canyon, i believe -- devils tower. we experienced a well very scary -- very similar to this where we got stuck and had to have wild well control come out and we ended up ultimately severing the pie by putting a shot into the pipe. pipe. we lost now we're back in another quadra or another zone -- another quadrant or another zone and we saw a lot of the same things. we got stuck. we had to sever the pipe. it was deja vu. "the oil wealth from hell" was coined because of the location -- the oil wealth from hell -- the oil well from hell was gone because of the location.

steven curtis was the one who claimed it and he is now deceased. >> the coast guard continues the hearings this week. we will show you live coverage. it is love all the coverage from houston each day this week starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> mr. markey, on thursday, held an oversight hearings on the bp oil spill. let me introduce our reporters,

david fahrenthold end geof koss. >> the administration earlier this month announced that 75% of the soil may be gone. do you think that is a mistake? do you think that diminishes the aesthetics? >> the effect of the government, when they released those numbers, should have released their work with it so there could be a full understanding of the formulas, of the algorithms, of the assumptions which we used in coming to that conclusion. that is why i have asked the government to release all of that information. independent scientists can do a real-time analysis so that we can understand fully what assumptions they made and whether or not they may have been overoptimistic.

>> about the specific way they may have given too rosy a prognosis, do you see anything wrong with their calculation? >> i would begin with the fact that, while 4.9 million barrels of oil did spill into -- was released from that spill, 800,000 barrels of it were captured immediately in ships. only 4.1 million barrels actually went into the ocean. that number, as a result, if you are calculating the amount of oil which was captured, burnt, sopped up with a the boom, it would result at a much higher amount of oil spilled into the gulf of mexico.

it is still unaccounted for. it is important for us to focus on that. but rather than low balling the size of the problem, i think it is important for us to keep the pressure on so that everything that can be done is done anin order to protect the long-term viability of the ecosystem and the livelihood of the fishermen and others in the gulf of mexico. >> when you look at the numbers put out, do think this was a product of rushing? do you see an intention to make them look better, make the government response look better than it really is? >> i do not know that. but i do know that it should be double checked right now between independent scientists in the independent hearing. it would be several months before the information could be peer reviewed. i do not think it should take that long.

i think that information should be made public now, independent scientists should be able to evaluate it, and it should occur in a way that makes it possible for you calibration of that study to be made before it is too late to counter some assumptions that we made as to the magnitude of how large this spill is. >> there are a lot of contrarian speakers out there. they offered testimony that the long-term impact of oil may not be as much as the alarm we are hearing. have you completely discounted those theories? >> there are people who hold those theories, but we are dealing with the best scientists are government has, the best scientists which the

gulf-based universities have, who have spent their lives working on these issues. there is no question, obviously, that what we're dealing with are materials that are a part of nature. but any material in excessive quantities will begin to harm you. we just have to make sure that we understand what the consequences are. this is something that has never happened before. the science is still trying to catch up with this underwater chemical experiments, which has been taking place in the gulf of mexico since april 20, 2010. we want all scientists on board, no question about it. they have a right to their own theories, how concerned we should be about it, but we know so little about it.

i think there should be a little bit of humility, which allows scientists bring to this particular task. >> at the hearing, you raised concerns about the large volumes of chemical dispersants use to fight this spill. -- used to fight this bill. -- used to fight the spill. >> initially, bp raised questions to my initial letter. while there was an agreed upon limit on a daily basis that could be used, bp, in many instances, used morning daily basis and then saw it retroactive permission to have done so. in other instances, they were granted permission to exceed what was believed to be a safe level of dispersants which could

be sprayed onto the surface of the ocean. yes, i am very concerned that the formula was constructed to ensure that there was a minimization of harm to the ocean and to the workers on the surface of the ocean and that those standards were not abided by. >> given the large volume used, are you pleased that there's enough testing done to make sure the seafood is safe? >> i think there is much additional work to be conducted. for example, there is still very intle known about the metal's the materials being consumed by the fish to give guaranteed assurances to the public that there is no long-term harm. i think there has to be an

intensification of the work to make sure that the testing is conducted in order to calm any concerns that people might have. >> any look into methane? >> that is another subject that historically has not received a lot of attention. hi raise that question repeatedly today in order to ensure -- i raised that question repeatedly today. again, these are events that have never occurred before. we have a chance to study them, to understand them, and, in the long term, to protect against these effects. >> we have heard a lot of people say that the seafood testing is

not enough. what sort of testing would satisfy you? what needs to be done, more and volume, different kinds of tests? what is needed to be really sure about the seafood? >> not much testing is being conducted on the seafood in the areas that still have heavy concentrations of oil. >> the closed areas. >> yes. i think white studies should be done right now of those fish. that will make the long-term tracking a lot more informational in the future. that is really not happening right now. i think that should be done as a way of augmenting the information being gathered where the fishing is now being permitted again. it is there that people have the greatest concerns, where the soil was more heavily concentrated. people want the most information

gathered so there can be an understanding in the long term of the impact, not just on the fish, of on the seafood aches, the co -- of the seafood egg cup of the ecosystem at the bottom of the ocean, not just the fish that can process the dispersant. there are others that can process it less quickly. we would have a better understanding of it if we made massive testing of it right now where the fishing is still closed. >> have you did you have been asked whether you will eat golf seafood. have you answer that? >> i have had seafood every day for the past seven days. i think we have to have some confidence that, where the fda is acting, they are acting in

the best public interest. i say that while still stipulating. there are still questions that have to be answered and more research that has to be done. >> two summers ago, when gasoline was at $4 per gallon, congress talked about offshore drilling and "drill, baby, drill." what you think the political fallout will be during the campaign? >> in the united states, we have 2% of the world's oil reserves. we concern -- we consume 25% of the world's oil reserves on a daily basis. we are out 50 miles drilling down 5 miles to find that oil.

it should be a wake-up call to the american people that, while we need all of our domestic energy resources, that we have to begin a transition to a renewable-based energy economy, wind, solar, all-electric vehicles, that began to transition ourselves. five a year 2050, we will have 400 million people in the united states, not 300 million people. and we will still have only 2% of the world oil reserves of left. while i understand senator mcconnell wants to block any energy bill, i've understand the oklahoma oil energy bill wants to stop any energy bill from moving forward, at the end of the day, if we do not move, we

will model the subject ourselves to $4 per gallon of gasoline in the future, but we will end up importing renewable energy technologies from other countries as they move in to exploit this lack of vision thus far that the republican party has shown and moving us on a bridge toward a new energy economy. >> you must worry that you can get some momentum behind that cause. you saw how quickly the debate changed a few years ago when gasoline went up to $4 per gallon. how do you prevent the debate from changing in the same way? >> one of the things that we did, as you know, in 2007, as soon as the democrats took over the house of representatives and the senate, we pass legislation to increase the fuel economy

standards of vehicles which we drive. we did that even though, for the preceding six years, the republican congress and president bush had opposed it. speaker pelosi and i were able to stand at president bush's shoulder while he signed it. what we have to do is look at economy-wide basis. this is to make sure that the: other energies make the transition with the clean energy technologies and let people know that it is not something that we want to use as a weapon against all industries, but to find the funding mechanisms to allow new technologies and all technologies to coexist.

unfortunately, senator mcconnell, oil-state republicans are adamantly opposed to any change whatsoever. in the long run, our country will pay a huge price and they will look back and say that a historical mistake was done by those generations of republicans that stopped any progress toward the clean energy economy. >> in the senate, you keep naming senator mcconnell and other republicans, but there are some moderate democrats from coal-producing states who have also been very reluctant to engage on that issue. that is why the bill has not gotten through the senate this year. given that the conditions in this congress are more favorable than they have ever been with the democratic majorities in the house and the senate and a

democratic president and you have a catastrophic environmental disaster this summer, if not now, when will this bill passed through, if ever? >> senator mcconnell has taught america a lesson. the power of those to say no -- he is saying to renewable energy. 95% republicans who are opposed to making progress on these energy and environment issues, if any of them broke off and began to work with us in a way that said, let's pass renewable electricity standards, less double the efficiency of building in our country, that's double the efficiency appliances, let's quadruple the availability of the plug in

vehicles, you would see us working together. but there is no evidence that anyone can politically viable a break off to change what senator mcconnell wants to happen, which is to stop any energy change this year. those situations will rise again. we are going to be heading back towards $4 per gallon for gasoline. this wild weather around the world, from pakistan to russia to the united states, the four times the size of manhattan ice block that broke off of greenland last week, all of this is only going to increase as a problem that american policymakers will have to deal with in the months and years ahead. it is not a question from my perspective over whether waxman-

markey will pass. it is a question of time. >> the thing i wonder is that, if the measures to put forward, i of the senate did not take it up, if the idea climate change is so popular, do you think anybody will pay political price this fall for having stood in the wave, legislation? >> i do not say it is a small minority. it is the entirety of the minority that is blocking any progress. they are doing so in a way that is successful. but i envision that there can be political take down when the ads are run on wind, solar, hybrids, contrasting the members who support that with the member who opposed it. it will pullout at 80%, of

backing out of the opec oil which undermined national defence, backing out of renewables that the chinese want to send into our economy. they will collect in a very powerful way. whichever republicans have decided to align themselves with that kentucky coal and oklahoma oil agenda, they will wind up with a very big surprise on election day. >> this fall? >> in 2010. >> the conventional wisdom is that there will be more republicans, not less, in both the house and the senate next year. what you do differently, strategically, to engage them on this issue? >> again, henry waxman and nancy pelosi and i have worked very hard to pass legislation in the house of representatives.

the question you are asking is a senate question. it is not congress. it is the senate. that will be something that we will have to determine based upon what the composition of the senate is next year. we are very proud of what we did. we were able to build a consensus around that approach. of course, it was 14 months ago that that occurred. that is how slow the senate has been in taking up the legislation, not because of harry reid, but because of republican obstructionism. i do believe that time is our ally. i do believe that, in the same way that bob dole blocked passage of the telecommunications act of 1994 so that he could win a majority of the house and senate, it did become the telecommunications act of 1996, two years later, that a lease to the creation of google, ebay, youtube, and

thousands of companies. they were able to delay it, no question. i am not saying they will now be successful in doing so again this year. but over time, technology always triumphs. innovation always wins. markets triumph. there are many republican businessman, venture capitalists across this country, who are looking on with dismay at what republican senators are trying to stop, revolutions that could create millionaires and billionaires in america who are republicans. i think that political pressure will inject itself into this debate as each succeeding month and year ago by. >> speaking of technology, it would you mind your office that pushed for bp to put up a webcam. what difference did that make? >> marcia mcluhan used to say

that the medium was the message. once the spillcam went up, then every american could see what it's happening. in fact, when i put it on the committee of select -- the select committee of energy independence, hundreds of people tried to gain access of it so they could see it. it became a channel like c-span unto itself for millions of americans. that is what put the pressure on the political process. congress is a stimulus-response institution. there's nothing more stimulating than millions of people becoming obsessive with something they believe is a problem. and this crime against nature that bp had committed had become more palpable. they could see the smoking gun. they could see the oil, methane, natural gas shooting out of that pipe.

that is really what catalyzed the nation, to put the pressure on bp to find a mechanism to cap the well, not golf balls that they talked about in the first week. it was not nylons. all of a sudden, we left this world where they were making these absurd announcements. admiral palin was supervising and telescoping the time frame -- admiral alan was supervising and telescoping the time frame. >> you knew that would happen. >> i did. >> now that the well has stopped flowing, there's a poll that shows that the public is losing interest. has that slowed to the momentum?

>> that is why i have the hearing on thursday of this week. we have to ensure that, just because the spillcam went the way, the pressure to do with the consequences of these bill does not go away. that is what i am -- of the spill did not go away. that is what i am committed to doing. bp's fondest wish is that their commercials on television soap plant actual congressional hearings and -- supplant actual congressional hearings. >> the sort of effective mormon -- this sort of effect a moratorium on drilling, would precautions would -- what precautions would satisfy you? >> what we did in the spill

response bill that passed on the floor of the house of representatives three weeks ago, on the last day before we broke, was to say that a system would be put in place that individual rigs would be cleared one by one and then they could go back into a operation. the republicans, of course, voted against that. they would have -- they would rather have the issue of the moratorium than a solution to the problem, which is to not have the time limit on how long it would take, but a mechanism by which, as soon as the rig was checked out and proven to be said, people could go back to work. as the -- proven to be safe, people could go back to work. there is the $20 million compensation fund that is paying the workers on the rigs

until they return to work. >> we are out of time. we did not talk about the fishermen. you heard from fishermen who said they were hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. do you have confidence that moneys will get to the people that deserve it? >> i have great confidence in ken feinberg. but it is important that we make sure that bp does fulfill its case. we have to make sure that these fishermen, who are victims of bp's gross negligence, in my opinion, are not left with their families holding the historical bag. we have to make sure they are made whole. i told those fishermen today, as i told them and other members of

congress told them in field hearings that we had down in louisiana a couple of months ago, that we intend on ensuring that everyone who was harmed is paid. that $20 billion is something that i am sure bp would like to walk away from if they could by minimizing the actual accounting of any of these individual fishermen in a way that only gives them 20 cents or 50 cents on the dollar. our job is to make sure that ken feinberg and bp had the checks to reach one of these fishermen in a way that ensures that the history of their families are not sent irrevocably in a direction that may be irreversible in terms of the harm that has been done to them. >> thank you for being with us. >> thank you for having me. >> your questions had to do with

energy legislation. we heard mr. markey's handicapping of the situation. what are yours? >> is anybody going to pay a political price for having stood in the way of legislation? is anybody going to punish them for that? if they do not feel that there is any cost in votes of this fall, i don't see the dynamics of this bill changing much. the other side has a lot of money. i do not see the political hamlin behind this issue that would punish them for not acting -- political handler behind this issue that would punish them for not acting. >>