september 2011 summary of the eis, eir and related scientific and technical reports and intentional circumvention of the policy that ensures the science of integrity and scholarship and asked that it compromises science and scholarly interrogatory receipt. given the tampering with scientific data made by the official directly responsible for overseeing the scientific integrity of these studies, your statement that there's been a, quote, complete absence of any complaints about the manner in which the kalamuth basin study is proceeding is absolutely stunning. so i'd ask you again, have there been in your words a complete absence to date about the complaints in which the kalamuth basin studies are proceeding? >> perhaps i needed to be more complete to the inspector general's office. if that complaint was referred to our office i was not aware of it. >> well, wouldn't that be a prime interest to the

inspector general's office, any reasonably competent inspector general, wouldn't they be somewhat concerned of such allegations by an official responsible for protecting the scientific integrity of these studies? >> yes, sir. >> .

>> did you not consider, you had said that you would consider this of interest to the inspector general's office but you have not looked into it? >> i do not know that we've looked into it. i think it's something we should look into. >> why haven't you looked into it? >> i don't know. i'm not aware of it, sir.

>> have you or anyone in your office, to your knowledge, had any discussion with anyone in dr. hauser's office about the investigation or lack of it? >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> in the list of complaints up provided to the committee there is one by kyra finkler, is that correct? >> if that's in the documents -- >> what was that regarding? >> i don't know. >> kira finkler was dr. hauser's boss at the bureau of reclamation. her response was to fire him. she's also the person overseeing the clam ath dam -- klamath dam project but she did not re'cuse herself from the

project. now, i ask you again, a complaint regarding her was in your list of complaints provided to the committee. what was that about? >> you've provided me enough information now that i do remember we received this complaint. i don't have detailed information about what happened to it. we could get back to it. >> you know, this is absolutely stunning. this is a significant matter. it involves a proposal that has environmental, fiscal, economic impact throughout the entire region and you seem oblivious to it. i find that remarkable and, mr. chairman, i like us to further this inquiry at a later time. >> time of the gentleman has expired. that is of interest to the committee. the gentleman from florida in i'm sorry, i didn't see the

stately chairman come in. >> not only distinguished by a promotion all in one sentence. that's my wishful thinking, by the way. anyway, ms. kendall, thank you for being here. in listening to this, it's kind of not confusing but just astounding to me that as we debate what i think is a point but a sam -- sem antical point of pause, moratorium and we call the process right now worse than the catastrophe itself even though that cost lives and millions and billions of dollars in costs both to clean up and to the economy of the region, we seem to skirt that iraq by as we try to somehow nail down a semantic difference as being the root cause of everything that

happened in the bay. but anyway, the safety oversight board report which i issued to the secretary states you -- the oil industry must make a forceful, wide spread and long-term commitment to the safest ultimately for a new and robust safety culture to tyke root. industry must not merely follow the rules, it must assume a leadership role. the majority of this committee has refused to allow the c.e.o.'s of the oil industry to testify before this committee. don't you agree that the heads of the largest oil companies should come before congress so that the the american people can hear what actions they've taken to assume the meaningful role in developing a new safety

culture that was called for in the report? >> i would certainly like to know that safety culture has been instituted. i think it was very important to the safety oversight board at the time that some of the responsibility be placed on industry as opposed to primarily government being the oversight and imposer of responsibility. >> and, ms. kendall, in the report it recommends also evaluating the rates and structure of civil penalties and possibly initiating the legislative process to insure that penalties are appropriately tied to the receiverity of the violation. -- severity of the violation. right now the max fine the government can levy is $40,000. that's a slap on the wrist for most companies operating off shore.

friction -- for instance, the max fine the department of interior could levy against b.p. for the oil spill would be $21 million. the former director of the agency and the director of b.o. e.m. have said congress should increase these penalties significantly to provide a sufficient financial deterrent to companies that violate the law. would you agree that congress should look at raising these penalties significantly as stated in the report? >> yes, our recommendation was to work with congress to review how these penalties are imposed and what the caps are. if i recall correctly, and i don't have perfect recall at this point, but that there was some restriction that the department. could not do this unilaterally and needed help from congress. >> thank you. i yield to the gentleman. >> thank you. i'd like to bring this discussion back to earth.

>> 11 om a.m. advisement -- >> the other side said the question is did the department of the interior deliberately agree that there should be a moratorium. well, there's no question she -- they said there should be a pause. we could spend all day or all year investigating whether it was a pause or moratorium and whether we when ruin people's careers in the department of the interior, but it's all based on this really sad misunderstanding from the other side of the aisle here that somehow the moratorium is worse than the oil spill disaster. this moratorium, and remember we now have 50% more noting rigs working in the gulf than we did during the b.p. spill. during the pause moratorium

period there were no layoffs. yet bausks of the spill, the dispersants that were used, the spill, there was enormous environmental damage, economic damage and there were lives lost. don't tell me that pause or moratorium is worse than the disaster. and we should be investigating the disaster and the effects of that disaster and the steps to provide safety and public health and environmental protection into the future rather than yanking people before this committee to talk about whether they deliberately changed the word pause into moratorium. come on! >> the time. gentleman has expired. we have a vote going on and my intention is to recognize mr. sutherland and then after that we'll wait. we have two votes. we will reconvene. this is important timing. we will reconvene 10 minutes

after the start of the last vote. as soon as the second vote starts, 10 minutes thereafter we will reconvene. chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. sutherland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have to say, mr. chairman, i find it somewhat disturbing that so -- some of my colleagues claim that those of us who live on the gulf of mexico have completely forgotten this zafment i think it's grotesque in their accusations when i live each and every day with people that have been affected by this. my family has been affected by this and i think it's unbecoming of their positions, especially the ranking member. i would like to say to mrs. kendall, i am concerned that in the past government officials have used a personal email account as a way to avoid scrutiny by congress and the public. i'm also concerned that since

it is investigate -- investigative -- that sensitive or law enforcement information would be treated so casually, sent through nonsecure means such as yahoo or g mail or whatever. does the i.g. have a secure way to access email remotely? >> yes >> what is the policy for using your personal email account rather than your official i.d. account? >> i don't know tho -- that we have a policy on that. >> well, obviously you have a personal email account adds we all members of congress do and your official email as well. may i ask how often you use your personal email account to conduct professional business? >> i use my professional email fairly regularly to send myself

reminders. so -- to send work that i've worked on at home but i do not send any sensitive information that would need to be encrypted or have any other kind of protections. we do have a policy on that. >> so you limit your email use of your personal email account to personal business or as a reminder from you in your personal email account to your business email account to remind you of stuff that needs to be done. >> yes. or to transmit, for instance, draft letters back to this committee. >> i know as a part of the emails that your office has provided there are a number of official i.g. emails that appear to have been sent from your personal, as you stated -- stated, your yahoo email account as opposed to to the i.g. account and i would ask at the desk, you can clearly see from the exhibit that we have

on the screen, we have an email that was sent from steven hargrove. it wasn't from you, obviously to you as a reminder but it was sent from steven with the i.g.'s office obviously to your personal email account and down at the bottom the statement, "i have no problem working closely with the department on this" and the whole purpose of this email, the discussion, was the safety oversight board that has been the center of this discussion today. the statement "i have no problem working with the department on this or other issues, i probably did not realize the majority of our staff is not prepared are for it nor understands it." so based on that this individual who sent you an email to your personal account, was he in violation of the i.g. policy by sending and coring

with you on your personal account? and is it fair for us to be curious as to the use of your personal account that could be in violation of the i.g. policy that you claim you do have? >> yeah, i quite frankly am -- i don't know the details of the policy other than for on sensitive, encrypted -- or that sensitive information needs to be encrypted. i'm looking at the date here and i don't know that this 2010 we had the capacity to access work email from home like this. we do now, but i'm not sure that we did at the time. >> can you provide the committee with copies of any i.g. internal policies or guidance on using personal email for conducting personal business? >> if we have it. >> you claimed a few minutes

ago that you do have it. >> i know we have policy governing email. i don't know that it covers personal emails. >> ok. whatever you have, that would be helpful for us to see. obviously you can understand our concern if there are personal emails being used because when we're needing to do searches and certainly a person in your position should, could and should understand that -- the conflict there. i mean is that fair? you understand our, my concern? >> i'm not sure that i do, but -- >> well, that's even a bigger problem and the reason i say that's a bigger problem because a person in your position, you have -- you are paid significantly in your position. you have tremendous authority. people understand you -- people under you, and i find that a leader, which you are in a leadership position, you must at all times practice

discretion and discernment borne out of wisdom and i think at the very minimum, the -- that has been brought into question -- >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> mr. chairman, if i may, i didn't have a chance to finish my answer. >> i do not understand the concern because the committee knows i use my personal emails baw we provided those to the committee in response to a request. >> ok. we will reconvene 10 minutes after the start of the second vote. committee stands in recess.

>> the committee will reconvene. >> i think the chairman. i was in my office watching a bit of the hearing and i've got to say i'm a bit puzzled about the demeanor of some of the members here as though some crime has been committed. it appears that the difference between the word "pause" and the word "moratorium," and i looked up both words and there is no limit on a pause. a pause could be six months, 12 months, could be a decade.

moratorium has a slightly different meaning, but again there is no duration attached to the word and in this record -- report the number six was attached. you could have used the word pause and said we're going to pause for a year. and we paused for good reason. the blowout preventer didn't work. why didn't it work? it was kind of critical to know why it didn't work since that's our last line of defense against catastrophic oil 123il8s -- spills the it appears that the blowout preventer wasn't capable of cutting at least 10 of the pipe where it's joined. and there were other problems with its maintenance. i think it was prudent we took a little time to figure out, hm, we've got a fail-safe here and the fail-safe failed. so i would like to yield time to the acting inspector general

if she has anything to say because i noted she's had very little time to respond to anything that has been going on here. was i inaccurate in anything i said? >> i have not looked up the difference between pause and moratorium, so i appreciate that information and i appreciate the type. the things that i guess i would like to come back to is the focus of the investigation that we conducted, and vs -- it was very, very focused primarily because of the words from you, mr. chairman, asking that we look at how the executive summary was edited to suggest that the moratorium decision was peer reviewed and that's what we did. we had information, the documentation that we needed came down to these emails that had been sent in the early morning hours between, i

believe, 11:38 and 2:13 a.m. where the editing had been done and that is where the editing that was changed by the white house personnel went from suggesting that the moratorium was the secretary's decision to the moratorium had been peer-reviewed. and that really was the only focus of our investigation. we got all the information that we needed to make that determination and we did to. i thank you for the time. >> so some overzealous politically apint -- politically appointed white house staffer, probably junior level, made an edit that they thought added some em -- emphasis to the executive summary? >> there was no evidence in the email exchange to suggest that that was done intentionly? >> ok. but still it was done at the

white house? >> the editing that occurred to make this distinctionth was at the white house. >> and i understand from peer review they did recommend a pause, which i mentioned earlier. >> i did that. >> i believe that they did and that's why i feel that the focus is on the difference between six-month moratorium and pause, which could be drarks it could be nonexistent. a pause could be longer. so i appreciate that we've had how many documents now that you have provided, or e. mails? >> i couldn't even begin to count. >> hundreds? thousands? >> hundreds, perhaps thuns thousands. >> ok. yet it seems there is a thirst for us to spend more time on this issue. again, i remain puzzled. i appreciate your service and hope that we move on to more

important subjects. thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back his time and recognizes the i can't from texas, mr. gore -- flores. >> thank you. i wanted to respond to a couple be things said earlier. i think mr. holt says -- said the number of deep oil rigs in the gulf is up 50%. that is false the it's down still so jobs are still being impacted by the moratorium, whatever you want to call it. second shall the ranking mechanic called this hearing trivial. this is not trivial in light of the administration's lack of transparency, not in the light of the fact you have another coverup falled fast and furious, when you look at the rewrite of the warren act outside of statutory authority, not trivial when you look at the obama administration's rewrite of the welfare laws contrary to the laws and i just

wanted to get that off the table. in your statement you advised the committee to review your 2010 report. if we could bring out exhibit 11, excuse me, exhibit 5 -- ok. in exhibit five you struck out the original draft language that stated the i.g. could not independently violate that the emails provided by steve black were complete and unedited. why did you strike out that sentence? >> you know, i don't have a recollection specifically of actually addressing that issue but my question would have been to the investigatingth shall -- investigating agent, if i were asking the question, what is it we need to validate?

we were provided the documents that focused on the question at hand, and that was how did this editing occur? >> let's talk about this. one of the things we need to know about the i.v.'s investigation and one of the things the american public needs to know about the i.g.'s investigation was, was the scope to inherenty reduced that the report is not worth the paper it's written on? in this case if you didn't review the white house emails, and i think that's the case, correct? >> i -- we did review the white house emails. >> the ones internally. >> the ones exchanged between department of interior and the white house where the editing took place. >> but none of the ones internally, correct? >> i'm not sure what you're asking. >> the ones inside the white house. >> our jurisdiction does not extend to the white house, sir. >> ok.

then don't you think this statement that got strucking don't you think that would be inform 0 tive -- informative, to say that it was not intentionly edited? >> what is your question, sir? >> the statement that you struck, don't you think that would have been informative when it says that the o.i.g. could not independently verify whether the emails had been edited or not? >> i don't think it was a question of the emails being edited. the emails were provided to us and there was nothing to suggest that he were not throw and complete. >> ok. this kind of sentence is fairly common in i.g. reports the don't you think it would are -- have been, if you left that sentence in you wouldn't have

had time to come back and clarify that, correct? >> i'm not sure what you're asking, sir in. >> ok. let's move on. exhibit 11, if we can. i'm running out of time. in the last sentence of mr. larab emple e's report it says we simply were not allowed to pursue the matter to the white house, but of course that is not mentioned in the report. don't you think that sentence would have been more transparent and prevented the secretary from being able to incorrectly claim that the i.g.'s report confirmed that there was no intent to mislead about what the report found or did not find? the secretary has tried to hide behind your report and say there was no -- nothing went wrong. but what your investigator is saying that -- is that i couldn't verify that. >> well, what he's saying is that he could not pursue it to

the white house because our juriiction does not extend to the white house. >> ok. i think it would have been better to say in the report that the scope was so retusde that the validity of the report was in question. i'm out of time. >> if i may respond to this, mr. chairman? >> go ahead. respond. >> i will be belief -- brief. the case agent wrote the first dravet the report and did not include any reference to this. it's not as if it was excluded. he did not put it in. i just wanted to make that clear. >> thank you. i want to recognize the representative from guam. >> thank you. if you could be concise in your answers, because i do have -- he responded that your email

exchange between was far simpler than my own but it still captured the matter the is that correct? >> correct. >> you were surprised when you read some of the case emails that have come out in this investigation, weren't you? >> very much so. >> caseth agent also speculated in an email to an o.i.g. colleague that the edit ds was ing -- intentional but there weren't facts to back that and he said that "the jury will always be out on this" and that the reader will have to make their speculations on this topic. is that correct? >> that is correct and that is what surprised me the most. >> you have been acting attorney -- inspector general for a while, correct?

>> going on three and a half years. >> what work have you done during that period that you are most proud of? >> i would say all the work the o.i.g. has done but perhaps most relevant to this is the review on the continental shelf which today is still being implemented by three bureaus in the department. >> ok. did that work achieve benefits for our american people and taxpayers? >> i would say it was one of the most comprehensive and impactful documents we've issued in a good number of years. >> very good. i feel that this is what the office of inspector general should be doing without being distracted by baseless documents requests by this committee and members of the committee should understand the important work that you do and what's at work if we continue to consume your time on this frivolous investigation.

>> will the gentle lady yield? >> yes. >> thank you. maybe it would be possible for you just to elaborate a little bit more on what the benefits were from the work that you've done in the last three and a half years overseeing the department of interior so that there can be a fuller understanding of the comprehensiveness of that. >> well, i'm going to be at a loss to sort of cite chapter and verse right here, but i went back and took a look at the last five semiannual reports that the o.i.g. issued. the first under my signature up to the last. and i was actually pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless, with the incredible amount of work that our office accomplishes every six months and the breadth of the work that we do. as you know, the department has

nine bureaus and offices that have very, very diverse missions. we go from indians to minerals to lands to geological survey and every day is something new. part of what is so rewarding about working in the office of inspector general for the department of the interior is the breadth. >> and how much of a distraction is this investigation that this committee is trying to conduct thus far with no avail at all, no evidence at all, from that other work that you're doing which sounds like it's critical in making sure we do uncover the wrong doing going on and the inefficiencies that exist? >> well, it has certainly been a distraction to me. i have kept my eye on the other issues, but it has taken a considerable amount of time

from me and my senior advisors. i can't quantify it beyond that it has been considerable. >> thank you very much. again, i can't raise enough times this problem that we have that this debate over whether or not there was a pause called for or a moratorium called for and secretary salazar is saying he called for the six-month moratorium shall the secretary himself, we should bring him here and let him explain what this judgment was. but we're not going to here -- hear about this bill or b.p. or the damage or halliburton or trance ocean. but none of that is ever going to come before the committee. that's not part of the republican agenda.

they're talking about the terminal exactity ude that -- exactitude that went on at the agency as though that's the crime that went on here. >> the chair will recognize mr. landry. >> if there is anyone here who has been affected by the spill, bit moratorium, and there have been many but if anyone has been, it's my constituents. you hear that there weren't that many layoffs. the reason is because people in south louisiana, they're not lazy. they don't want their government for anything except to get off their back. so when you kill their jobs in the gulf of mexico they have to leave their families and travel to africa, to the north sea, to montana because they know one

thing, that the country they grew up in, it's god, family, and work. ok? so they're not, they don't sit there waiting for the government to give them a check for -- or to feel sorry for them and they leave. but it's sad when they have to go to africa or leave the gulf the i don't understand. are you an investigative branch on a policy making branch? >> we are an audit and investigative branch the >> because when i close my eyes , listening to you answering the other questions, i could swear you're auditioning to become the secretary. you -- they're all about policy. you had a gentleman that asked whether you felt that safety standards implemented by

private industry were enough. that's not your scope. and just now you answered and talked about how proud you were about the work done working from mms to bms to desi the that's not your job. so unt -- unfortunately i think your testimony today has impeached you, has impeached your character the because earlier you said sure you're interested in the job of inspector general and -- because you are interim and need the support of the president. why didn't you just say appoint someone in the interim while i go out and lobby for that job? then there would have been -- i'm sure you're a bright lawyer the -- lawyer. then there would have been no question. this committee would not have to question -- question your

character or your actions. why didn't you just step aside and say look, i want to -- i want to apply for this jorks -- job, run for this job, why don't we appoint another interim who would have no biases? >> when i was asked to become acting inspector general, the inspector general at the time asked me to take over his role when he rent -- went to the recovery and oversight board. at the time i wasn't thinking about becoming the, shall i.g. i thnt -- didn't know what was going to happen with his appointment to the recovery board and it was the natural -- >> natural progression? there comes a point as a lawyer, you know that well, when it becomes a conflict of interest. if someone inside the department intention hi causes

irreparable harm to the industry, is there a criminal statute you can use to go after that person? if they inintentionally cause harm on an industry do you know the criminal statute you could use to go after them. >> i'm not -- >> do you think we should have one? >> intentional harm by itself may be a criminal violation. >> well, i see an email here that, from the case manager, which says, and i read, salazar 's statement that it was unintentional is a clear attempt to spin the report. i truly believe the editing was intentional. now, this isn't about a pause. the american academy of science says a 30-day pause certainly would have been sufficient. a six-month one they did not

stand by. so would you say that anyone who intentionly altered -- in intentionally altered the document caused harm to that industry? >> let me be clear, the committee did not say that was our opinion. >> but that's why we're here today. >> i understand that. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. inspector general, i for one appreciate the character you are showing today with the type of questioning you're having to go through. y think words matter. a -- a change of a word is what elicited this conversation and when we tell you that you've impeached your own character here today, i'm scheuer. i'm scheuer that was said. because words matter.

and because words matter, i have a dictionary here. eff webster's new dictionary of synonyms. anyone is welcome to borrow it. i've added tabs to save everybody time war -- where pause and moratorium are in here. they're the minority's books but i think if we found the same books in the majority's office, they read the same things. i hope theyould. make we should subpoena whoever is working for mr. webster to ask them why they defined pause the way they did and moratorium the way they did to get to the bottom of this. but what we should be talking about today and in the future is the moral question.

11 people's lives were taken. is that your understanding, inspector general? >> yes, sir. >> do you know how many gallons of oil were spilled in the gulf? >> i don't know. it was in the millions. >> i think the numbers i have here are 4 million. >> look, if there wasn't a spill, we wouldn't be here today. if the blowout preventer had worked rkt we wouldn't be here today. if that hadn't failed, we hadn't lost 11 lives, 11 fathers, brothers, sons, that's a catastrophic event. and mr. chairman, i know

sometimes, we're trying to get to the bottom of things, words matter, but why are we here? and when the president asked for the 30-day report to be compiled and put together, in 30 days, given the magnitude of what was talked about here, i think we all wanted to get to the bottom of this. there was not a one of us that didn't want to know what happened and plug that and make sure not another drop of oil got out, maybe shurek -- sure not another life was put in danger. and i appreciate the congeniality we had during that time. so i hope that's where we can concentrate our efforts and get to the bottom of this as well. one of the gentlemen from texas today asked you whether -- why you didn't investigate mr. larabee for praising you to

your tase -- face while criticizing your work to others, wouldn't some people not the committee attack you for that in in other words, are you in a catch- 2 -- catch-22? >> i certainly feel if we were to investigate mr. larabee, there would be repercussions from this committee, yes. >> i appreciate that. mr. chairman, before i yield back, once again, words matter. the words we use in debate matter. the words we use to describe our friends and those we don't necessarily agree with matter. i just hope we truly understand the magnitude of words sometimes with the kind of words that people are putting forward to sacrifice for themselves. so with that i'm not sure if the ranking member needs any time but i yield back the >> i think the gentleman.

chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> thank you. the question has been raised why are we here today in we're here because an executive summary part of a 30-page document led to the debt rim incidental effect on lives. the workers had to go other places to feed their families. the 30-day moratorium. why are we here today in one day after his inauguration president obama promised a new era of openness in government. we will work together, i quote, to establish a system of transparency and collaboration. he wrote that openness whether

strengthen our democracy and promote effectiveness and efficiency in government. but i look at your written statement and you say that this is a unilateral approach to investigate me by requesting documents from the office of the inspector general drawing conclusions from those documents without all the facts. no, we subpoenaed you and your agency because we want the facts. we can make and draw our own conclusions from the documents -- facts in those documents. that's what we're trying to do today, get to the bottom of what led to this moratorium that affected lives in louisiana, all along the gulf coast and the lives of my people in south carolina who are paying higher gas prices today to drive to and from work. that's what this meeting is about here today and i appreciate the chairman holding this hearing. the gentleman from florida was really delving into something

before he ran out of time so i will yield the balance of my time to mr. sutherland from florida the >> i think that -- i'd like to thank the gentleman from south carolina for yielding me time. i know i was asking you questions regarding emails before we went to the florida vote. i would ask you about providing for us i.g. policies and guidance. at one time you said you weren't aware of those and at one time you said you were aware of those or you were going to find those us if they do exist and provide those for us. i was going to really i think a more important issue really relating to your desire to move forward. you had claimed that you were seeking the opportunity perhaps of a more permanent position, and i think what we see here is

throughout the testimony today that it has been -- you -- you either know what's going on through many of your answers and you've not perhaps answered those in a way that i find acceptable, or you're not aware and i think that perhaps could be the case, of policy or you're not aware of things that have been referred or not referred to the attorney general, you don't have memory, and then you come back and say oh, now i do remember. i'm just, i'm bothered by the fact that you may not seem to be on top of these issues. >> let me just say that i have a very, very talented staff that takes care of, for instance, the case review group, who reviews all of the allegations that come to the office of inspector general. i do not personally participate in that group. i do not personally decide what

should be or should not be investigated unless it's brought to my attention. so no, you're right, i don't know everything that's going on in terms of referrals -- or investigations. once they do become investigations i do know about them because i'm briefed regularly by very competent staff the >> you claimed there are -- have been zero trofrlse the i.g. aves? >> no. we've made many referrals the >> so i apologize if i misunderstood the zero referrals for ethics violations? >> as far as i know. >> you get a report on those? your staff, your team is communicating with you on investigations and ethics probes and -- >> yes, i do. >> i think the gentleman from

south carolina and yield back the >> there has been interest on having another round. i think that that interest should be observed and so we will start another round and i just have a few questions and i'll recognize myself. first of all, let's establish again what this is all good -- about. the b.p. spill was in deep water. the moratorium was in shallow water and the consequences of the moratorium had a huge effect on the economy and individuals' lives. so let's make sure that that distinction is made. now, i want to ask, ms. kendall, you mentioned that you had no jurisdiction,nd and i agree, with the white house. that's correct? >> yes. >> is there anything that prevents you from asking a

question of the white house? >> i don't think it would prevent me from asking a question. >> well, if it didn't prevent you and up acknowledge the edit happened in the white house wouldn't you at least, logically suggest that you ask the white house why and they make the determination whether they should answer or not? >> well, no, sir. i did not no goc on the white house's door to ask a question. i inquired of the deputy secretary who is in regular contact with the white house saying it would be helpful -- >> wait. you're independent. why would you have to go through the deputy secretary? you're an independent inspector. if you thought the evidence was important, why didn't you just ask? why did you have to ask permission to ask? >> i didn't ask permission to ask, sir. >> why did you go, even go through the political appointee to make the inquiry?

nothing prevented you from asking the question. >> na -- that was the decision i made at the time. >> ok. fine. i respectfully think that was the wrong decision. do you think the 30-day report was a ploils document? >> i'm almost embarrassed to say this, sir, but i have never read the 30-day report. >> well, do you think the 30-day report was a policy document? >> i think the 30-day report was much like o.i.g. reports that come -- if you can't say that it was not a policy document, do you think the moratorium was a policy? >> i think the moratorium decision was a policy decision. >> ok. now if the 30-day report drives to the moratorium, would it not suggest that the 30-day report was a policy document? >> the 30-day report did not contain the moratorium recommendation. >> it came from that document >> i don't know that, sir.

>> don't know that? >> i don't. i don't know where the moratorium decision came from. i was not a part -- >> it came from the 30-day document and your own report suggests that it came because of editing from the white house. but you -- >> we -- >> ms. kendall, i find it hard to believe that you can say or smug or agrow that the moratorium was a policy decision, yet you can't say that the 30-day report which led to the moratorium was a policy document. i find that hard to believe. >> i can't say what the 30-day report was or that it led to the moratorium. i did not read the 30-day report and i know that the moratorium recommendation was contained only in the executive summary. >> based on that report. i mean -- the deadline ammingd the reason that this came in the middle of the night was

because of the 30-day deadline of the 30-day report and you're saying -- i have some real problems understanding your logic on that and i said that in my opening statement and frankly that has been confirmed to me. i just want to go on one last -- all right. i will yield the balance of my time to mr. landborn. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for being here. in a may 23 article this year in "u.s.a. today" you are quoted as saying "i was an active listener. i was not an active participant in these meetings." is that correct? >> yes, it is. >> ok. what is the difference between an active listener and an active participant? >> my distinction here is i did not ask any questions in these meetings.

i was there to hear what was being said, to learn as much as i could about deep water drilling and the things that attend to it could i could inform myself as a member of the safety oversight board and lead the team that we had conducting the outer continental shelf drilling investigation. >> so you were an active listener? >> yes, sir the >> but not an active participant? >> no, sir. >> and in the law i think that's called a distinction without a difference, at least in my opinion. >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. >> thank you. the majority has claimed that the economic impacts of the six-month moratorium were worse than the impacts of the spill itself, worse than the impacts of the worst environmental disaster in american history, but the reality is there were

not significant layoffs in the oil industry from the moratorium. why is that, you might ask? well, it's because patriotic secured $20 billion from b.p. to aid the gulf and its people. because president obama got b.p. to put up $100 million specifically to aid any oil workers affected, because that $ 00 million was expanded to help any oil certify vant -- oil service and support companies and it was because b.p. knew that drilling in the gulf would resume in a safer manner under president obama. that's the reason we now have 50% for rigs working in the gulf than before the spill. these rigs did not leave. these rigs kept their employees. those employees were

compensated by the fund president obama extracted from b.p. and despite what the majority may claim, these are the facts. president obama and secretary salazar took action to protect the workers. that is what they did. the gulf had to be protected. that's what president obama did. to minimize the economic harm to the region from the still -- spill and to ensure that we are drilling again now safely. so the majority says they just want to get to the bottom of this. they have gotten to the bottom of this, and there is no evidence of wrongdoing. the majority has gotten the answer. they don't like the answer. secretary salazar will sit here if you ask him. he will tell you he made the decision.

this woman should not be here today. you should have secretary salazar here and he will tell you he made the decision. you should have the c.e.o.'s of halliburton, b.p. and transocean sit here because when you -- what you should be doing -- trying to do is get to the bottom of the ocean. you should be trying to find out what happened? why -- why were those workers harmed? why was the environment harmed? why was the fishing industry harmed? what nerve did those companies have to change the safety procedures? bring them in here and set them up as an example to -- so it never happens again in the united states. we'll know you're serious about what happened at the bottom of the ocean when you have them sitting here but we're going to go through the whole two years

and that's gun -- not going to happen and this woman sits here as really a diversion, a red herring the we might as well put an aquarium out here, you have so many red herrings floating around and this woman sits here as part of your plan to have 149 votes on the house floor for the oil and gas industry and none to help wind and solar. to have a vote on the house floor last year to help all of the loan guarantees, $18 billion for nuclear and coal and zero out all the guarantees for wind and solar, and ape of you voted for that. so have sol independent ra made an example for why the united states enrichment committee should ton get $548 million,

when is the republican party going to have a hearing on what is really going on here? and this woman, like the solar industry, is just part of not dealing with the real issue and that is that the oil industry recklessly, indifferently, came very close to destroying the livelihoods of people in the gulf of mexico and but for that $20 billion that patriotic extracted from that industry, there would have been devastates -- devastation down there. so let's bring them in. let's bring in secretary salazar the he'll tell you why they improsed -- imposed the moratorium. but in the dictionary moratorium and pause, it's unfortunate temporary inaction.

it's an attempt to diverse because you don't want to get to the central issues of that -- what this committee should be all about. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> we talked about this a little bit earlier. it says there in the red box to the left, this is steve black saying in an e-mail in may, " thanks for your participation in some many of the meetings and interviews leading up to this report. -- report." why should we not believe steve? >> i attended. i did not participate in the process of the 30-day report. i did not persist date in the development of the executive summary. i do not know how many times i can say that.

>> steve black was not being accurate? >> he was talking about my attendance. i told him putting together those meetings was an enormously impressive effort. to get people from industry, scientists, government -- >> my time is limited. we will have to go on. this is him again in an e-mail dated may 17, thank you -- "thank you for participating." he once again thank you for participating. why should we not believe his words? >> he thinks everyone for participating. it is his use of the word participate. i just listened. >> you participated on the call today. how did he know you were there

on the call? >> i cannot even remember this call. i do not know i participated in this call, quite frankly. but i was probably one of the invitees. he thanked the invitees for participating. i honestly could not tell you if i was a part of that call. >> i will switch gears now to the role of the department to turn over documents when there might be a privilege. if the department tell you not to disclose documents to congress, is it the policy of the inspector general to air on the side of the department and go on with that request without question? >> not without question. the committee has requested these documents from the department itself, and the department has said they have declined to provide them because they implicate important executive continental out the

-- confidentiality.lity p. this is a process that i knew nothing about before this. it is a longstanding process that goes back, as i understand it, to the nixon administration. >> say you had not heard about this happening? >> i had. >> did the in part -- did the department ever exert executive privilege? >> no. it has used this term which indicates an executive privilege in the process that is a long process that i believe the committee is engaged with the department in and should continue to engage to department in.

>> only the president the of the united states can assert executive privilege? >> it is usually done through a department head. >> was that done in this case? >> no. >> you went along and did not disclose the documents to congress? >> i explained as best i can in my letter. the reasons why we did not turn over the documents. they are not our documents. the privilege is not ours to assert and the privilege is not ours to wave. >> causes of confidentiality are needed to ensure the department of officials cooperate with your office. are you suggesting that if they do not have that promise they will not cooperate as much? >> i am suggesting we will not get these documents in the

future if we do not abide by that promise of confidentiality. >> we need a promise of confidentiality to work with you better later? >> i am saying in regards to documents like this. i do not believe if we release these documents, we would ever see them again if we were investigating in something. saying we cannot get these documents, we would all be in the position the committee is in relative to the department. we would not have had the benefit of seen the documents ourselves. >> thank you for your answers. >> the gem and from arizona. >> thank you. -- the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you. the witnesses character, it is

not the way to be conducting this hearing and more importantly the basis for the accusations. but we are doing all this based on the opinion of a case worker who praised the witness first and then communicated to others whenever concerns he had. while the majority wants us to accept this as fact, questioning the witness's character, but the case worker, the majority wants the rest of us to believe there has to be a pillar of integrity, that there is no hidden political agenda, and that in moments -- motives of this case

worker -- that the case worker is saying truth, and that is the premise by which we are here today. i do not want to impugn his caseworker's character. to ask us to proceed on that assumption i think is asking a lot. this hearing has been like when i was learning english in school where we had to get the distinction between what is a pause, what would help us with our addiction and understanding, what is an active participant, what is an observer. that was english class. nothing to do with this hearing. the gentleman brought up what is the difference between active observer and active participant. i would suggest that the

audience here at this hearing are active observers. i would suggest that the members of the committee are active participants. i think that is the distinction and that is the difference. i want to ask one issue if i may. according to the report, since 1982, oil production has increased by 185%. the independent bp commission recommended increasing the 10 million per year the will and gas commission pace significantly in order to fund department regulators. despite the majority attempt to block increase, the department was provided with the authority

to collect inspection fees up to $62 million. that will expire until the end of the year unless it is extended. you think we should give the department permanent authority to collect fees from operators to provide a steady and funding stream for offshore regulators. at the end of all this, we are still dealing with possibly -- with the worst catastrophe environmental that this country has ever seen. we should not lose sight of that in the english lesson that we are having today or in the attacks on the witness. do you believe that funding has the processesnt so would be in place until the procedures counterfeit -- continue to provide the safety oversight we need? >> i am not familiar with the

particular authority, but i do know that when the safety oversight board was looking at this issue, there absolutely is a need for more federal presence in terms of oversight inspection and enforcement. of the regulations that are in place. if this is one of the vehicles by which that can be done, then i would agree with you, yes. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i just have one quick question. the case agent in 1 e-mail to colleagues saying he was dismayed at the final -- that the final report to not mention requesting interviews with the white house. in fact, his draft that you ended -- at the tip did not include that. i wanted to underscore it. the case agent was complaining about things that did not

happen. is that not true? >> that is correct. >> thank you for saying it again. >> the time has expired. >> we find ourselves in precarious situations. for the record, there are two things that need to be fact- checked. number one, many of the victims who died, their fans -- their families came here and begged not to be implemented. i think that is important. that speaks volumes. we like to make victims out of victims out of victim's families. no one in the oil and gas industry has access to that $1 billion fund. -- $20 billion fund. you are prohibited from taking part in that $20 billion.

that is the -- that is a fact. i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from colorado. >> can we show exhibit one on the screen? are you aware of this e-mail dated september 17, 2010 from from the general counsel inspector to mr. hardgrove? >> i will have to take a look at it. i do not recognize it. >> a highlighted ". i did take the opportunity to explain, our position that they do not have a valid basis to keep the requested material from us as it could not fall under the executive privilege doctrine. the mill goes on to explain that there was no decision pending for the president to make as

the decision had already been made. are you familiar with this e- mail or the thinking contained in this e-mail? >> at the moment, no. i obviously was not a recipient of this e-mail and i am not sure what this e-mail refers to. >> what is the role of mr. hardgrove. >> he is our chief of staff. he knew about this -- >> he knew about this, apparently? >> apparently. i do not know what his e-mail is about. >> if you look at the highlighted portion, according to the writer, the position is

they do not have a valid basis to keep the requested material from it, as they do not fall under the executive privilege top -- privileged auction. >> i do not know what is he is referring to. >> i believe it is the 13 documents that are at issue. >> i do not know that. >> this was back in 2010. >> i do not believe the 13 documents have been identified at that point. >> i believe these are the steve black e-mails. >> they may be, i do not know. >> are you aware of the doctrine that, after a decision has been made, there is no ability of the executive branch to assert executive privilege? >> no, i am not. i do not know what this e-mail means, quite frankly. >> did mr. hargrove talk to you?

>> no. we have had some a discussions. i do not know if he taught me about this e-mail or the dolphins related to appear and i cannot related to. -- related to. i cannot tell what this is about. i do not think -- i do not think it is talking about executive privilege. honestly, i'm looking at it for the first time and i am not sure what it is talking about. >> "there is no decision pending for the president to make as the decision had already been made." >> i see that. again, i do not know what documents we are talking about here.

>> we have had access to this for months. is this the first time you believe you have seen this? >> yes, i believe is the first time i have seen this e-mail. >> you do not know the discretion that is going on here about executive privilege and when it ends once the decision has been made? >> no i do not know what this is talking about. >> recognize the gentle lady. >> thank you so much. the case agent also wanted to into crude -- interview the secretary. that would be very unusual. is that correct? >> it would be. >> do you know if the secretary was reeling -- willing to be interviewed? >> i do not know, but there was no indication that the secretary had anything to do with the added king's -- editing.

>> i want to follow up a little bit on what our ranking member was commenting on. i certainly agree that, if we really want to get to the bottom of something like this, we have to go to the top. we cannot keeping in people -- i admire your composure. you have been sitting here before us being grilled on their fire since 10:00 this morning. -- under fire since 10:00 this morning. i do not like seeing people harassed like that. i would like to hear from you, mr. chairman. to this committee -- did you ever request testimony from the secretary and why are we not hearing from him? >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i had a conversation with the

secretary, but if anybody here believes i would not want him here, you are sadly mistaken. we had a hearing a week before last where i asked him to come down. the secretary did not. i advised the secretary that if he wanted to come, he should expect to be open for questions on a number of issues, not only confined to this issue, but other issues. because we have subpoenaed him. there are many, including me, that feels there has not been a good response from the secondary. -- secretary. to be prepared to potentially face questions regarding that, and potentially issues of may be going into contempt or why he should not be held in contempt.

that is the conversation i had with the secretary. that ended the conversation. there was no other discussion regarding to his coming here. yes, there was a discussion. it is how i described it to you. >> what you are saying is, unofficially, you just had a conversation with him. this was not an official request to come before the committee to speak on several issues? >> the secretary offered that suggestion to me, and i responded to him just like i have mentioned. that was the end of every -- any further discussion. >> i have a comment. i it misunderstood here that we have not issued a subpoena and as you have said. for the secretary to testify. it is my understanding that he is willing to appear. can we call him in? quite like i said, -- >> like i

said, the conversation i had with the secretary was that if he wants to come in, he should be prepared. to have discussions far beyond here. this issue only. it would probably go to the surface mining issue. and a discussion and a discussion on whether he would want to face questions that may lead to why he should not be held in contempt. those are all issues i suggested to the secretary when he suggested he may come forward. i left the conversation at that, and that has been the end of that conversation. >> as a member of the committee, i am suggesting we

ask him to appear. he apparently is willing. if i could make that request, and secondly, we could ask the ceo's of the oil companies to appear, as well. have we done that? >> i find it ironic that issue keeps humming -- keeps coming up. i will mention that we have had executives of those companies in front of this committee. going back to the last congress. in the same vein that, while we ce, have had those present we have not had the cooperation. if you compare information we got from those committees, those companies, compared to the of nation we have gone from this administration, there is a huge divide as to what they have

provided to us. i think the gentle lady for yielding. >> one quick question here. he said the top people. i am talking about the ceo's. >> we have had the presidents of the company's who have come in here. >> i suggest if you want to get to the bottom of this -- >> the time of the gentle lady has expired feared i will respond to this. the issue here -- expired. i will respond to this. there is a distinction between the two. >> i would like to get back carried it might not be as vicious -- visually impressive. billions of dollars in taxpayer

costs, all driven by the best available science. we spent nearly all five minutes allocated to my first round of questioning. with you denying anything about a complaint by the bureau of reclamation's, scientific integrity officer, dr. paul, dr. manning intentional falsification of scientific data. to drive the decision to a predetermined conclusion. in the final seconds of my allotted time, when asked about a scientific integrity case, provided on your own office's manifest. with your memory freshly restored, i would like to know if we have established that the scientific integrity case,

listed on your office boss is manifest, involves it -- a complaint by dr. hauser. >> i know in involves him. >> can you tell me what -- so he did know about the complaint? and-question is what did the inspector general -- and my next --estion is what keep >> i would have to get back to you. i simply do not know the answer. >> could you tell me -- then you cannot tell me what you discovered from that investigation, which is not insignificant. his name is on the manifest. when dr. hauser raised these concerns internally, her response was to fire him.

she was an employee, and interested party to the agreement, she would not recuse herself from being involved in these discussions, and fired the whistle-blower hired by the bureau of reclamation to assure the scientific integrity of the data that is driving this entire proposal. her response to fire him -- was to fire him. doesn't it strike you as significant that the official fire dr. hauser is precisely the same official that he accused of official misconduct in falsifying this data and who had an obvious and glaring conflict of interest? >> i am listening to what you are saying, but it does not help me because i cannot know about this case. >> you are the watchdog. you are the responsible for insuring the integrity of the scientific data that is driving

the policy proposals. >> i have many -- >> where is the outrage? >> i have many people on my staff who work these issues on behalf of the office of inspector general. i apologize, i do not know the details. >> you have a row of folks behind you. do any of them know? >> we would be glad -- glad to get back to you and provide details. i simply do not know them today. >> i tell you what i would ask for, is all the documents related to dr. hauser's complaint. i would like to know why the case was closed. why is there no report available? i assume you cannot provide me information on any of these questions? >> i do not have the information today, no. >> mr. chairman, i think this is significant enough and this omission is glaring enough to call for a separate hearing on this subject. it is not an insignificant matter. has a huge fiscal and economic

and environmental ramifications for the entire pacific northwest. it all hinges on what we are told is the best scientific data when the signs integrity officer has been blowing a whistle, warning us that that data has been deliberately corrupted, and the inspector general, so far as i can tell at this hearing, as the professor -- precisely nothing -- has done it precisely precisely nothing. >> the rules of this committee, mr. chairman, requires that members contain the questions to the subject of the hearing. those are the rules. did your invitation notify her that this issue would be a

topic for today? if not, i would ask that this line of questioning the ruled out of order because there is an implication being made by this gentleman that she is not answering his mark -- his questions when she was invited here under the rules to answer a whole other set of subject material, and under our rules, she was coming here knowing the other material. i would just ask for a ruling on that? >> mr. chairman. >> an inquiry into whether the gemma from california pirate --'s -- california's line of questioning.

the invite letter goes on to talk about the conduct of the inspector general in specifically -- the german from california is talking about other matters. -- the gentleman from california is talking about other matters. >> the gem for massachusetts interrupted me. to point out the issue was raised in the chairman's letter and was referred to in her

letter back to the chairman dated july 20. this is not unexpected. it was raised in the letter. she responded specifically on this issue in the letter back. i would suggest these elements from -- the gentleman from massachusetts read this more carefully before he comes to the meeting. >> i would anticipate he has approximately 30 seconds left. yelled back. in response to the ranking member, this fall's with the .ine -- falls in the liline >> we have hearings. there are times when i agree with the other side. there are times when i disagree with my side. there are times when i take a

vote -- the vote i had yesterday, was a very difficult one for me. i wanted to vote no. i thought there was still a chance to have more conversations with the department of interior. rather than issue -- i thought extraordinary effort had been exhausted. the chairman knows i have a great fear of respect -- deal of respect for him. i still do. last night, just before i went to bed thinking about what we did yesterday, mr. chairman, we did take a vote. we are to issuing subpoenas. i would like to bring a secretary here. if we need to, we need a secretary of interior to give us

the answers. i would urge the chairman to include the secretary. at this time, i yield might remaining time to a ranking member. >> i think the german very much. again, let me just state for flocking got -- i thank the gentleman very much. again let me state for the record, this is the greatest crime in the history of the america -- history of america against the environment. this issue is not being taken seriously. so when you bring in the ceo's of these companies and you are staring impact -- staring them down, then it is serious. this is not serious.

the chairman of this committee for summiteers' used to have a saying. he said everything has been said and not everybody has said it. they keep saying the same things over and over and you keep giving the same answers. they hate the answers. they hate these answers. at this point, we still do not have any understanding of what it is that they are saying went wrong. this is executive privilege. is controlled by the president. everyone can have an opinion on executive privilege. the president, the secretary, they exercise the decision on executive privilege. not you. it is not your decision. there is a point when you have to ask, what is the legal basis for asking questions.

are you familiar with the works of -- a man is charged with a crime without being told the process of the trial or even what he is being charged with. you seem to be in a similar situation. at this point, i do not even know what you are being attacked for appeared i cannot figure it out. talk -- attacked for. i cannot figure it out. is it unrelated to this hearing? is it the secretary's decision to issue the moratorium or is it just that the barack -- just that barack obama it is the president. i suspect that is at the heart of all of us. for you to be sitting here hour after hour without anything less far that i can ascertain is

something that they can point to you, i am still waiting for that sentence to be uttered. other than questions asked without any evidence of anything so this is the essence of what we have here. those who are guilty, the ceos of this -- of these companies, they are not here. we can bring in the secretary. everything else is just kind of a side show. let's have the real answers. let's have the real showdown here on what happened in the gulf of mexico with the ceo's of these companies. i would invite them. this is not a serious investigation until then at all.

>> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> along those lines, as far as ceo's, and the secretary of interior, the department issued over 700 citations to the owners and operators. could you tell me about the investigation that you performed for your department' performed. >> i am not sure what investigation you are talking about. >> well, wait a minute, the department issued 700 citations. i want to make sure, mr.

chairman. the sector -- the 700 citations were issued to the owners from you --artment's and ask from the department and i asked y you. you are telling me you are not aware of an investigation? >> i am aware of a number of investigations. >> i am talking about specifically to the department because we are always told the government is here to protect people. >> i am telling you i do not know about an investigation about that. >> mr. chairman i find it absolutely amazing and a ranking member talks about bringing ceo's here. i asked the ceo last year, that very question. was given axel -- i was given absolutely no satisfaction.

the department did not accept any responsibility that it failed. you know that you -- you know you had a problem. no personal response million a responsibility for the department. now i ask, after 700 citations were issued, what about the investigation. clearly it there must had been one. we have heard today. we have seen webster's dictionary. i'll tell you the definition of incompetence is lacking the qualities needed for effective action. unable to function properly. there are -- they are synonyms. incapable. inept. unqualified. in able. we have a department that has demonstrated that to perfection. 700 citations appeared we have a department that has not done an investigation on that. that is the very definition according to webster. we have tried. we brought the ceo in here.

of interior. they have not answered that question. they are now, there is no personal responsibility. i am amazed that that is not a smoking gun for this body. i find that -- i agree. i agree with the ranking member. i am amazed they are not concerned. at no point in time when the secretary of interior was here, not one single question from the -- looking into that issue. it undermines the validity and the purpose of trying to understand. like going to the bottom of the ocean. we have tried to. unfortunately, we are not catching anything there. i find there should be more examination. that is your role.

why would there not be? with my remaining time left. why would there not be? is that not problematic? >> it is because i'm not familiar with the 700 citations. i could only speculate. i would assume, the succeeding agency would be the appropriate body to conduct such an investigation or conduct an internal investigation. i believe they are doing that as we speak. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. for yielding back. i want to conclude this hearing by thanking you for being here. i know it was difficult. we that said on this panel, because of what we have chosen

to do, find a situations -- find situations that are difficult, also. you are in a position of not a great deal of importance. -- of a great deal of the importance. -- of importance. nobody disputes that. nobody disputes the fact that the initial incident caused economic harm. we do think it is important that the people get the facts. the simple fact that the executive summary caused such an immediate backlash from the peer review group.

some cases, they felt they were being used. i think it is very important we get to the bottom of why this happened. that is what we are trying to ascertain. whether you like it or not, you are caught in that discussion. i think, as i have said several times, that independence was somewhat compromised. it is something this committee needs to look into. that was the reason for this hearing. i am not sure we got all the answers. i certainly have some questions in my mind. but i do very much appreciate your participation. the only thing i can offer you is that the both of us probably at some time in our political lives have faced similar situations that you have. there is sympathy from us to you. we recognize that responsibility

is part of your job. that is part of self-government. that is what make it -- makes it difficult. adjourned. thank you.

>> next, production increases in the gulf of mexico could "all come crashing down" in the event of another oil spill, and criticized congress for failing to pass any drilling registration -- legislation. tripling of energy production in the gulf by 2020. hour. there will be a panel discussion on state and federal efforts to coordinate a nationwide anti bullying companion -- campaign. you can watch it live at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span t2. on friday, the former chief offshore drilling inspector warned. congress was criticized for failing to pass and a chilling

safety regulations since the oil spill. this is just over an hour. >> will get started. thanks for coming today. i am a member of the national press club newsmaker committee. i am a founding partner at the policy group at guiliani. i am pleased to be here, because i have lots of good friends on the panel. we have worked together on offshore drilling issues for a few years, because they have been in the news a little bit. i am going to introduce everybody really quickly. we are going to hear from each panelist individually. then, we'll take your questions after, and i will get to that when we get to the question and answer. we are live on c-span today, so welcome, those who are watching. we thank you for being here. with us today to talk about offshore drilling and the politics of it -- this is going to focus more on the future. we are also going to look back on where we have been. we have a great panel, and i am excited to have them. to my immediate right is michael bromwich, the former director

of the bureau of ocean and energy management and regulatory enforcement. did i get that right? he took over after the mid condo spill -- mikando spill and reorganize the agency. he now is with the bromwich group, which is a consulting firm. to his right is our favorite energy reporter. sorry, all you guys out here. jennifer dlouhy, of "the houston chronicle." she really does get the story and has been great, and covered these issues very aggressively for the last two years, especially when we have had such a spotlight on it. welcome. to her right is doug wine steen -- -- weinstein, a longtime analyst on these issues and expert on many issues, from oil and gas development to master limited partnerships for renewals, which is a recent study of his, two things on call and utility issues.

-- to things on coal and utility issues. finally, my good friend steve lavigne -- levine, who writes about the geopolitics of oil. he will focus more on some of the global impacts of what the gulf means. i am pleased to have everybody here. i will turn it over to director bromwich to get it started. >> we will go from there. >> thank you for inviting me and for assembling this panel. let me talk about the recent past, present, and future of offshore drilling with the focus on the gulf of mexico. we begin with deepwater horizon, the fire and the spill and the 11 deaths at the 4.9 million barrels of oil. that popped the bubble of

complacency on drilling for many years. it led to a comprehensive review of the accident itself and of the structure and the content of the regulation of offshore drilling. it led to examination of ways, overhaul, the agency structure and it caused an intensive look at what new regulations were needed to regulate offshore and development. that led to the development of a number of reforms which we implemented while i was there. we enhanced prescriptive regulations through the drilling a safety rule which addressed casing issues and the certification of drilling programs and so forth.

at the same time in 2010, the first performance-based set of regulations were implemented. that required the development of comprehensive programs to minimize the risks in offshore operations. we did our best to enhance and foremost protections by eliminating categorical exclusions and more intensive analysis through site specific analysis. those were the reforms and we spent a tremendous amount of

time for organizational reforms. we eliminated the structure of the former mmp and created a new structure that would eliminate the longstanding conflicts among the different missions of the old agency. we provided through the reorganization a new structure that allowed them to focus in a more single-minded way on their missions. one was balanced development of offshore resources. and the regulation and

enforcement function which had been starved of resources over the years. we did that and the new structure and the bureau of safety and environmental enforcement have accomplished what we have set out to do. one part was blown off with it a few months of my getting there. let's talk about the present. there was a slowing of the pace of permitting in terms of improving plans and permits. the chief cause in the leg was there were new rules that needed to be applied. there was some legitimate confusion in the industry and the agency on how those requirements it should apply. and third, there was a lack of containment capabilities that existed. as we all remember, bp and others and the government struggled with the way to cap the well. it took 87 days to do it. there were not other resources available. an industry formed to consortium, but that equipment was not ready until many, months later.

arguments suggesting the moratorium is extended beyond october of 2010 and it moved in to ignore the fact that until february 2011, there were no adequate containment capabilities. if we had started permitting applications to drill without the containment capability being ready, i think there would have been a case for impeaching me. the pace picked up as soon as those contained capabilities were available in the spring of 2011. industry became more familiar with the regulatory rules and how they should be applied. and because the process started to move again. the pace has picked up substantially. look at the current data on the website and there is a small current backlog and a low number of permit applications in the return category. and at this time, deep water permits are being granted

roughly at the pace of eight to nine a month. i think everyone has to acknowledge that there has been remarkable progress. the number of deep water rigs is at or near those levels. the pace of permitting is at or near those levels. if you take the period before maconda, 67 w wells deepwater permits were approved.

the take a similar period and 61 new permits were approved. the ability of the ad agency to continue processing the permits is dependent on a mainstream and that will be up to congress to maintain and continue. let's talk about the future. i think based on the recent fails and the data on rigs that i've talked about, i think no one can deny the future looks bright. a successful sale in december, $338 million in high bids. 56 companies submitted almost 600 bids on for 450-plus tracks. let me close with a sobering note.

i think this could come crashing down in the event of another accident. how do we avoid that? there has to be continuing investments in safety and environment protection and they must keep pace with advanced technology and the ambition to move into frontier areas. those advances needed a place in prevention, containment, and in the spill response. innovations in safety and environmental protection with each other and with the government. there needs to be research on the challenges posed by frontier environments. industry and government, again. there needs to be creative steps to bolster the technical expertise of government through

exchange programs with other countries and with industry. that is something that needs to be looked at very carefully. there needs to be continued focus on recruitment of engineers with an adequate level of expertise and efforts to retain them in the government. if you don't have regulators with appropriate training, things will slow down. the needs to be a focus on insuring adequate funding for the regulatory agency. additional substantial funding has been forthcoming. if that stops or slows, we are all in trouble. we do have a greater global cooperation on prevention, containment, and spill response issues. the advances that i talked about have all been done internally by the department of

the interior. frequently it gets less credit than it deserves. it is noteworthy and extraordinary that two years after the spill there has been zero congressional action in response to the spill. thank you. >> thank you, frank. good morning. we have seen an increase in domestic oil production despite the moratorium two years ago and the drop of production in the gulf of mexico. domestic oil production last year reached its highest level

since 2003. i think there is more that we can do and i want to talk about that with specific reference to the gulf of mexico. overall crude oil output increased last year.

output in the gulf of mexico has declined, down 230,000 barrels a day. that is about a 13% decline. the number of annual leases has declined. as of july 1, according to

baker-hughes, there were 19 active drilling rigs in the gulf of mexico. that is still short of pre- moratorium numbers.