. >> we recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from california, henry waxman. >>thank you for holding this hearing and for your tenacious work on this issue. you have been a true advocate for transparency and admonished traded accountability. accountability.ative%- you have kept the american people informed about the unfolding disaster in the gulf. yesterday, we released a letter excoriating the terrible decisions made by bp in the days leading up to the blowout. time after time, bp has increased the risks by taking a shortcut. one of the essential questions for today's's hearing is whether any of the other oil companies are better prepared than bp. we ask each of the five major oil companies for their oil spilllresponse plans. on paper, they're very impressive. each document has more than 500 pages. if i might, i will hold up the document that is the contingency plan. but what they show is that exxon mobil, chevron, konica phillips and shell are no better prepared to deal with the major oil spill than the bp. the same companies wrote the five plans and described

henry waxman. >> thank you for joint -- for holding this hearing and for your to natioenacious work. your efforts have kept congress and the american people informed about the environmental disaster unfolding in theegulf of mexico. yesterday, chairman steve back and i released a letter describing a series of questionable decisions made by bp in the days before the blowout. time after time, bp appears to have taken shortcuts that increased the risk of catastrophic blow outs. one of the central questions for today's hearing is whether the other oil companies are any petter prepared than bp.+ last week, after receiving a request, the committee asked each of the five major oil companies for their oil spill response plans. on paper, they are very impressive. each document has more than 500 pages long. i will hold up the documents that is the contingency plan. but what the show is that exxon mobil, chevron, and shell are no better preparrd to deal with a major oil spill than bp. the same company, the response group, wrote the five plans and described them as a cookie cutter plants. much of

. >> had a talk with your subcommittee chair or henry waxman about this issue? >> we talk all the time. we have regular caucuu meetings within the committee and subcommittee. i think everybody shares the same goals. we do not want to see this plan deployed. we all want to do what we can to make sure that happens as rapidly as possible. >> there has been some controversy this week about the stakeholder sessions the fcc has been conducting with lobbyists and executives. is it the proper role of the s.e.c. to broker a legislative deal or should that be the domain of congress? >> i do not think anything untoward is going on. i think what the chairman is trying to do is o air out all the concerns stakeholders have. the fact that stakeholders have a chance to let the fcc know what their concerns are, how they see opportunities to move forward, where there might be consensus -- these are good things. i do not have a problem with it. i think that is a good role for the fcc to have. we want everyone to have a say. we want to fashion a good policy to move forward. i do no

. >> lehrer: as the hearing wore on, california henry waxman drilled in on hayward's reluctance to say more. >> i'm not prepared to draw conclusions about this accident until such time as the investigation has concluded. >> well, this is an investigation and we expect you to cooperate with us. are you failing to cooperate with other investigators as well because they're going to have a hard time reaching conclusions if you stone wall them. which is what we seem to be getting today. >> i'm not stonewalling. >> i'm just amazed at this testimony, mr. hayward. you're not taking responsibility >> lehrer: but several republicans criticized the obama white house in equal or greater measure for its response to the spill. >> the lack of effort by this administration to contain the spill has doomed the economy and wildlife of the gulf coast from an oil spill which could have been contained. >> i've heard some assert that it was lax oversight of the previous administration that led to this accident. well, if that's the case, why did this not happen during the last decade ? >> lehrer: meantime, ad

the resolution, by the way, we are discussing today, was introduced by my colleague henry waxman who spoke a while ago. henry's district includes ucla within its territory and henry and i have worked together for many, many years and have had in common the fact that we are both sind of red-hot graduates of ucla. we don't agree upon everything, in fa, some would suggest we almost never agree. the reality is that henry and i worked together for many, many years and i'm proud of the fact that he's a close friend beyond that, as asked -- as i ask annapolis consent to revise and extend my remarks, let me say that the mouse might be interested to know henry and i are such fans of ucla that he actually allowed me to name mying dog bruin. bruin walks to work with me every day. he's over watching this on the floor and will be pleased to know people are recognizing john and nell wooden for the contribution they made to our country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new hampshire is recognized. ms. shea-porter: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro

henry waxman. >> thank you for joint -- for holding this hearing and for your tenacious work. your efforts have kept congress and the american people informed about the environmental disaster unfolding in the gulf of mexico. yesterday, chairman steve back and i released a letter describing a series of questionable decisions made by bp in the days before the blowout. time after time, bp appears to have taken shortcuts that increased the risk of catastrophic blow outs. one of the central questions for today's hearing is whether the other oil companies are any better prepared than bp. last week, after receiving a request, the committee asked each of the five major oil companies for their oil spill response plans. on paper, they are very impressive. each document is more than 500 pages long. i will hold up the document that is the contingency plan. but what the show is that exxon mobil, chevron, and shell are no better prepared to deal with a major oil spill than bp. the same company, the response group, wrote the five plans and described them as cookie cutter plants. much of the