my problem is that exxonmobil has given far less attention to actually controlling all exxonmobil has 40 pages on its media response strategy, its plan for resource protection is only five pages long, and its plan for oil removal is just nine pages long. we've all seen the horrible images of pelicans and other wildlife exxonmobil's plan appears more concerned about public perception than wildlife protection. and it rings hollow with the loss of the 11 people who died on the deepwater horizon rig. this is a perfect metaphor for what is going wrong with the gulf today. the oil company response plans are great public relations. they allow the oil companies to say that they have a 500-page plan that shows they are prepared for any contingency. but the plans are virtually worthless when an actual spill occurs. and that is exactly this kind of misplaced priorities that led to this disaster. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the oversight and investigations subcommitteee the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess. >> i thank the chairman and i wonder what anyone expe

how can exxonmobil have walruses in their response plan for the gulf of mexico? p> congressman markey, those response plans incorporate a number of broad-based studies, marine mammal studies, many of which are part of the e.i.s. statements put together by the m.m.s. and much of the response plan and what is contained in it by regular nation, including the models that are used to project different scenarios for oil spills and many of the statements ann representations in the plan -- >> these arr regional oil spill response plans. how can this be in a response plan for the gulf of mexico. this is the regional response plan that each of you had to put together. >> i understand. >> and it's unfortunate walruses were included and it's an embarrassment they were included but that's part of a larger marine ma'am ell study used in preparing regional response plans. >> mr. mulva, your plan as well includes walruses. mr. watson, your plan has them on page 11-6. how do you respond to having walruses in your plan? >> respond in a similar fashion. the plans are put together i

with respect to drilling, exxonmobil has drilled almost 8,000 wells worldwide in the last 10 years. of these, 262 have been in deep water, including 35 in the gulf of mexico. the standards and requirements that operate within oims dictate our approach to drilling as they do for all of our other operations. we have documented standards for equipment and well design, we utilize proprietary technology to predict pressures and model resource flow and we carefully analyze that information to both understand and reduce the risk. we ensure everyone onboard the rig, contractors included, know their roles and responsibilities and that all operations must be in compliance with exxonmobil's expectations and standards. and we test this knowledge through regular drills and exercises. sticking to this system has required us to make some difficult decisions. we do not proceed with operations if we cannot do so safely. the american people have shown their support for deep water drilling but they expect it to be done safely and in an environmentally sensitive way. they have supported it because they

exxonmobil's worst case scenario is for 160,000 barrels per day. how can you say you wwuld be a lot of control of spill four times bigger than the current spell using the same plan that bp has with the same contractors bp is using? >> as i said, we would use the response capability to the maximum extent practical. and in the model that we provide as part of the permitting in conformance with what the regulatory bodies required -- >> your plan is written for the same contractor that bp has. so if you cannot handle 40,000 barrels, how would you handle 160,000 barrels per day that you indicated? >> when these things happen, we're not well-equipped to deal with them. >> in worst-case scenarioo, we cannot handle them. correct? >> we are not well-equipped to handle them. there will be impacts as we are sending -- as we are seeing. and we've always said that. that is our focus on keeping these things from occurring, because when they happen, we're not well-equipped to deal with them. that is the enormity of what we're dealing with. >> these are cookie cut

and exxonmobil had one safety violation the same time period you had 760. how in the heck do you explain that? >> as i said, we acknowledged the problems we had in 2005 and 2006. the vast number of those things that you've referred to date from that time period. and we have made major changes in the company over the last three to four years. >> you think the changes you made in that time period you're talk about while air pressure ceo -- do you think that they were using those measures and protocols on the deep horizon? >> to my best knowledge they absolutely were. >> up don't think they shortcuted anything on the deep horizon? as ceo of a major company -- looking back, sir, do you think that they cut corners? >> i believe we should have wait the result of the investigations before we draw conclusions. sir, you had to have looked at some of your investigations. internally your investigation did it show any kind of break down? >> it shows -- >> that you with your protocols you said you couldn't place, were any of those shortcuted? >> the investigation is sti

tillerson from exxonmobil who testified where you are two days ago, said they never, that they never would have drilled a well the way bp did at deep water horizon and who has ceos to hass presided over the destruction of over $100 billion in sharehold ever value. does that leader continue to enjoy and have a valid claim on the trust and confidence of employees, shareholders, public regulators and most important lit families and small business of the gulf coast? or is it time frankly to that ceo to consider to submit his says rig nation? i thank you and yield back. >> thank you. mr. greene for an opening statement, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hayward, i appreciate your testimony or being here this morning. and most people on this committee know i'm a big supporter of outer continental shelf drilling and domestic energy production. and i understand from your testimony in our other hearings we've held in meetings with the administration that efforts to cap the well are going as expeditiously as possible however like many of my colleagues here, i'm frustrated that did it's b

during the same cycle exxonmobil recorded $80 billion in profits. if exxonmobil chose to use just 1% of their profits op political activity, it would be more -- on political activity, it would be more than all 435 winning congressional candidates spent in that election cycle. that's just 1% of the profits of one corporation. according to the supreme court, we cannot limit what corporations can say or what they can spend, but we can require them to disclose what they are doing to the american public. i'll read you what the court said in its decision. i quote. the first amendment protects political speech and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. this transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper wait to different speakers and messages. that's what this bill does. it does exactly what the supreme court says that we could do and should d and that is to require disclosure, to require transparency. in the past transparency has been a bipartisan issue. se

during the same cycle exxonmobil recorded $80 billion in profits. if exxonmobil chose to use just 1% of their profits op political activity, it would be more -- on political activity, it would be more than all 435 winning congressional candidates spent in that election cycle. that's just 1% of the profits of one corporation. according to the supreme court, we cannot limit what corporations can say or what they can spend, but we can require them to disclose what they are doing to the american public. i'll read you what the court said in its decision. i quote. the first amendment protects political speech and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. this transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper wait to different speakers and messages. that's what this bill does. it does exactly what the supreme court says that we could do and should do, and that is to require disclosure, to require transparency. in the past transparency has been a bipartisan issue.

during the same cycle exxonmobil recorded $80 billion in profits. if exxonmobil chose to use just 1% of heir profits op political activity, it would be more -- on political activity, it would be more than all 435 winning congressional candidates spent in that election cycle. that's just 1% of the profits of one corporation. according to the supreme court, we cannot limit what corporations can say or what they can spend, but we can require them to disclosehat they are doing to the american public. i'll read you what the court said in its decision. i quote. the first amendment protects political spch and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. this transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper wait to different speakers and messages. that's what this bill does. it does exactly what the supreme court says that we could do and shld do, and that is to require disclosure, to require transparency. in the past transparency has been a bipartisan issue. senator

tillerson from exxonmobil who testified where you are two days ago, said they never, that they never would have drilled a well the way bp did at deep water horizon and who has ceos to hass presided over the destruction of over $100 billion in sharehold ever value. does that leader continue to enjoy and have a valid claim on the trust and confidence of employees, shareholders, public regulators and most important lit families and small business of the gulf coast? or is it time frankly to that ceo to consider to submit his says rig nation? i thank you and yield back. >> thank you. mr. greene for an opening statement, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hayward, i appreciate your testimony or being here this morning. and most people on this committee know i'm a big supporter of outer continental shelf drilling and domestic energy production. and i understand from your testimony in our other hearings we've held in meetings with the administration that efforts to cap the well are going as expeditiously as possible however like many of my colleagues here, i'm frustrated that did it's b

the ceo of exxonmobil was at the same question i just ask you. he said that exxon, his own company, is not prepared to deal with a large spill if it happens to them. he also said that the response capability to prevent the impact of this bill does not exist. -- impact of a spill does not exist. this is the same response manual that your company has, with respect to his own company says the impact -- the capability does not exist and probably never will. i question to you, do you agree with him about this? >> i agree that there are many missions in our ability to respond to an incident of this type -- many lessons on how we can build better response capability in the future. as i said, we are doing an extraordinary spill response, and i regret that it has not been more successful so far. >> mr. gonzales for questions, please. >> that me ask you, there is a six month moratorium on deepwater drilling. do you think that is reasonable under the circumstances? >> i think it is important that the lessons from this are learned, and clearly that is a deci

during the same cycle exxonmobil recorded $80 billion in profits. if exxonmobil chose to use just 1% of their profits op political activity, it would be more -- on political activity, it would be more than all 435 winning congressional candidates spent in that election cycle. that's just 1% of the profits of one corporation. according to the supreme court, we cannot limit what corporations can say or what they can spend, but we can require them to disclose what they are doing to the american public. i'll read you what the court said in its decision. i quote. the first amendment protects political speech and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. this transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper wait to different speakers and messages. that's what this bill does. it does exactly what the supreme court says that we could do and should do, and that is to require disclosure, to require transparency. in the past transparency has been a bipartisan issue.

spill response plan was virtually identical to other oil companies' plans, in a hearing tuesday, exxonmobil ceo rex tillerson said that once the spills occur, we're not equipped to handle them, end quote. our witness today mr. tony hayward is a chief executive officer of bp, shortly after mr. hayward took over as the ceo in 2007, he held a town hall meeting with employees in houston that. meing he discussed the need for bp to be a leader with fewer people in decision making process. this article and i ask you to put up the guardian article. in an articll from september 2007, guardian newspaper, hayward says o company has become too cautious, assurance is killing us, mr.ayward told u.s. staff noting that too many people were engaged in decision making leading to excessive cautiousness something that critics of its safety performance in the u.s. might question. let me put up these other notes from the same meeting. we received notes from bp of employees and their note taking from this meeting. the employee notes summit rised mr. hayward's statements as follows. i don't think having all these

exxon is exxonmobil. it is more of a convenience of speech.petroleum is the name of the company. nobody should be unclear about that. with respect to the government's ability to operate, this is a very serious issue for this government. this is regardless of who is president. government is designed basically to govern, rule, regulation. when the bureaucracy gets built and they checked the requirements of the bureaucracy, it is anything but efficient or effective. operational management and execution do not seem to be high requirements of the manner in which government operates. the customer service, the customer focus of government -- i lived through katrina. it wasn't on medicated government debacle. it was because of the inability or unwillingness of people to make decisions in real time affecting real people's lives here and now. it was horrific. i lived through hurricane ike which came into galveston four years after katrina. it was the same debacle. there is an inability to make decisions. the american people have a right to expect more.

we have exxonmobil in grand isle, storage tanks. after carolina, president bush called me and asked how many gallons of oil we had in our tanks, and how many gallons of oil we had at port fouchon near grand isle. you can see the ships coming in. it is very important. we are like brothers and sisters. we clean up our mess, we do it right, and we continue drilling. >> thank you. senator burress? >> hank you, mr. chairman. i am trying to get the gist of the control and command here and who is in charge. what is the recommendation yo have a coendation? during katrina, i saw a man ce on television and sawe are hiand we are gog to do that >> do we need a general honore down there? + >> we need someone on the ground that will kick some 3 we have lost some battles. we can win this war. we can save our marsh and heritage, but it is going to have to happen quiikly. it s going to have to be somebody with the authority to mobilize all the equipment necessary to do whatever it takes to keep the oil out, to do whatever it takes to pick it up and

not so much in the design of the rigs themselves, in a sense that exxonmobil drives a ford and chevron drives a chevrolet or something like that. host: the next call comes from detroit. clyde, independent line. caller: thank you so much. can you hear me ok, sir? very good. i just wanted to voice a couple of things about oil and about how so-called republicans and democrats are calling on the independent line. i wish they would not do that. to the gentle man -- to the gentleman, the you believe that oil executives like shell and bp are really dealing up and up with the american people? i'm a member of the green party. i am so tired of oil. it will kill you and me and future generations from breathing it and using it. it is time to electrify our grade. it is crazy and insane. it is like you are talking about people in the republican party saying drilling offshore and the national parks. you are neanderthal. you probably still believe the world is flat. the guy who mention from texas who worked on an oil rig, i am saying over long, obama should have tapped nasa. . guest: i have to say, an

and it a hearing, we will hear from the ceo of several of the oil companies including bp and exxonmobil and including several other companies. several hours on the hill today by these oil companies ceo's at a house subcommittee hearing. bridgeport, conn. gerry, independent. what should the president said? caller: let me start with what i hope the president doesn't say. what i hope doesn't do is politicize this tragedy. the way he could politicize this tragedy is to say pass cap-and- trade because of the spill. the reason why i'm against that is because what cap-and-trade basically does -- or i call ration and tax -- is it punishes coal consumption. net net, what the president is saying is because there is a oil spill in the gulf, we have to band coal production. how does it make us less dependent on foreign oil? how does it improve the everyday lives of americans to say let us not consume coal, let us pass cap-and-trade and somehow this will help the giant leak. host: let us move on to memphis, on the line for democrats from new work -- caller: i think he should concentrate most on the

of exxonmobil admitted that when spills happen, we are, and i quote, not well-equipped to handle them. i don't know what they do with the billions of profits they make but if we aren't prepared, we shouldn't be drilling. perhaps the greatest tragedy behind the b.p. oil spill daster is that it really did not need to happen. today, we have the power to learn from history and to chart a new path. in order to safeguard the natural beauty, wildlife, and ocean-based economies of california, oregon, and washington, congressman garamendi's bill really does set the standard. we've got to move forward with a permanent moratorium or permanent ban on offshore oil drilling in federal waters off the west coast. the environmental disaster that we're witnessing in the gull of is a symptom of a much larger problem that is our perilous dependency, as i said earlier, on dirty fossil fuels. we must work to end that adrix today or really risk sacrificing our environment for the future. the best and most responsible way forward is one in which our coastlines remain free of offshore drilling and the demand

435 members of congress spent about $840 million, that's the equivalent of 1% of the profits of exxonmobil for one year. what mr. king's amendment would allow would be for an oil corporation, member of congress to go to the oil corporation and say, write me a check that's half a percent of your profit. that would be legal. that's not what we want in america. we don't want corporations pouring money into individual campaigns disclosed or not. that's going to drown out the voices of regular americans. it's not what the law permits today. the court decision does not ask us to change the law, and i would urge that we defeat mr. king's amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: mr. chairman, may i inquire of the amount of time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. the gentlewoman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. of course i disagree with the gentlelady from california. we need to allow these contributions to go into the

. >> tomorrow, oil company c o's will be on capitol hill, including exxonmobil, conocophillips, and bp. they will be answering questions from the house oversight subcommittee. tomorrow night, president obama will address the nation from the oval office and the talk about taking to deal with the gulf of mexico oil spill after today's visit to the region. we will have live coveraae of that speech. on thursday, b c. o tony hayworth will testify before the house -- bp c zereo tony hayworh will testify before the house. >> it is beginning to explore under the guise under the arctic. >> tony hayward, this past january, before the gulf oil+ spill, thursday, he will testify bbfore capitol hill. see what officials have said about the spill, all archived on c-span's video library. mooe from the british house of david ameron.th prime minister he told members of the fronal qa threat on troops and vasquez stand have been held up. -- troops in afghanistan have beend

tillotson from exxonmobil testified that in the aftermath of the exxon valdez investigation and implementede far-reaching decisions. have there been any specific reforms that bp has implemented following the alaska pipeline disaster in the texas city refinery disaster? close we did implement major change following the incidents in both 2006 and 2007. changes to people, in terms of skills and capabilities. changes to the training that they get, and expertise to develop. we have implemented significant changes to all of our operating practices, including implementation of operating and management system that covers all of the company's operations. it has been a root and branch review from top to bottom. >> my concern is, having called both the alaska pipeline and the texas city refinery disaster, those reforms have not worked. what will be done differently this time and the last almost 60 days? has there been discussion on why the reforms from the texas city and pipeline in alaska have not worked? you know the information our committee has been no you received a letter two days ago concerning

so there tillerson, exxonmobil states in their response, that exxonmobil is prepared to meet all the commitments in its permit, including those involving a worst-case scenario. do you stand by that statement? >> i do. the permit does not guarantee that the oil will not get to the shore, nor does it guarantee that it will all be contained. >> we're at what, at the most, 40,000 barrels today? >> i don't know. 40,000 i think is what we've been saying. so exxonmobil's worst case scenario is over 160,000 barrels per day. how can you say that you would be able to contain a spill that's four times bigger than the same spill using the same plan bp has and the same contractor bp is using? >> as i said, we would use the plans practicable in response to what the regulatory bodies provide. >> bp relied on marine response to -- so if you can't handle 40,000, how can you handle 166,000 per day as you indicated? >> the answer to that is, when these things happen, we are not well equipped to deal with them. >> so when these things happen, we can't handle them, correct? >> we are not well equipped to

during the same cycle exxonmobil recorded $80 billion in profits. if exxonmobil chose to use just 1% of their profits op political activity, it would be more -- on political activity, it would be more than all 435 winning congressional candidates spent in that election cycle. that's just 1% of the profits o