analysis of science gaps and understanding on the arctic to help informed decisions going forward. i lay this out to give a flavor for the various players that we have involved in the science questions that are before us at the department. i will close their and i know we're anxious to get to questions and answers and i will defer backs the secretary. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for those presentations. i want to say that i particularly appreciate that when we invited you, mr. secretary, to talk about the arctic you want a more expansive conversation which we welcome and appreciate. among the many vigorous reforms that you have been busy implementing, the one that i particularly admire is the degree of transparency and directness in your inquiries with respect to the status and

quality of voem, of its staff and resources and general capacity to perform. what we know about that enterprise depends very much on your own overside and other interior department reviews. i want to begin simply by listing the issues i hope we can get through in the next half- hour or so. i want to leave time to get into the arctic with commissioner beineke. the first test to do with the state of mms. based on the reviews from your department, it is dysfunctional. it consists of people who have been undertrained, overworked, underfinanced, insufficiently supported by district superiors according to more than 40% of the respondents. the workers at boem are overly

susceptible to industry pressures. and it -- inspectors were being reversed by their supervisors and not equipped with manuals, policies. we will look back as well as forward. that is the responsibility of our commission. the question we have is how did the state of this agency and the fact that it was so overworked among other things -- i understand 54 oil rigs per inspector was the responsibility of people in the gulf verses 8 calif. -- how did that or did that figure in your decision to propose an expansion of offshore oil and gas leasing? and the follow-up to that is how much has changed? how much can we assume going forward this agency will be

characterized by more formal training? i gathered and has not been formal training for employees? what about compensation? is it possible to use some of the resources and procedures that abused by other agencies in the government to get technically trained people may be interfacing with other people who are compensated more than they are? is there a way to recognize that? has there been any suspensions or dismissals with respect to some of the things uncovered in the oversight inquiry and some of the others? finally, with respect to your own reorganization proposal and i very much want to get into that. that is a major concern of the commission. did you take into account the experience of other countries? we notice that several countries, most notably the united kingdom, norway, canada,

australia have undergone very significant reorganizations in the way they have overseen, leased, regulated, enforced safety and environmental protection in the offshore environment. did you look before you made some of your own proposals? it is unfair to ask a cabinet officer to talk about how seriously you might have considered moving something outside your own agency but has that come up? as the administration been involved in making judgments about proposals made by the former secretary and others about the functions and revenue raising and that they do not belong in the same department with the regulatory enterprises? that is a long list and i will hope that we get through a big -- a good bit of it. i would invite you to respond to any or as much of it as we can

get through. >> absolutely, let me just say that there is no question that you should not ask me. you should ask about things we have done and things we will do in the future. those are all good questions that u.s.. with respect to the cultural mms, there is a clear statement i made when i hired and appointed with the president's assistant secretary lewis who was a long-term prosecutor in the district of columbia. michael bromwich and i meant business when we came in and we want to change the culture with an mms. we have been doing that. i think most of the time which has been brought to light which is not the kind of conduct

anyone would want to tolerate in government or public service, it was conduct that occurred back in 2005 and 2006. i would like to see how much of that conduct, if any, happen from when we came in and impose new ethics reform. having said that, there are a whole host of other issues relating to whether or not this agency with these very robust important missions has been adequately supported or financed to do the inspections. that is essentially the assignment we have given to do -- we have given mike bromwich to do.

one bad apple and spoil the whole bunch and we continue to work on that. we already have a new unit we are well on our way to changing the culture would mms. secondly, how that relates to the expansion on ocs, when you look at the announcement that we made on march 31, what we said at that point in time was that we were moving forward with the process which contemplates her relative to the creation of a five-year plan, that can after an extended period of time, 180 days, which then kicked in a whole set of additional environmental analysis prior to the time that we made a decision about how we were going to lease. we were not prejudging anything but the arctic.

with respect to the future, if there is a singular goal that we omwich,signed to my br it is that we have a robust agency that can do their assignments and won the american people can be proud of. that is his assignment. in terms of personnel actions that have been taken, in both the sex and drugs scandal and access mms, some people have been terminated and prosecuted and in other areas where there has been missed context where the secretary general and the gao have looked at, appropriate personnel action has been taken and a number of people have been affected by that. i would ask my bromwich to

responded well. the reorganization which we have put forward essentially is an effort to de-conflict the mission of what was mms. we have taken the revenue collectors and moved them wilma department of the and moved into the management functions under assistant secretary ria su. the department of the interior has the major function in terms of collecting revenues on behalf of the 20% and 1.7 billion acres in the continental shelf

this states that the revenue from the enforcement. that leaves the other part of what they oversees which is the mbira 04 education and enforcement. we split between doing the planning and leasing. the personnel will be assigned that function which is the policing, safety, and making sure there is environmental compliance. your question was how did we arrive at that formatting in the organization. we had a very extensive review conducted by people in my office. we looked at the experiences in places like the united kingdom. look at how long the organizations were set up. we did what we thought was best for the united states some money

of your questions, chairman, are some that i have given. >> let me respond to what you said at the top, describing my agency as dysfunctional and looking for reasons. if you go down the reasons. underfinanced? absolutely. only susceptible to industry pressure? probably not "only," but in part because they were underfinanced. outgunned because of the other reasons being underfinanced and under resource? i think the answer is yes. we have an agency that has been starved for a very long time where it was to process permits quickly. that is the incentive system

that the secretary and i are trying to change. i want to emphasize the bulk of the employees in the organization now and before have been good, professional, dedicated public servants. they have been given a new and expanded mission. they are led to understand that these are preeminent values, that they are to enshrine all of the work that they do. circumstances are significantly changing. they will only change as much as you and i want them to change if we have the resources to do the job. that is critically important. as you suggested, the workload is absurd that was heaped on inspectors in terms of the average number of rigs they would be of -- they would be inspecting. under-training has been a problem as well as i am sure you

and many members of the commission know. in times of tight budget, the first thing to go is money for training. i've seen this in police departments, other private agencies. we do not have the kind of robust training program that everyone should want us to have. right now, we are advertising for two trading directors because recognize the need to put together the type of formal training program that is necessary in order to build a vital regulatory enforcement capacity. in the past, our inspectors have been trained through industry operator courses. they can learn a lot from them, but they are designed primarily for operators. we need a separate curriculum that is designed for the inspectors and to the jobs they are expected to do on our agencies. going back to the points we to -- you touch daughter leon, we will have to be very creative as

we look at ways to recruit and retain the best and brightest people in the volume and gas regions said that we can get truly quality people who are willing to go into public service and stay in the public service. we will not be able to compete dollar for dollar with the oil and gas companies. by pitching the says public service in trying to be more competitive than we currently are, i think we will make some significant in roads. among the many things we will be doing is exploring creative ways in trying to raise salaries so we can do a better job recruiting and retaining. we hope to do a better job recruit at various petroleum engineering schools and schools that train other professionals in related fields in the months ahead. we know this is a major challenge. we think we are up to it. i am committed to succeeding as

is expected. >> how much has been accomplished so far? what was the cutoff date for the problems we described. at what point was that current, the problems that were described in that report? >> mila understanding is they were given the task of doing that back in the april-may months. >> things are pretty bad. >> as i am sure you read, the bulk of the report consisted of self reporting by individuals in the agency. these were not external critics coming in and in the face of the niles. >> i am quite aware. what i am getting at is a -- i do not think you can fairly say

it was an inherited problem that the ethics issues and the issues of reversing inspectors was in the past. it looked like from that report as if it was still on the minds of the inspectors. >> nothing had changed in terms of resources at that time which i think is a major part of the solution here. >> chairman, if i could add? frankly, that report, as you said, it left everything hanging out. it told the american people what it was that was happening from the agency. it was harsh, but it was a real report. that is the only way an organization can be fixed, the only way we will get the gold standard kind of agency that you all want, that we want, that the president has directed us to create. we need to understand what the problems are. that report, as harsh as it may become a was a report we did.

it provided mike, david, and i with a road map on the matter is that we need to address. >> it suggested a very large challenge which i know you understand. i want to take time to return to the reorganization. the proposed reorganization, as i am understand, it would have the cure responsible for the managing of the leases along the outer continental shelf and responsible for the safety and environmental standards. both of those would report to the same assistant administrator for landed minerals. their report to the deputy secretary reports to you. does that not pose the same apparent conflict of interest promoting revenue generation verses safety and environmental protection? the reason i raise the other question is none of the other

countries have done this in response. they have all separated the enforcement performance from the management of the leasing. >> the chairman, the separation is one that is driven in fact buy what we look at when we look that the programs that have been set up in the u.k. and norway. the group of people, looking at other organizations, felt that the separation, which they recommended to me, would accomplish the de-conflicting of the missions. >> i agree, but in those countries, is it a separate agency that oversees each of those functions? that is what i am getting at. at my own experience of the epa, where we auctioning off one

assistant secretaryship and receiving revenues and then overseeing environmental performance, air, water come and so forth in the other? i cannot imagine we would not be accused of being -- being convicted. >> recognize that is one alternative which could have been pursued. it was our view, and i will have david comment on this, that the way we had split up the functions with respect to the permissions appropriately accomplished the same separation that was accomplished in the u.k. and norway. >> i would make two quick points, mr. chairman. one is the fact that the reports that both reporting to the assistant secretary does not suggest that those two entities do not have independence. the national park service and the wildlife service both report

to a single assistant secretary, but they are very independent. likewise, these two both report to a single assistant secretary. they are very different, very independent organizations. the second point i would make is somewhat similar to the epa. in 1992, the decision was made by carol browner after the transition time that i served on to separate out the office of enforcement from the permitting agencies that were granting the permits and the concern was that it was not appropriate for the clean water assistant administrator to also have the enforcement segments in that same group. the same agency, but separate out the functions which is basically what we're trying to do here, too. >> but there were no revenues involved. >> they have been moved out completely into a whole different area of the department. i see your point of.

>> i would just say with respect to science, we did not get much of a chance to talk about that. , but i would simply commend to you the experience we have had after prince william sound, more than $100 million was put into science to provide the kind of baseline reports that allow us today to say the persistence of oil continues to be noted and have effects of the ecosystem. in has turned out to be a very constructive thing based on what i have learned as recently as a couple of weeks ago in alaska. i would like to the agenda this conversation and we will look forward to doing so within this week. we will have another commission meeting with you and we would very much appreciate your time with us. i will turn this over to relate to the arctic issues. >> thank you, chairman. i have two areas i would like to explore with the three of you.

the first is expansion of the leasing program. the consequences on your approach to that going forward also. you envision expanding operations extensively into the offshore environment. do have a different process you'd be planning to proceed with on how to consult on baseline science and what areas are of environmental significance and how their expertise ought to be integrated into the planning of a five-year leasing program? in an earlier hearing, we heard there was very little consultation going forward. i am just wondering if you have a different approach based on what we know now. >> commissioner, you raise a very good question. let me make the following point. i of knowledge the expertise

they have as an agency and the importance of the department of the interior and myself as secretary to understand that it does occur. it did in fact happened in the last round in the process of developing the five-year plan. much of the many we actually spend on science from what was then mms was spent in contract with the scientists. does that mean the consultation could not be enhanced and improved? i think the answer to that is yes. we need to make sure we have a robust consultation because of the very important mission. it is part of the reason why i have asked the usgs to make sure we are getting the best of signs

with respect to the arctic. we are also in the process of putting together a new mou between ourselves and the noa. >> we have been involved in a series of meetings with anyone involved in these issues. i foresee we will be entering into an mou in the very near future. the most recent meeting happened last friday. they're going forward on a regular basis and i think we will have something to announce in the not too distant future. >> thank you. turning to the arctic, secretary salazar, you were up in alaska recently. he stated publicly that you would be undertaking various specific analysis before you made decisions on whether to proceed in the arctic. one thing we have heard a lot about is the response gap in the

arctic. we watched the technology and the conditions in the arctic burberry adverse and very different than in the gulf, yet the technology is the same. could you talk a little bit about what specific issues you have to get more information on as you proceed with the issues relative to the arctic and specifically how you are dealing with this response? avoid the technology currently is and whether that could be applied in every different condition in the arctic, whether it could be applied successfully. >> those are all very good questions. andy, it was because of what i consider to be the lack of sufficient science and the

when you're dealing with in the

gulf of mexico, 100-150 feet. this is part of the science and information gathering which we will let that in the months and years ahead as we discussed -- decide how to move forward. overall, my approach as secretary of the interior of the arctic has been to go slow, the thoughtful, develop additional information which is why we ended up with the leases in the arctic area. >> comments, questions? commissioner garcia? >> midafternoon. once the moratorium is lifted, and this is just an estimate, but how many rigs do you expect to be drilling in the first month?

>> that is a question i have been asking of him as well. [laughter] >> glad to give you another opportunity. >> in the first month, probably very few. let me take a step back and describe the process. we have two very significant roles that are likely to be issued toward the end of this week. one of which will happen immediately with a quite substantial impact. it is called the interim final rule. it will be effective immediately. it will oppose a significant number of technical requirements on the industry. this will not come as a surprise to the industry. they were foreshadowed in the may 27 report that secretary salazar delivered to the president. we have been talking about them to raise significant degree during the public forums and underscoring the point that

industries can expect them to come out and even outline the schedule on a much they will come out. industry have known that some collection of these new steps will be coming out. i do not know because i have not called individual operators. i do not know which of the various operators are already compliant and which of them will take some time for the industry to comply with. there are a significant number of additional requirements that the industry will have to comply with. even when the moratorium is lifted, you not see drilling going on the next day or even the next week. and will take some time. i would be guessing at this point how long it will take companies to submit their new application and how long it will take us to very carefully and responsibly review those applications to make sure they are fully compliant with both

the old rules and the new rules. >> that is a good point, the last one you raised. given the fact that you are on their resources, understaffed, how do you anticipate that you will be able to review these proposals and assess the efficacy? >> we are stressed and stretched, but we also need to adjust to the new realities that we will be dealing with in the near future. i have directed the reassignment of certain resources, both from california and alaska. in addition, there is the additional allocation of resources within our gulf regional office. we will have a significant number of additional people who will be dealing with both shallow water permits that are already pending in the deepwater drilling applications that we can fairly anticipate. >> if i may, commissioner

garcia? what i would like the commission to take away with this is that we are moving forward in as thoughtful and way as possible, but they are not new. when we sent the report, which the president told me to give him at the end of may, that report laid out a number of important recommendations relevant to safety. there were put together from inside intelligence. much of what we will be announcing is carrying out the recommendations that we made to the president's in the safety record. i will say this to the commission. i know this commission is graded in large part to get to what the

root causes were from this explosion and oil spill. it is incumbent upon you in the cut -- incumbent upon us to learn everything that is going on. i visited the blowout preventer to see the riser pipe and pipe cut. in is all now a crime scene. i wanted to see what it looked like and to understand. and ultimately give you as a commission, the coast guard, the marine board, the evidence they will need to determine what exactly what -- went wrong. there's no doubt in my mind that at the end of the day, they had

some responsibility for the failure of detection and other things that happened. you have heard some of the testimony here. having said that, we are moving forward with requirements concerning cementing, concerning casing, the testing a block preventers including the requirement that they be tested under different conditions in the sub-sea and a whole host of other things that have already been learned. the last six months, from april 20 if until we declared the wellhead -- well dead, it has been a laboratory of learning. the relief wells are being drilled to finally accomplished the bottom killed. there were testing requirements that were placed that had never

been put on before it. they gave us information on what to do with respect to the blowout preventers relative to the testing protocol that will be required. as you look forward to the post- moratorium world, the lessons that have been learned over the last six months are lessons that we will be applying in the new regulatory framework that we will be initiating here in the days ahead. his report to me and the moratorium was due on the 30th of november. he has worked very hard along with an entire team of people and the extensive out rich -- outreach he has described on how to move forward. he expects to give that to me by the end of this month. i very much look forward to reading, analyzing, look at the

auctions, and a decision on how we will move forward. >> thank you very much. mr. secretary, i would like to thank you for your great outdoors initiative. i would like to thank you for your efforts to rebalance the mms approach to safety and environmental concerns. my question relates to spill response plans. they have been criticized as lacking adequate review, lacking transparency. this morning, we heard a lot about the unified command and representation that basically for small-scale spills than it has worked very well. for a spell of this dimension, just the scale, it made the response very challenging which brings me to the question of, how much information as the

agency have about the potential size of a field that will be permitted for an exploratory drill and the response plan that is commensurate with it? the spill response plan for an elephant-sized verses a horse traverses a mouse should be pretty different in terms of what kind of capacity the industry has to respond to a spill. its sounds like there has been a rubber stamping of spills or spill response plans over the last decade or so which has led to less than appropriate levels of planning for at least the elephant-sized fields. does the usgs provide information when they are reviewing the appropriate scale of a response plan? how could we improve the public

comment on these response plans and integrate the appropriate signs from the region, universities, other parts of the federal government to really have them be effective. >> commissioner ulmer, that is one of the three major questions will which we will address in the report with respect to oil spill response plans. one of the things he is doing is looking at the question of worst case this charges. as we move forward with our program on shallow water drilling, it has been an issue which has been addressed there. it is something with which we recognize is a very foundational issue as we move forward with respect to developing oil and gas in the ocean. what happened in the post-exxon

valdez days is that there was a national sense shared by republicans and democrats alike, multiple administrations, multiple secretaries of the interior especially when dealing with oil spill response and a fine quality of oil -- finite quality of will. what we've found out from the 75 days of the oil into the ocean is it was very difficult to quantify in the first place which brings in a whole set of lessons to be learned relative to instrumentation and other things we are learning on but also the difficulty of being able to respond effectively to it. that is one thing the director is working on for me and i would ask the deputy secretary comment on this as well.

>> just a quick comment, commissioner. i do not think there's any question that the spill response plans need a fresh look. we intend to do that. on your threshold question, how do you know in the aggregate that you have adequate capacity of the fields that are large as well as the small ones? in fact, under the current system, companies are expected to do spill response plans based on all of their assets in the region. the irony here is that bp had a spill response plan that anticipated a spill of 260,000 barrels per day, significantly more than the well. i think that is not the problem, frankly. whether the response plan is sized correctly. the challenge is, is the response plan truly capable of

execution? that is clearly for the process of staleness has developed in terms of review in the vitality of response efforts available. it has not been there. there has been an over-reliance on the shared enterprise from the spill response corp. we now the same issues arising with containment. previously, it had not been addressed in any significant degree at all. it is really an extension of spill response. if you have a deep sea blowout, how you can take that as a portion of the response? the secretary is leading a very thoughtful exercise here.

we look forward to working on how best to deal with these issues. i will say that one of the holdups, if you will, in terms of the approval of shallow water drilling has been in the notice that we put in earlier this summer. that had been removed by the prior administration. we put it back in and it has taken companies awhile for us to review those scenarios. we expect that to be continued, if and when the deepwater moratorium is lifted. we think that is appropriate and necessary. >> it has not gone unnoticed then this will need close scrutiny and we are doing so right now. we are hopeful we will be able to give guidance to lessees through formal notification on

how this to be changing and additional requirements will be -- we will be posing. >> i would encourage you to include something along the lines of a public response opportunity, a public notice, something that allows the people within the region to be able to review this response plan. >> thank you. >> secretary salazar, i am pleased you chose to highlight the science programs going forward. at our first hearing in new orleans, i think the director was present with some scientists from agencies to testify the about the lack of deep understanding of the gulf of mexico so we could not adequately understand.

just before lunch here today, we heard from scientists who were investigating what happened with the spill on the deepwater and used some quite remarkable technologies. it struck me, as a long-term observer as a long-term observer, in fact i chaired the science board way back when. mms then was using a fairly descriptive approach to the science program, one approach that is really designed to understand some questions that have to address broader than the long-term operational conditions. i was wondering if you were doing something similar to the

arctic. i want to make sure we are using the best and brightest scientists and the new technologies emerging from science to help our understanding in very dramatic ways. >> the answer to that is, yes, we are doing to that. there is a very extensive monitoring program that is being worked on and monitoring protocol with respect to the gulf of mexico and the impacts of the deepwater horizon. those protocols are now being finalized as we speak. they will move forward. we are conducting ourselves with the environmental impact statement to take into account the consequences of the spill. you are correct. my own view is you have an

agency that has a responsibility so we have the best robust science. some are in usgs, some in fish and wildlife service, some at boem. we need to make sure we have those resources focusing in on those activities. we are asking for an additional $100 million in a budget amendment which the president has submitted to the congress which is being deliberated right now. it will be additional sites resources to boem. >> chairmen? >> thank you, mr. chairman. when do you estimate your next

lease call for leases in the gulf of mexico will be issued? >> we will make that determination in the months ahead. i will receive the report from the director on the moratorium. i will take a good and hard look to study this as a product of the major impact already. we will then take a look at the leasing schedule. i think the next police in the gulf of mexico is not scheduled until sometime in 2011. as we crack down program going forward, we will make whatever adjustments are necessitated from what we are learning from this process. we have counseled one of the lease sales which was supposed to go forward in the last month,

i think. >> yes. as the secretary referenced, the secretary has asked for a supplemental environmental impact statement to be done because obviously this spill has had an impact on the gulf. of the question is that environmental analysis should go forward before the next sale occurs. to some extent, we will see how long that takes, but the secretary is committed to having good science, good environmental review to inform the timing of leasing sales. >> part of the reason for asking that question is that in the last panel, we had one analyst commenting about some resistance that his organization had encountered in their research while the spill

was still on going. i cite that as a specific example of some of the kinds of things that need to be considered for inclusion in the lease terms. it is, i think, intolerable to have a major accident like this, have an agency of the quality under the auspices of the federal government thwarted in its efforts to fully understand because the leaseholder is withholding access to information. i think this next round of leases is an opportunity for the federal government as, essentially the owner, on behalf of the american people of this property and this environment which potentially is at rest to use the leases as a means of setting a new set of standards

of how this property will be managed. >> chairman, if i may? we believe strongly in science and the integrity of science and even in a moment of crisis with the invasion of oil in a way that threatens this country that i do not think anyone ever imagined we would face. we still put together the best scientists and engineers from around the world. we gave guidance and oversaw what was happening with respect to the efforts to try and stop these go. we hosted a first meeting of scientists with administrator jackson. we had scientists from around the country and we wanted them to be involved with us as we looked at the science issue moving forward.

then the leadership of both the administrator from naoa and others pulled together a group of scientists down in louisiana to help in the effort. i would just conclude by saying that these efforts have just begun. the need for science is obviously not just in the gulf but where we do business everywhere. >> mr. secretary, i have a couple of requests. we have focused before, as you have from the various industry alternatives for supplementing industry. one of the processes we look at is in the nuclear industry. there are other examples of that

and i raise this -- raise this at the last hearing. have you had a chance to form an opinion on whether that would be a useful thing into your arsenal? >> chairman, we are in the middle of looking at that very issue at a conference with the deputy secretary of the together just last week. we had industry as well as admiral allen and others give us an overview of lessons learned and look at the way forward. as the former director, have developed a set of principals and protocols relative to a collaboration. we had complications asking him to help us in terms of trying to elaborate on what that would look like. my response is that we do not have a decision yet on which way

to go with respect to this collaboration. we recognize this as a very important issue. and is raised in part by the industry's commitment and joined by bp to put $1 billion of were deal with the spill containment which the directors spoke about. the question is, how should that be covered? should it be under the office of the nonprofit? should it be done in a different way? those are the issues with which we are looking at. we will have, i think, some recommendation for you and others to back in the weeks ahead. >> i know you have a contract with mckinsey. we do not have time to go into it, but i assume, what could we

be privy to those recommendations as they come in and have copies of that report? >> i am working most directly with them. we are in the course of gathering information by visiting. i do not know if a final report is ever the same. and will be a rowling process because of getting the real time information and making decisions promptly. i will talk with you and your staff, but i do not want to promise a report when i may not even get one. >> i appreciate that. we will cooperate however. we will be out of your hair by january. >> i think it is important. we are dealing with a dynamic situation. you have a report to deliver in

january. i think the quality of your work and your presentation can be enhanced by what is we are learning as we're going forward with these processes. as you can tell by her testimony in the written testimony submitted to you today, it shows the work we are already doing as we are not waiting. it is also important to make sure we are working with you and your staff. >> your efforts have been helpful to the commission. your experiences very constructive. the oversight board made 50, if i remember correctly, recommendations to you. we would be interested to know where you stand with those, how far along you are. you are intending to except quite a number of them from what the director has said and the degree to which were getting

support on those, questions for differential pay opportunities for inspectors and the like. we would be very grateful to have that. we will take it seriously and taken into account for our own report. >> we will keep you updated. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for this eliminating and forthright conversation. >> may i make a closing comment? >> certainly. >> you are working on a very important subject, obviously, to the department of the interior and the united states of america. this will really go beyond the united states. i believe the gold standard that we all developed here in this country will be the guidance for what happens around the world. the serious nature of what we all are doing cannot be overstated.

let me just say to you in the most blunt way that what i hope happens as a result of this tragedy which no one asked for, no one wanted, but it has happened. the question is, where will we go from here? it is my hope, first of all, that we can lead the way in developing the safest production of oil and gas in our ocean that does come in fact, protect our environment and protect workers working at their on those rates. secondly, knowing the members of this commission, your history, your support for conservation, restoration that we will be in a position in the gulf of mexico from this so we will see a restoration of an ecosystem with -- which people have dropped about for a very long time from

the mississippi river coming to the barrier reef to the 36 fish and wildlife refuges, the national parks, it is an ecosystem which is truly one of the lands gaps -- landscapes of national significance. your support as we move forward is something which we very much will appreciate. >> we appreciate that. if you would like to come back tomorrow, we will concentrate on restoration. thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you.

>> the c-span network. it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and social networking sites. and find c-span on the road. bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way, the

c-span network. now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable. provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" is next. we'll take your phone calls. then we'll bring you the beginning of a hearing on a pentagon proposal to eliminate the joint services command. live coverage from the senate armed services committee begins at 10:00 eastern. later we'll join the house. legislative work begins at 12:00 eastern. a number of veterans benefits issues on the agenda today. .