies. there are several involved in cemetery operations. i will tell you that like the army, perhaps for different

reasons, all of those agencies are stressed as well. i cannot spoke for the heads of those agencies. that ground is the final resting place of the greatest heroes. i do believe that the army has helped polish that reputation clearly that record has been tarnished. we are committedfully to regaining that kind of record into the future. i'm going to work as hard and the people that bought into this initiative will work as hard as possible to restore what we consider an army problem. this is the falling place or

final resting place of veterans. but we are in a special circumstance. half of the heroes, i can't speak for the other services, we feel it is the responsibility of the military, particularly in time of war to carry those heroes to their final resting place. we feel strongly. i fear, as a former member of this committee for 17 years, that moving jurisdiction from this committee elsewhere would have certain considerations that would need to be carefully considered with all due respect. until we are error ordered to step down, we are moving

forward. >> thank you. i am concerned that the review of the contracts may not go far enough. the best practices are understandable that operations would not have significant for that matter with plain common sense. they fail to var fie the contractors receiving non-competitive rewards who are

capable of awarding the contracts. they awarded contracts with cost proposals over double the amount the award. they included contractors who didn't have any qualifications or training to perform it. those contracts contain no termination. contracting officers rounded the numbers down and vie lated laws by revealing sensitive information. i find it impossible that this was reserved for just arlington national cemetery. what steps is the army going to take to ensure that oernl contracts are in compliance with

federal and defense regular dagss and in the benefit of the american taxpayer and having contracting officers involved and war rants suspended to avoid frjer violation of the law. i would agree with you fully that where we are right now should not be the end in terms of the review of the contract. when we need to do and what we are doing is establish the factual basis and fill in what is missing that is the required

paper trail and how they are reviewed and what procedures are used and not used directed by me to examine those contracts. this is for us the beginning of the process. we've laid it out.

we are already under way. i promise we'll pursue it to the end. >> you may resume with your questions we'll recess until we return.

with significant number of miss marked and unmarked graves, what is the army doing to reach out to the families of these deceased warriors and service members. what are they doing to properly account for these unmarked graves wref cemeteries many

places. i hope this is not a wide-spread problem that we have. maybe can you respond to my question. thank you so much. >> thank you we are currently working through those and resolved 27 of those those will

continue and they have until this point with errors in markings on the master map. we will match records there's a three-part record system. the map, the burial cards against headstones where they exist. for example, if a map shows a grave where there is no headstone, we have unearthed and determined in each one of those that indeed the map was in error. there were no remains in those graves. those graves will be reclaimed and used for appropriate purposes in the future. after that, we instead to

proceed in all likelihood with the most resent back. those who have lost loved ones in resent years are more concernednd aware of this. at the end of the day, i should tell you it's our intent to run matches on all 330,000 of those

graves. the majority of family members feel confident but where we have

concern, we'll answer those questions. >> as soon as you finish with this, you don't think other cemeteries we have have any such problems like we encounter here at arlington? >> i can't possibly know that. i can tell you those cemeteries are operated by and large by the veterans administration. i can guarantee they will take lessons learned from our experiences and apply them also to the battle monuments commission. senator max cleveland has agreed to support us. i am constructing an over sight

committee. . . . >> thank you. i don't really have too many questions. i have great confidence in the team that you will look forward to getting this done through the end. if you have to dissenter someone, is there information with the remains or do they have to use dna? what do you anticipate? >> the answer is yes to all of those. each casket is tagged on the outside. there are ways to identify an era, a period. we had one instance where they

had contemplated unearthing because they had a distinct casket. we were able to get around that. should it become necessary for dna assuming proper authorizations are executed and requested, that would be something we would consider. that's an extreme consideration. >> are there barriers you need relief from in order to make all of that work?

is there things we need to do in advance of anticipating that? >> the legal authorities are pretty clear. it requires that the designated next of kin pursuant to the paperwork each soldier submits as part of their service in the military to val dade that. >> two weeks ago, there was a brief television show that there was some headstone material discarded into a creek. have you been able to figure out what that was? >> to a certain degree. prior to 1994, it was accepted practice not just in army cemeteries but in other

government run cemeteries to use damaged, excess grave stones for building material. >> this is just material no longer suitable for purposes. >> there was actual headstones on graves discarded. an example. when a wife passes away and is buried with her husband, they use a new headstone. the previous headstone is disposed of. as far as we know, there was no

ill intent, just inappropriate use. we have great confidence in your work. i yield back. >> thank you for being here. i wanted to ask you a question. on march 9 this year, i sent a letter inquiring about alleged questions against the former head of the arlington national cemetery. i received this back. and the coverleter is also marked for official use only. why don't you share with us what you can about the results of that investigation against ms.

gray. >> yes. we received the same report late last night. i glanced at it this morning. the results found that the she was not compromised against in her employment. i have not read the entire report. unfortunately, that's all i can provie. >> i consider that to be incomplete information and unfair to ms. gray. is it inappropriate for me to read a portion from the

coverleter? >> has there been any instructions to provide an appropriate remedy for ms. gray? >> no, sir. not that i'm aware of. ms. gray has ongoing litigation with the department of the army. >> i have 2:59, i'll have someone bring this letter down to you and you can paraphrase it given the restrictions. while he's doing that, i wanted to ask those that are attending and had been attending the minerals issues at another hearing. we focus on incidences after we

discover what has gone on. what role do we play? >> to have us do the regular over sight hearings that this

committee does regularly. part of the problem that i think existed here is that through all of the importance the army places on this, the army national cemetery was a satellite set out on it self. the army has direct reporting units. that has to be a part of this process. i have ordered the inspector general from this point forward to do twice a year inspections at those kinds of activities. the more light on the process and the more eyes on the process, the better.

to incorporate arlington and army national's program, i would use a helpful step. >> i can't comment on the d. o. d. i. inspection. notifying what the litigation is, it would be inappropriate to comment. >> i think you already did make a comment that may not be a full picture of what occurred. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i want to thank both witnesses on the response that is focussed and sincere. >> mr. secretary, you described the process as calls come in. those families will get attention and there's an effort to work with them.

you also have the chronological process that you described? how does that work? if a family members calls in for concern, do they then go on to the list? >> yes, sir. >> the 211 are not identified or known to the public. with almost 900 calls, we have expressed concern to those individuals and have responded with urgency. >> so the calls are concerned that their loved ones is one of those 211? >> generally. usually, the basis of that -- every family member has his or

her unique concern. they are concerned one of their loved ones was in the section of the report. as we solve one problem, there's a likelihood we are solving part of the 211 as well. >> there's an area that is a vietnam area where there was problems? >> i defer for that question. >> most areas is a general time frame. there's not a vietnam area or desert storm area. i do believe one of the grave sites in question was from the

vietnam everia. you do have a section that is by and large afghanistan, not exclusively but overwhelmingly. >> have you had a chance to review the issue raised? >> i am not aware of the concern. we would not want sto tolerate any discrepancies. they are both equal heroes. if the committee could share those with us, we would

carefully consider them. >> if you and your staff could, i'm sure we could have access to the testimony. any written response would be appreciated. >> we appreciate that. >> thank you for joining us today. i want to begin by talking a little bit about what has been identified through almost a 20-year period as being a disfunctional issue. knowing the disfunction, why did it continue?

is it something that the army control structure wasn't set up to deal with? can you give me an idea of how that occurred. >> we are talking back to 1997, 1992. well over a decade. a lot of the people directly involved are gone. i will say this, there is no excuse why it happened. it was unacceptable then as much as it is now. part of the way forward for us is to try to respond. i mentioned earlier, i think

there was real confusion among the various agencies as to who that exact oversight authority would be. not to justify any of this but to fill out the picture. what was identified in 1992 was a complaint by an employee talking about the management style. in 1997, the military district

of washington inspector general was inspected. a leader has several options once they discover a disfunctional unit. there is evidence that the commanding general in the 1992 time frame, different officer, did cancel the employees. after 1997, the new c. g. did the same thing. don't know what the written record was or what the result