    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                LOCAL IMPACT OF THE DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JUNE 7, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-129

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov
                                    _____

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    76-584                    WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            JOE BARTON, Texas
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      RALPH M. HALL, Texas
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               FRED UPTON, Michigan
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             ROY BLUNT, Missouri
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    STEVE BUYER, Indiana
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
      Vice Chairman                      JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
    LOIS CAPPS, California               MARY BONO MACK, California
    MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania       GREG WALDEN, Oregon
    JANE HARMAN, California              LEE TERRY, Nebraska
    TOM ALLEN, Maine                     MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
    JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois       SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
    JAY INSLEE, Washington               TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
    JIM MATHESON, Utah                   STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
    JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
        Islands
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
    JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
    BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
    PETER WELCH, Vermont
                  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                        BART STUPAK, Michigan, Chairman
    BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa                GREG WALDEN, Oregon
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
    MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
    JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois       MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
    DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
    PETER WELCH, Vermont
    GENE GREEN, Texas
    BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................     1
    Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Texas, opening statement..............................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Hon. Bruce L. Braley, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Iowa, prepared statement....................................    11
    Hon. Donna M. Christensen, a Representative in Congress from the
      Virgin Islands, opening statement..............................    12
    Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Massachusetts, prepared statement..............    13
    Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Colorado, opening statement.................................    14
    Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Illinois, opening statement...........................    15
    Hon. Charlie Melancon, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Louisiana, opening statement..........................    16
    Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Louisiana, opening statement................................    17

                                   Witnesses

    Natalie Roshto, wife of Shane Roshto; and Courtney Kemp, wife of
      Roy Wyatt Kemp.................................................    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Kelby Linn, Owner, ACP Real Estate, Inc., Vice President, Dauphin
      Island Chamber of Commerce.....................................    45
        Prepared statement...........................................    47
    Clarence Duplessis, Oysterman....................................    49
        Prepared statement...........................................    51
    Moby Solangi, Ph.D., President and Executive Director, Institute
      of Mammal Services.............................................    54
        Prepared statement...........................................    56
    Wilma Subra, President, Subra Company............................    58
        Prepared statement...........................................    60

                LOCAL IMPACT OF THE DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL

                                  ----------

                              MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2010

                      House of Representatives,
          Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, 10 a.m., in the
    Council Chambers of the St. Bernard Parish Government Complex,
    8201 West Judge Perez Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana, Hon. Bart
    Stupak (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Stupak, Markey, Degette,
    Schakowsky, Christensen, and Burgess.
        Also Present: Representatives Scalise and Melancon.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Stupak. This meeting will document today we have a
    field hearing entitled ``Inquiry Into the Deepwater Horizon
    Gulf Coast Oil Spill.'' I'd like to begin by thanking St.
    Bernard Parish and the officials here in Chalmette for being
    gracious hosts for today's hearing. I also wish to thank the
    United States Coast Guard, the United States Fish and Wildlife,
    the Louisiana Fish and Wildlife, and then the Louisiana Air
    National Guard for our trip down to the marshes last night.
        After this hearing, we will be further down in the Gulf
    later today as members are still exploring the impact that it's
    had on this region. I'd also like to recognize two of
    Louisiana's Congressmen: Congressman Charlie Melancon is
    supposed to be here. I'm sure he will be here any minute. He's
    running a little bit late, but he will be here; and Steve
    Scalise who are with us. Neither of them are members of the
    subcommittee. They are members of the full committee of the
    Energy and Commerce Committee, and because this is a field
    hearing in their home state, I ask unanimous consent that they
    be allowed to make an opening statement and ask questions
    during today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
        We will now hear from the members for their opening
    statements. The chairman and ranking member will be recognized
    for a five-minute opening and other members will be recognized
    for three minutes. I will begin.
        Let me begin today's hearing by expressing, on behalf of
    all members of Congress, our condolences to the friends and
    family members of those who died or were injured in the April
    20th explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of
    Mexico. Eleven lives were lost and 15 people were injured. Our
    hearts, thoughts, and prayers go out to those families and to
    the thousands of people impacted by this disaster as the well
    continues to spew oil into the Gulf and onto your shores.
        Today's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
    continues our examination into the explosion and oil leak into
    the Gulf of Mexico. This is the second hearing that our
    subcommittee has conducted on the Deepwater Horizon incident
    and the third hearing that the Committee of Energy in Congress
    has held on this issue. While this oil spill is an
    unprecedented environmental disaster, it pales in comparison to
    the tragic loss of life. Our goal is that, with greater
    understanding of the effects of such a catastrophe, we can
    assure it will never happen again.
        On May 12th, our subcommittee held a hearing into the
    events surrounding the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil
    spill. During that hearing, we learned that BP, Transocean, and
    Halliburton failed to address various issues with the rig, the
    well, and the blowout preventer prior to the explosion. BP and
    Transocean failed to ensure that the blowout preventer was
    fully operational. BP and Halliburton failed to identify
    discrepancies in pressure tests done in the cementing of the
    well. Subsequently, BP briefed our committee on the progress of
    its internal investigation. BP reported it had concerns about
    whether proper procedures were followed at critical times prior
    to and on the day of the explosion.
        As a result of the explosion, each day 12,000 to 19,000
    barrels of oil are leaking into the Gulf Coast threatening
    beaches, fishing grounds, critical wetland habitat, sea life,
    and waterfowl. BP officials said under a worst case scenario,
    the spill rate could reach as much as 60,000 barrels, 2.5
    million gallons a day.
        Several attempts by BP to stop the flow of oil have proven
    unsuccessful. No one knows the full extent of the damage to the
    Gulf Coast region. It may be several years before we can
    quantify the true impact of this massive oil spill, but here's
    what we do know: 88,500--88,502 square miles of coastal waters,
    37 percent of U.S. Waters in the Gulf have been closed
    resulting in the significant loss of income to fishermen and
    businesses. Oil from the spill has reached the barrier islands
    in Alabama and Mississippi and just reached Florida's shores
    this weekend.
        37,193 claims have been filed with BP to repay those who
    have suffered a financial loss as a result this spill. More
    than one million gallons of dispersants have been used to treat
    the area. These dispersants can be toxic to some--some
    organisms living in the coastal waters.
        Less than two weeks ago, some oil spill cleanup and
    recovery workers were hospitalized after complaining of
    dizziness, headaches, and respiratory problems. Several
    community groups have complained that BP failed to provide
    adequate protection for these workers. More than 700 birds and
    numerous sea turtles and at least one dolphin have been found
    covered in oil and dead on our Gulf shore.
        The Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and spill has had far
    reaching repercussions forever changing the lives of the 126
    people onboard the rig and their families.
        Each of our witnesses today has a story to share with
    America about how their lives have been changed by this
    horrible tragedy. On our first panel, we will hear from Natalie
    Roshto and Courtney Kemp whose husbands died during the tragic
    explosion on the oil rig.
        We--we will also hear from Gulf Coast residents about the
    effects of the oil spill and how it has impacted their lives
    and livelihoods across the Gulf Coast.
        Clarence Ronnie Duplessis is a commercial fisherman who
    relied on the coastal waters for his livelihood. He has been
    deeply impacted by the closing of the coastal waters and is now
    struggling to get by in what was supposed to be the first good
    year of the season of fishing since Hurricane Katrina.
        Dr. Moby Solangi is president and executive director of the
    Institute of Marine Mammal Sciences protecting marine mammals
    from exposure to toxins like oil and dispersants.
        Dr. Solangi has studied and written about the impact of
    Louisiana crude oil on fisheries.
        Mr. Kelby Linn is the owner of ACP Real Estate, a beach
    front rental real estate broker of Dauphin Island, Alabama, who
    has been a--who has seen a substantial decline in rental
    reservations as a result of the oil spill. The drop began to
    occur almost immediately after the oil spill despite the fact
    that oil only reached Dauphin Island last week.
        Wilma Subra has recently conducted a health survey of
    residents of the Gulf region and those working on the cleanup
    to determine whether they have been physically affected by
    pollutants from the oil and the dispersants.
        I want to thank each of our witnesses for sharing their
    stories today, especially Mrs. Roshto and Mrs. Kemp. Your
    testimony to the subcommittee will be a valuable tool in
    helping us to determine this horrible--helping us to address
    this horrible human and environmental tragedy.
        I'd now like to turn to the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, Mr. Burgess of Texas, for an opening statement.
    Before you do that comment, I thought I saw Mr. Melancon come
    in. There you are.
        Mr. Melancon. Good morning.
        Mr. Stupak. Charlie, thanks for being here.
        Mr. Burgess, opening statement, please.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
                  IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    convening this hearing. Certainly, we want to thank the St.
    Bernard's parish president and council for generously offering
    this venue for the subcommittee's use. Certainly, we want to
    welcome our witnesses here today.
        St. Bernard Parish was totally devastated by Hurricane
    Katrina. In fact, my first trip here was September of 2005.
        I came down at the request of a group of doctors at your
    hospital and stood in the parking lot of your hospital and saw
    firsthand what--what you were dealing with. I remembered
    driving through the town. We had to come in through a
    checkpoint that was secured by FEMA. You had to have special
    permission in coming to town; and FEMA, of course, recorded
    that the town was 100 percent destroyed.
        What I wasn't prepared for as we drove along the streets
    were evidence that people were moving back into the area
    despite of the fact that FEMA had the entire area cordoned it
    off. People were in their front yards living in tents and tarps
    and going about their daily lives in spite of all of the
    devastation around them. This area has extraordinary
    resilience. I personally witnessed it. Sadly, that resilience
    is once again being tested to the maximum.
        We will hear today about the local impacts from the oil
    spill, impacts which have a tremendous impact on the
    livelihoods of the people who live in St. Bernard Parish and
    Plaquemines Parish, particularly and throughout the Gulf Coast.
    I think it is both helpful and important to listen to those
    most affected by the spill to understand their perspectives on
    this catastrophic event.
        And also, Mr. Chairman, with you I offer my condolences to
    Natalie Roshto and Courtney Kemp who will be speaking with us.
    They both lost husbands on the Deepwater Horizon. I appreciate
    you being here this morning. I know it is important that
    America hears your stories and I look forward to your
    testimony.
        We will hear about the impacts to people who make a living
    off of Louisiana's fisheries. Since the spill, the state has
    closed vast sections of Louisiana shrimping grounds and oyster
    beds bringing immediate hardship to people who rely on this
    industry.
        The federal government, as the chairman said, the federal
    government has closed large tracts in the Gulf, over 88,000
    square miles, about 37 percent of the Gulf's waters closed to
    fishing. At least almost two thirds open, along with other
    state controlled waters, but there's legitimate concern that
    the demand for products from anywhere in the Gulf will plummet
    as people watch the spill on the news and become concerned
    about the long-term fishing aspects.
        And I say this as a dedicated and aggressive consumer of
    crustaceans, you can't help but notice what you are seeing on
    the television screens currently, and it is going to have an
    impact on the desire of consumers to buy those products. The
    news images and actual impacts are also hitting the Gulf
    coast's large tourism industry. And, again, I think we are
    scheduled to hear more about that this morning.
        The oil spill has done much to reveal the delicate balance
    and the connections between nature and the various industries
    that rely upon the resources near the Gulf Coast. These
    industries, fisheries, tourism, and industry, are all
    significantly intertwined and where one is impacted it directly
    affects the others. As we gather important information from the
    witnesses today, we should keep in mind this balance.
        Just last week the president and secretary of the interior
    announced a moratorium on drilling in waters over 500 feet. The
    Wall Street Journal last Friday reported that even permits for
    shallow water drilling have been rescinded. While we are still
    trying to evaluate the economic impacts of these actions,
    initial evidence suggests thousands of people who have been
    relying upon activities within the energy industry for their
    livelihoods will also be affected.
        According to a Bloomberg News report, shutting down 33 deep
    water rigs will cost as many as 6,000--6,000 jobs in the next
    three weeks alone. And in the New York--New Orleans Times
    Picayune, it reports that each job in energy exploration
    supports an additional four jobs providing supplies and
    services. We cannot lose sight of the role of energy in the
    economy of the Gulf Coast. Energy helps power the other
    industries both directly and indirectly through economic growth
    and income. To hinder this aspect of the economy while other
    sectors are struggling is not a good way to help the Gulf Coast
    address this unfolding tragedy.
        This subcommittee is in the midst of a close and thorough
    investigation of BP and the other subcontractors behind what
    has become a national tragedy. I am confident that at the end
    of the day we will identify the factors and decisions that led
    to the catastrophic blowout. We are rapidly developing
    information that at least suggests this tragedy was entirely
    avoidable. In time our investigation will inform what practices
    need to be put in place or enforced to maximize the safe and
    secure American energy production.
        Mr. Chairman, we have to get it right. This is an important
    hearing to take a close look at the impacts of oil spills, to
    get an on-the-ground perspective so sorely needed in
    Washington, and it is a chance to understand what happens when
    the delicate balance between nature and industry is upset, and
    to identify policies that will help right that balance; and I
    pray that righting occurs soon.
        I'll yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Burgess. Next we'll go to hear
    from members of the subcommittee for three minutes. I'm sorry.
    Vice-chair of the committee, Mr. Braley, from the wonderful
    State of Iowa. Mr. Braley from Iowa.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE L. BRALEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also thank
    the St. Bernard's parish council for hosting us today and to
    our first panel of witnesses, Mrs. Roshto and Mrs. Kemp, I want
    to thank you for having the courage to come share your stories
    with us today. It's never easy and there's nothing we can do
    today to replace the pain of your loss, but the one thing we
    can do is never forget what your husbands went through and what
    those other men on the rig went through and to get to the
    bottom of why that happened and make sure that it never happens
    again so that no other family has to go through what you have
    gone through; so thank you for coming today.
        I think that one of our witnesses on the second panel, Mr.
    Chairman, Clarence Duplessis, summarized the concerns of most
    of us on the committee in his opening statement when he said,
    ``There are really more questions than answers for what
    happened out on that Deepwater Horizon rig.'' That came out
    during our first hearing, and one of the things that concerns
    many of us is the story keeps shifting.
        We were originally told that there was a release at the
    wellhead of around a thousand barrels per day; then when BP's
    CEO appeared and testified in front of our subcommittee
    hearing, that number was up to 5,000 barrels per day; and just
    last week we were told that BP was excited because they were
    capturing 10,000 barrels per day, which was estimated to be the
    one quarter to one half of the release from the wellhead.
        The environmental and economic devastation to this area and
    the entire Gulf Coast region cannot even be comprehended at
    this stage.
        Our job as the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee is
    to get answers to those questions, to find out why this
    happened, to find out how it happened, to find out who is
    responsible and what they must do to be held accountable.
        One of the things we know is that the economic devastation
    is going to be severe and long lasting, and the witnesses we
    are going to hear from today will help us put a human face on
    that tragedy. But there are also disturbing parts to this story
    that we need answers to; and one of the things that we have
    done is ask for specific information from BP, Halliburton,
    Transocean, and others involved on that drilling rig. And one
    of the things that is disturbing is when we ask for specific
    information, as I did following our May 12th hearing, and
    getting back a response only after a second follow-up request
    was sent that was incomplete and ignored the request that we
    made at the time of the initial hearing.
        Mr. Chairman, it's obvious to me that we are going to have
    to continue to pursue answers to the questions. We need to have
    additional hearings as necessary until the people of Louisiana,
    Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and indeed the entire United
    States, know what happened and what we are doing about it.
        And I'll yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Braley. Mrs. Christensen for an
    opening statement for three minutes, please. Mrs. Christensen
    from the Virgin Islands.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A
           REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
    good morning.
        I feel sort of like deja vu all over again. In September of
    2005, my staff and I came to hear firsthand the health impacts,
    but most importantly the health needs of the people of New
    Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It was the first of
    many visits. And now with this region barely back on its feet
    from that tragedy, we are here for another one, which is the
    words of many residents even that we will talk of more for
    many, many reasons.
        So thank you, Chairman Stupak and Ranking Member Burgess,
    for having this oversight hearing, not in Washington, but right
    here where its impact is being seen and felt.
        First of all, my condolences to the families of the 11
    workers who were lost. And thank you to Mrs. Kemp and Mrs.
    Roshto for joining us this morning, for being willing to
    testify, for your courage and that of the other families who
    you represent, and for the important positions that you are
    taking on the future of our offshore drilling in spite of your
    loss as well as on the Death of the High Seas Compensation Act,
    which is an insult to the dedication of the oil workers and the
    families who sacrifice when they leave home for weeks at a
    time.
        We wish a speedy and full recovery to those who were
    injured and to those whose lives and livelihood have been
    disrupted and damaged for what remains an uncertain future.
        We know what lies ahead will not be easy, but we commit to
    working with President Obama and to do everything we can to
    bring your communities and your lives back to as close to
    normal as possible as soon as possible.
        In every briefing and hearing of this subcommittee and
    those of my other committee of natural resources, I've asked
    BP, the Coast Guard, and others for assurance that everything
    that needed to be done was being done to prevent both short-
    and long-term health impacts, including providing and using
    protective gear. It seems that the assurances which we received
    were empty. Without the insistence of residents, the decisions
    of courts, and the vigilance and advocacy of groups like LEAN
    and LMRK and Subra, it appears that nothing would have been
    done despite what we know from past experiences. This is very
    troubling; and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on
    what they feel we as a committee in the Congress need to do at
    this point.
        I remain reluctant on the issue of new drilling, but I am
    clear that strengthened regulation and enforcement that
    markedly improved safety measures for the offshore drilling
    that is now permitted, that increased accountability of the
    companies involved in the process, and that the fullest
    possible recovery for all that has been damaged must be a part
    of our responsibility going forward.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my statement, and
    I yield back my time.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you. And as members know, our
    subcommittee just don't do a hearing or two. This is our second
    hearing. We will be doing another one within the next two weeks
    with the head of BP, Tony Hayward, up in Washington, and later
    this month we have a fourth hearing set.
        So, as you know, like Hurricane Katrina, our committee came
    down--I led that group--our committee came down to deal with
    the health aspect after Hurricane Katrina, so our committee
    will stay with this issue. And it should be noted we have, if I
    count right, nine members here. Rather unheard of to have nine
    members to come down for a field hearing. Each hearing we have
    had on these tragic circumstances, all members have shown up,
    so I want to thank the members for taking the extra time for
    being down here and take time out of their schedules and, of
    course, Mr. Melancon and Mr. Scalise also who are valuable
    members of our committee.
        Next we will hear from Mr. Markey from Massachusetts. Mr.
    Markey is chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of
    the Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Markey is also the
    chairman of the Select Committee on Climate Change.
        Mr. Markey, opening statement, three minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
            CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

        Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Our hearts
    go out to those whose loved ones were lost in this explosion.
    We thank you for being here today. It takes a lot of courage.
    Mrs. Roshto and Mrs. Kemp, we thank you for being here. It's
    important that you are here and we all extend our sympathies to
    you and to your families.
        We begin to appreciate how vital our role in the oceans
    play in our economy as soon as we saw the impact from that
    explosion; and we've become increasingly frustrated as each
    rosy assurance provided by BP failed to be true and every
    attempt to stop the oils flow failed to work.
        Every day as this oil encroaches on the wetlands,
    estuaries, and beaches, the entire nation shares in the anxiety
    and anger felt by the people living in the Gulf region. It is
    clear by BP's actions that while they spent billions of dollars
    to develop technologies that would allow it to drill ultra deep
    into the ocean, that investment was not matched with the
    development of ultra safe technologies that could prevent,
    contain, and cleanup the consequences of these types of
    drilling operations. It has also become clear that just as no
    one has capped BP's profits, the great damage it has caused,
    and as a result we must make sure that BP must repay everything
    that they have caused in terms of damage and that should not be
    capped as well. BP must be held accountable.
        Oil has made its way onto the beaches of four coastal
    states from Louisiana to Florida. As of yesterday,
    approximately 33 percent of the fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico
    had been closed depriving people of their livelihoods. I've
    seen firsthand with the other members the stain of BP's oil on
    the cane in the marsh land and heard of the birds, the fish,
    and the dolphins that have already been killed by oil.
        We have also heard reports that there may be plumes of
    subsurface oil posing an insidious threat to deep sea coral and
    other marine life, oil that will not make its presence known by
    the clear signs of tar balls or oiled birds but which could,
    nevertheless, affect generations of aquatic life too.
        Remarkably last week, BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward,
    claimed that BP didn't have enough resources in its toolkit to
    handle the Gulf oil disaster. That is why this week I will
    introduce the Oil SOS Bill that will require companies to fund
    research and development for upgraded safety and cleanup tools,
    so that in the future companies like BP will never again be
    relying on 30-year old technologies to deal with 21st century
    problems. That is unfair to the families who must suffer the
    consequences of the lack of preparation by BP.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Markey. Ms. DeGette from
    Colorado, opening statement, please.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In late
    August of 2005 a perfect storm, Hurricane Katrina, formed over
    the Gulf devastating homes and taking a terrible toll on human
    life and the economy. This spring, five years later, the
    residents of this area, being resilient and caring and working
    hard, had just started to turn their economy around and rebuild
    their lives when another perfect storm hit, this one being
    entirely man-made.
        And the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill is a
    national tragedy and we are all terribly concerned about it,
    but the local effects are felt far more acutely. The human
    impact in terms of loss of life and injuries and the economic
    impact to the local fishing and tourism industries and the
    environmental impact along the Gulf Coast are all terrible and,
    frankly, the effects will last indefinitely longer than we
    know. Accidents on this scale raise many questions about what
    went wrong; and in this case, as usual, there's no single
    answer on who to blame.
        We have had, as the Chairman said, several hearings in this
    committee and also in the natural resources committee on which
    several of us sit where we have probed the causes of the
    accident, but what we have been able to tell to date is that it
    really was a perfect storm. We had a blowout preventer testing
    and a certification problem, we had faulty cementing, we had a
    lack of a chain of command. We had many, many problems that are
    going to take a long time to sort out; but, as the Chairman
    said, this committee is nothing if not stubborn and diligent
    and we are going to get to the bottom of it because, if we
    don't, this could happen again and we can't let this happen
    again.
        In terms of human life, in terms of loss of ecosystem, in
    terms of loss of economy and jobs, we can't--we might have
    another environmental perfect storm. Mother nature's
    unpredictable, but we can't be causing these impacts ourselves.
    We have to make sure that systems are in place so that when the
    important drilling that occurs out here is done it's done in an
    environmentally safe way and in a way that will save human
    lives.
        Natalie and Courtney, I want to echo what my colleagues
    have said. This is a terrible loss to you and to your families,
    and we are here to sympathize with your losses; but much more
    than that, we want to do what you want to do. We want to make
    sure that we work with you so that this never happens to any
    other families.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Ms. Schakowsky, opening statement.
    Ms. Schakowsky is from Illinois.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
         REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Burgess,
    for holding this very important hearing here in Louisiana; and
    I'm really happy that we can be here to offer support and
    solidarity to our colleagues, Congressmen Melancon and Scalise.
        And over the last six weeks, we have been reminded once
    again of the tremendous cost of our nation's reliance on oil to
    meet our energy needs. The oil spill in the Gulf Coast is not
    only a human tragedy leading to the loss of 11 lives, but an
    unprecedented environmental disaster and yet another economic
    catastrophe for this region.
        For what it's worth, we are here in part to express our
    sympathy and support not only to the families of those workers
    who perished but also to everyone who lives or works in the
    Gulf region; but I know you want more than sympathy, you want
    to see action.
        And to Mrs. Roshto and Mrs. Kemp, I want to express my
    gratitude and admiration for the courage that you have for
    being here today and turning your personal tragedy into
    suggestions of what we can do better to avoid this in the--in
    the future.
        The Deepwater Horizon spill is a devastating reminder that
    the United States must implement a comprehensive energy
    strategy that weans our nation off of oil and spurs development
    of cleaner renewable sources like wind and solar power, but as
    long as we drill, we must enforce, vigorously enforce, current
    law. We also have to quickly determine holes in that regulatory
    and enforcement framework. For example, Canada requires a
    relief well at the very same time any deep water well is
    drilled.
        I also believe it's imperative that we raise or completely
    eliminate the cap on damages imposed on oil and gas companies
    that cause--that cause environmental catastrophes. It's
    unconscionable that current law allows companies like BP to
    make billions of dollars in profits and then when an accident
    occurs the law protects--well, we'll see--but may protect them
    from paying for the damages they caused.
        But the point of today's hearing is to learn about the
    impact of the oil spill at the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig
    site on the Gulf region. And we are hearing from, of course,
    these two widows today, representatives of some industries that
    are being hit the hardest; and I want to thank each and every
    one of you for being with us today. I know how difficult the
    last six weeks have been, or I can try and know that, but I
    want you to know that we truly appreciate hearing your
    perspective of this unprecedented disaster and we will be
    working to make sure that we address the problems and assure
    that it never happens again.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Let's hear from our two native sons
    here, Charlie Melancon, a member of--valuable member of our
    committee. Opening statement, please, sir.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE MELANCON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Mr. Melancon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mrs. Roshto
    and Mrs. Kemp, on behalf of Peachy and I, our condolences to
    you and thank you for having the courage to be here today.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member Burgess, thank you
    for taking the time and interest in my state, our people, our
    environment, our livelihood, for coming to this field hearing
    and working to ensure that a tragedy like this doesn't happen
    again.
        The news coverage is constantly reminding us that we are
    facing the largest environmental disaster in our nation's
    history. It's hard not to draw comparisons to a similarly grim
    milestone five years ago when this district and our state bore
    the brunt of the largest natural man-made--natural disaster in
    history as well.
        I mention this association because it's easy to become
    distracted by the torrent of bad news that streams all day
    long, but we are here today to help make sure the effects of
    this tragedy on real people's lives aren't forgotten and aren't
    repeated. And I might add a footnote: Louisiana is still open
    for business and, even more importantly, the communities right
    now along the coast need for the citizens of the state and the
    neighboring states to come and enjoy Louisiana.
        And we need to make certain that this investigation into
    what went wrong is thoroughly carried out. We must examine all
    solutions that may guard against a disaster like this ever
    happening again.
        We are fortunate to have witnesses today who will share
    their frustrating and heartbreaking stories with us. These
    stories are not easy to share, so I sincerely appreciate the
    willingness of the witnesses to come before this group and to
    share their personal accounts. Hopefully, this hearing and
    others like it will reveal the pattern of mis-steps and
    negligence that led to this continually growing catastrophe.
        Because the responders work as fast as possible to cap this
    well and protect our marshes, it is important to identify what
    must change to keep another disaster like this from striking
    our fragile coast. In addition, we must make sure that the
    safety of the workers in America and on these rigs is
    protected.
        These rigs in the Gulf represent a tremendous segment of
    the economy in south Louisiana; and the sooner we ascertain the
    vulnerabilities the sooner we can fix those problems and have
    our men and women working again in a safe environment.
        I'd also like to thank the expert witness panel for
    participating today. I'm afraid that when the cameras and the
    national attention leaves, we in Louisiana will only be--just
    be commencing with our recovery. The toxic pollution in the
    Gulf waters could knock out our fisheries and industries along
    that area and our way of life for years to come, if not for
    decades. We need your expertise to help recognize the actions
    we can take to mitigate these scenarios and to make our
    resources productive again as soon as possible.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, ranking member, thank you for holding
    this hearing. With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Melancon. Next we will hear from
    another valuable member of our committee, Mr. Scalise.
        Opening statement, please, sir.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

        Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing and bringing the committee to Louisiana to hear about
    the Deepwater Horizon spill and how it's affected the people of
    the Gulf Coast.
        I extend my deepest condolences as well, as other members
    have already expressed to Mrs. Roshto and Mrs. Kemp for
    appearing here today to share your stories with us because my
    thoughts and prayers are with you and all 11 families who are
    going through what is a real human tragedy. We see so much, the
    stories of the oil coming up and we are fighting that side of
    it, but you are fighting every day a different side of it and I
    don't think we have heard enough of your side of the story as
    well, so I appreciate both of you being here with us as well.
        It's nearly five years after Hurricane Katrina and we are
    fighting yet another major disaster here in south Louisiana. In
    fact, the room we are sitting in right now was completely under
    water after Katrina. You've seen the resiliency of the people
    of St. Bernard Parish, who I appreciate their hospitality, and
    you can see their strength and how they've come back from this,
    but it's not been easy. And we know that the next months or
    more ahead are not going to be easy for us as well, but we need
    to get answers.
        Just like when a plane crashes, you don't stop flying. You
    find out why that plane crashed and you move forward. We need
    answers that we still haven't gotten to find out why this
    disaster happened.
        We have already heard some reports. There has been a 30-day
    study. We need to get the results of that study so that we can
    learn more as well, but we've also got to make sure that we
    continue to hold BP accountable because they testified before
    our full committee under oath that they would pay all damages.
    And I intend and I know my other colleagues intend to hold them
    to that.
        But in the meantime, our top priority has got to be
    stopping this flow of oil that's coming out and protecting our
    valuable marshes from being inundated by the oil. If the
    blowout preventer that failed to work properly was supposed to
    be the rig's last line of defense against this type of
    disaster, then the federal agencies that regulate these rigs
    were supposed to be our first line of defense and they failed
    us as well. We still need to get those answers from the federal
    regulating agencies and the work and the tests that they've
    performed prior to the explosion to find out what went wrong.
        There are a lot of other rigs out there in the Gulf in even
    deeper waters than the Horizon that haven't had these kinds of
    problems, so we should also see what they are doing that was
    not being done on this rig and the mistakes that were made by
    BP and Transocean and the other parties responsible.
        But we also need to establish a real chain of command. We
    still don't have a structure that allows for accountability.
    Every time we try to get answers--when our local leaders who
    are battling this every day have problems with the recovery, we
    just see more finger pointing. That's got to stop. We have got
    to have a real chain of command, and BP should not be the
    gatekeeper for our local responders who are trying to protect
    our valuable marshland.
        We also need to address this drilling ban. Not only do you
    now have a human disaster and an environmental disaster, but
    the ban on drilling threatens to pose an economic disaster on
    our state. That is not a proper response to what happened.
        I'm calling on the president to reconsider his decision to
    go meet with all of us who deal with the industry who have seen
    the successes of the industry and understand how drilling can
    be done in a safe and environmentally friendly way. You don't
    hold an entire industry accountable for the failures of one. We
    have got to find out what went wrong and make sure it doesn't
    happen again, but you don't ship 30,000 jobs and billions more
    dollars to the middle eastern countries who don't like us as a
    response.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the hearing and
    I yield back.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Scalise. That concludes the
    opening statement by members. Let's have our first panel of
    witnesses.
        On our first panel, we have Mrs. Natalie Roshto whose
    husband Shane was killed during the explosion of the Deepwater
    Horizon oil rig. Shane and Natalie were married for four and a
    half years and have a three-year-old daughter together.
        Mrs. Courtney Kemp whose husband Wyatt was killed during
    the explosion. Wyatt and Courtney were high school sweethearts.
    They were married five and a half years and have a three-year-
    old and a four-month-old daughter. Thank you both for being
    here.
        It is the policy of this subcommittee to take all
    testimonies under oath. Please be advised that you have the
    right under the rules of the House to be advised by counsel
    during your testimony. Do you wish to be represented by
    counsel, Mrs. Roshto?
        Mrs. Roshto. I've been represented.
        Mr. Stupak. Move that mic forward, please.
        Mrs. Roshto. I have counsel.
        Mr. Stupak. OK. Would you just for the record identify your
    counsel's name?
        Mrs. Roshto. Ronnie Penton and Scott Bickford.
        Mr. Stupak. OK. If during testimony, if you want to consult
    with them, just take a moment and do so. If they testify, they
    would have to be sworn in.
        Mrs. Roshto. OK.
        Mr. Stupak. Mrs. Kemp, are you represented by counsel?
        Mrs. Kemp. I am not formally represented, but I do have Mr.
    Barry Rhodes here with me today to give legal advice and
    guidance.
        Mr. Stupak. Very good. And, again, any time during your
    testimony or questions if you would like to consult with him
    before you answer, please do so, OK.
        Mrs. Kemp. OK.
        Mr. Stupak. So I'm asking you to please rise and raise your
    right hand to take the oath.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Stupak. Let the record reflect the witnesses replied in
    the affirmative. You are now under oath. We will now hear your
    opening statement from our--from each of you.
        Mrs. Roshto, do you want to begin, please?
        Mrs. Roshto. Yes.
        Mr. Stupak. I'm going to ask you to pull that mic up closer
    to you so we can all hear.

        STATEMENTS OF NATALIE ROSHTO, WIFE OF SHANE ROSHTO; AND
                   COURTNEY KEMP, WIFE OF WAYNE KEMP

                      STATEMENT OF NATALIE ROSHTO

        Mrs. Roshto. Good morning. Before I begin, I would first
    like to thank each and every one of you again for allowing me
    to speak today on behalf of my husband, Shane Roshto, who was
    tragically killed in the Deepwater Horizon explosion, myself
    and our wonderful son, Blaine.
        In the early hours of April 21st when I received the news
    of the explosion and a fire, I never thought I would be sitting
    here. I never thought I would go home to a bright eyed three-
    year old and have to face the fact that his dad and my husband
    would never come home to us.
        Every three weeks when Blaine and I would give Shane our
    last love sending him off for three weeks, I would always fear
    the helicopter ride, but never did this tragedy ever come to
    mind. But through God's grace, family, and friends, we are
    making it through. After all the safety school meetings, fire
    drills, and safety regulations, I knew he was safe.
        When the events of the Deepwater Horizon explosion started
    to unfold, I asked myself will I ever personally recover. What
    if he's out there and they just didn't look long enough? As the
    days passed, Shane's absence became a reality.
        My husband took great pride in his job. He loved his work
    and all his Deepwater Horizon family; but most important, he
    knew offshore provided the life he wanted for our son. He loved
    us unselfishly and provided a lifestyle that allowed me to
    attend college and to be at home with our son. During Shane's
    off weeks, he spent every day with Blaine passing on his love
    for the outdoors, hunting and fishing and doing for others.
        A little background on how Shane and I began. We met at 15
    years old. We were high school sweethearts. At 18 years old, I
    found out I was pregnant. Shane came to me the day I found out
    I was pregnant and he said, ``I'm going to be here for you and
    Blaine, and the only way I'm going to do it is to go
    offshore.'' And he did. That's what he did for me and Blaine.
    As the days passed, I asked why. What happened? The life Blaine
    and I knew was over. My wonderful love story had come to an
    end. Though he is a mirror image of his daddy, Blaine has now
    the void that will never be filled.
        When I--the day I found out, when I got that phone call at
    6:00 April 21st and I heard what had happened, I knew he was
    safe. I just knew he was coming home. As I went--I went to
    Fourchon because the only thing I knew was to get closer to the
    water, just to get to the water. I knew that's where he would
    be. As the hours passed and I received a phone call that he was
    on the missing list and they were searching for him, I was
    devastated. I never thought it would be on this level ever.
        As I sit here today, though, I come with a new perspective,
    a perspective that I hope can make a difference, one that will
    ensure safety to every man in the oil field.
        And I do fully support offshore drilling and always will
    because I know, like my husband Shane, many men and women
    depend on this means--this as a means to provide for their
    family and also to provide for our country with a commodity
    that is necessary to everyday life.
        I would like to leave here today knowing that because of my
    husband's tragic death, we can begin to focus on making safety
    the most important priority, not to focus on making more safety
    regulations but on ways to effectively implement the ones that
    we already have. This tragedy will not be in vain because as of
    right now my husband's death is in vain, but it will not be in
    vain if it serves to make the lives of every man and woman
    working in the oil field the top priority and cause these
    powerful oil companies to know that they will be held
    accountable for their actions.
        My intense interest in Shane's work led us through many
    conversations detailing work carried out on the Deepwater
    Horizon and the many safety practices that were in place. It is
    my hope that these 11 men who suffered a tragic death will
    serve as a motive to enforce safety above all else.
        In the weeks that Shane was home, the last time he left to
    go offshore we had many detailed conversations of the wrong
    that was going on out there, all the mud they were losing, the
    high pressure situations they were in. I pray every day when I
    awake and have bedtime prayers with Blaine that I can sit him
    down one day and be able to tell him that his daddy was a hero,
    a hero to all oil field men and women because his death changed
    the heart and soul of those who place their business agendas
    over the importance of life.
        In closing I would like to--well, what I would like to
    accomplish today before I say that, is the removal of Death on
    the High Seas Act. It is beyond me that any man that is injured
    out there has more right than a man that was killed providing
    for his country and his family.
        In closing I would like to ask that the next time you see a
    picture of the Deepwater Horizon in flames or hear about the
    oil spill, you think about this: The flow of oil eventually
    will be stopped, slowly the environment will recover, the Gulf,
    I pray, will continue to provide us with oil and gas and many
    other things that we all enjoy, but the lives of the 11 men,
    their survivors, and heroes of the Deepwater Horizon will
    forever be changed.
        We can only hope that the legacy of this tragedy will be
    much more than a devastating oil spill, but an unfortunate
    tragedy that prompted changes creating a safer environment for
    those who love their work in the oil fields of the Gulf of
    Mexico.
        [The statement of Mrs. Roshto follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Mrs.
    Kemp, your opening statement, please.

                       STATEMENT OF COURTNEY KEMP

        Mrs. Kemp. Good morning. My name is Courtney Kemp and I'm
    from----
        Mr. Stupak. May I ask you to pull that up a little bit, if
    you can, or scooch up a little bit more to the table or slide
    that over.
        Mrs. Kemp. Good morning. My name is Courtney Kemp and I am
    from Jonesville, Louisiana. My husband is Roy Wyatt Kemp, one
    of the 11 men killed on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that
    exploded on April 20, 2010. On behalf of my husband and my
    family, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak
    regarding the oil issues in the oil and gas industry.
        My husband and I have two precious daughters, Kaylee,
    three, and Maddison, four months. Our girls will only know what
    a wonderful father they had by the stories we tell them. While
    I understand companies must make a profit, I do not believe it
    should be at the expense of risking lives or destroying
    families. I am asking you to please consider harsh punishment
    on companies who chose to ignore safety standards before other
    families are destroyed.
        I am not here today to suggest that Congress implement more
    safety regulations, but rather to encourage you to hold
    companies accountable for safety regulations already in place
    and merely neglected. If proper safety procedures had been
    taken on the Deepwater Horizon, it is my firm belief that this
    tragic accident would have been prevented and my husband and
    the others would be alive today.
        It is no secret that the oil field has effected the
    environment. One can see the devastation that is happening to
    the coastline and the magnitude of its effects on the seafood
    industry in general. However, our state has overcome many
    adversities in the past, including numerous weather related
    issues such as hurricanes and droughts. We as Americans are a
    strong people and will recover from this tragedy as well.
        America is a rich nation regarding natural resources, but
    in my opinion we have become too dependent upon foreign
    imports, this including oil. While we realize we are suffering
    from economic impacts resulting from the leaking oil, it will
    be even more devastating if you allow drilling in the Gulf to
    cease. If drilling ceases, not only would offshore employees
    lose their jobs, but the trickle down effect would be
    devastating not only to the coastal states but eventually the
    entire country. You must not allow this to happen. Drilling in
    the Gulf must continue.
        I would also like to speak with the members of Congress
    about one of the many acts of Congress that may have a negative
    effect on my family's future. The Death on the High Seas Act is
    an antiquated act of Congress passed in 1920 which spells out
    the losses that the family of a person who suffers wrongful
    death on the high seas may recover.
        DOHSA is a comprehensive act that limits allowable damages
    for deaths occurring on the high seas. This act does not permit
    the applications of state wrongful death remedies. It does not
    look to general maritime law to--to supplement the act's
    limitations. In essence the act limits the liability of
    wrongdoers in this matter, such as BP, Transocean, and many
    others.
        My family can never and will never be adequately
    compensated for our loss. What I am seeking is an
    accountability from the wrongdoers who caused this terrible
    tragedy. I ask that the members of Congress use this
    catastrophe as a basis to revisit and amend this outdated act
    from 1920. Revise DOHSA with 21st century standards and
    realities in mind.
        Please use this opportunity to make corporate America more
    responsible and accountable. Require corporate wrongdoers to
    fully, fairly, and adequately compensate the victims of
    senseless accidents. Thank you.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony.
    Let me ask a question or two, if I may. We will start with
    questions from members.
        Our investigation has uncovered several flaws in the design
    and operations of this well, including equipment malfunctions.
    From our investigation, we have learned that BP and Transocean
    were not prepared for a catastrophic loss of well control on
    the Deepwater Horizon like the one that occurred on April 20th.
        We have learned of the following problems, among many, but
    some of the more obvious ones are mechanical problems were
    uncovered as early as March of 2010; the blowout preventer,
    which is the fail safe tool designed to prevent a catastrophic
    loss of control, was not maintained properly and it was not
    fully tested. It appears BP made well design choices that may
    have compromised safety.
        According to BP's preliminary investigation, there were
    several signs of possible loss of well control in the 24 hours
    before the explosion, yet steps were not taken to safeguard the
    employees. It also appears BP made several cementing design
    choices that went against the best practices for the industry.
        This weekend we see adds from BP like this one we have here
    (indicating). And I point that out because it says ``we will
    get it done. We will make this right''. It reminds me of the
    marshes we were in last night. Once the oil gets in those
    marshes, you really can't get them out. Mother nature has to do
    that; but more importantly, it can't make your loss right. And
    the part that disturbs me, the ad never mentions your loss,
    that of the 11 people who died and those who were injured.
        So let me ask you this, Natalie and Courtney: What would
    ask these companies, BP and Transocean? What would you ask them
    if you had the opportunity? Hopefully, you can do it through
    us. Mrs. Roshto.
        Mrs. Roshto. If I had the opportunity to ask BP one
    question, it would be--I know that my husband can't come back.
    There's nothing I can do or say to make him come back, but why?
    What went wrong? Why weren't you out there trying to do
    something in the weeks before when they were having problems?
        Mr. Stupak. Mrs. Kemp.
        Mrs. Kemp. I would also ask why but in a different sense.
    Why is it that money is more important than someone's life?
    Why?
        And I'm extremely upset that BP has never mentioned the 11
    or the ones that are injured or the men that are struggling
    mentally that survived that tragic night.
        Mr. Stupak. In this hearing you mentioned the Death on the
    High Seas Act. I'm sure every member here knows of it and we
    will look at it and, as the Congress of the United States, I'm
    sure all Congress will.
        What other hopes do you have this hearing will accomplish?
    What else would you like to see come from these hearings? You
    mentioned safety, you mentioned the High Seas Act. Anything
    else you would like to see, Mrs. Kemp?
        Mrs. Roshto? I'm afraid to ask your counsel because I'm
    sure they have a list of them for us, but----
        Mrs. Roshto. My hope from this hearing is to not stop
    offshore drilling. That's--that has--when I saw that and heard
    that, that hit deep because my husband took great pride in his
    job. And many men, many men depend on offshore drilling. That
    is our way of life. I mean I--that--that would not do these men
    any justice one bit.
        Mrs. Kemp. I totally agree with Natalie's statement in that
    our husbands will--being a Christian, we will one day again see
    our husbands, but it is important now that Congress and the
    government in itself takes--takes pride in knowing that there
    are men out there that work every day to put fuel in your
    vehicles, to heat our homes, and that is something that is
    merely neglected.
        And I hope today that people realize how important offshore
    drilling is and how important it is not only to the coastal
    states where so many people work--because we do live in very
    rural areas and offshore work is a way for families to make a
    living and to be able to provide for children, and I hope that
    you work very hard and diligently to make sure that drilling
    continues in the Gulf.
        Mr. Stupak. Well, I can't speak for all the members, but
    from where I sit, drilling will continue. Right now after this
    tragic accident, I think we need to pause here. Let's see what
    went wrong. Let's make sure it doesn't happen again. Whether
    it's a shallow well or a deep water well, let's make sure we
    get it right. We can't have more hearings like this with young
    folks like you coming talking about your tragic loss and the
    environment being devastated in the Gulf, so I think we ought
    to slow it down for a minute here. Let's see what's going on.
    Let's get proper rules, regulations, safety concerns addressed.
    And I think there will always be drilling in the outer
    continental shelf or wherever in this country. We've just got
    to do it better, safer.
        With that, I want my questions--we are going to go--This
    will be the order of questions so all will know:
        Mr. Burgess will go, Mr. Braley, Mr. Markey, Ms. DeGette,
    Ms. Schakowsky, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Melancon, and Mr.
    Scalise.
        Mr. Burgess, five minutes, please.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, I want to
    thank our witnesses for being here today. I want to thank you
    for bringing to our attention Chapter 21, paragraph 761 of the
    Death on the High Seas Act. You know, it's interesting we have
    been talking about changing the law where BP's liability is
    capped at $75 million to $10 billion, but--but that actually
    wouldn't help what you are talking about on the Death on the
    High Seas Act where no--no liability occurs beyond three miles
    out from the shore. And clearly, as we--as we adjust for the
    21st century the liability of the companies, this is something
    that on an individual basis has to be tackled also. So just to
    let you know, your testimony here this morning has been very
    helpful. Let me--let me ask you a question: What--now, did your
    husbands work for BP or Transocean or Halliburton.
        Mrs. Roshto. Transocean.
        Mrs. Kemp. Transocean.
        Mr. Burgess. And since the accident, what have you heard
    from the company itself? Have they come to you and--and offered
    any type of assistance with--with pulling your lives back
    together.
        Mrs. Roshto. Actually, I sat across my kitchen table with
    the CEO and president of Transocean. He personally paid a visit
    to me, and I also had a lady from the company that has kept in
    close contact with me about anything to do with anything out
    there.
        Mr. Burgess. So are they giving you financial assistance at
    this point?
        Mrs. Roshto. Yes. I--we are still receiving his paycheck
    until otherwise.
        Mr. Burgess. I see. Same with you, Mrs. Kemp?
        Mrs. Kemp. Yes, sir. Again, the CEO of the company came to
    the House to express his personal condolences. Like Natalie, I
    also have a representative from Transocean who we keep in close
    contact and she and I speak regularly on a daily basis. And
    yes, we are still receiving their paychecks just as if they
    were out there working.
        Mr. Burgess. I see. So--so the ability to keep body and
    soul together right now while things are being sorted out, you
    have a cash flow that is--is available to you?
        Mrs. Roshto. Yes, sir.
        Mrs. Kemp. Yes.
        Mr. Burgess. And the reason I ask is because, you know,
    just preceding the--the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, there was
    another tragedy that occurred on land on April 5th in West
    Virginia.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I'll submit this for the record, but a
    newspaper article on the Upper Big Branch mine, each miner's
    spouse or beneficiary will collect life insurance benefits that
    are five times the miner's annual pay. A surviving spouse will
    be entitled to 20 years of health benefits dependant children
    will continue health benefits until the age 19 or age 24, child
    care benefits for children up to the age of 12.
        This company obviously got out in front of this issue. I'm
    glad to here that Transocean did. I actually don't know if any
    of BP's employees were--were killed in the accident and I'd be
    interested to know if they have been as forthcoming; but
    clearly, this is not--in my opinion, this is preventative
    medicine. This is taking care of a family that needs help who
    suffered a devastating loss.
        I'm glad to hear that Transocean has--has stepped up. I
    hope that it is every bit as reasonable as what the--the owners
    of the Upper Big Branch mine did because they clearly
    recognized they were facing a dreadful public relations
    problem, as is Transocean, as is BP, and honestly as is
    Halliburton.
        Did your husbands talk to you at all--both of you
    referenced the fact that when you saw your husbands they talked
    about things that were not right on the rig. I presume you've
    talked to the Coast Guard about this, but is there anything you
    can share with us about the stories your husbands were telling
    you during those last visits about concerns they had about
    safety on the rig?
        Mrs. Roshto. The last time Shane was home, the three weeks
    he was home, we had some pretty detailed conversations about
    some of the issues out there concerning the well.
        Mr. Burgess. Let me stop you for just a second. Is that
    normal coast side conversation that you and Shane would have
    had----
        Mrs. Roshto. We had----
        Mr. Burgess [continuing]. Or was he overly concerned about
    safety?
        Mrs. Roshto. No, no. We always talked about his work. I had
    an intense interest in his work because I did not work. Because
    I couldn't see it with my own two eyes, I had a lot of
    questions. And I mean the four and a half years he was out
    there, we talked 90 percent about his work and--because he was
    moving up and he was really interested in his job. But we had
    some previous conversations on some issues that they had out
    there.
        Main reason he had an issue was because he was working in
    the mud room, a lot of mud loss undoubtedly. I actually spoke
    with him at 1:30 the morning of the accident and he expressed
    some concern about some issues they were having, and I talked
    to him at 10:30 a.m. The morning of the accident and at that
    time he didn't really express any concern; but our 1:30 a.m.
    Conversation he had some concerns about some well issues that
    they were having, the mud loss.
        Mr. Burgess. Mrs. Kemp, just a little time I have left. Can
    you respond to that?
        Mrs. Kemp. Yes. My husband also stated that they had been
    losing mud. They had had problems with well control before and
    actually lost the well, lost a lot of tools and everything,
    several millions of dollars worth of equipment that had been
    lost. They were also receiving a lot of kicks from the well, a
    lot of gas pressure, and--and that had been going on throughout
    the duration of this well. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Mr. Braley for questions, please.
        Mr. Braley. Thank you. And Mrs. Roshto and Mrs. Kemp, I
    want to thank you for bringing us this problem with the Jones
    Act, otherwise known as the Death on the High Seas Act, because
    a lot of people don't appreciate what's going on out on those
    drilling platforms. They don't know that they are flagged
    vessels and that the Deepwater Horizon rig was flagged as a
    vessel in the Marshall Islands. Were you aware of that?
        Mrs. Kemp. No, I wasn't.
        Mr. Braley. And that because they are a flagged vessel,
    they are subject to the Jones Act limitations which are very
    restrictive. They don't provide any compensation for quality of
    life damages, for the loss, the emotional loss, that the two of
    you have for losing your husband, for the emotional loss that
    your children have, for the fact that your husband won't be
    there for their high school graduations or their weddings or
    those wonderful times that families get to celebrate.
        If this had happened on land under the laws of Louisiana
    and in almost every other state, your claims would have been
    significantly greater and different; because those quality of
    life damages are recognized but they are not under the federal
    law known as the Jones Act, and that's the concern both of you
    were expressing. Is that what you were sharing with the
    committee?
        Mrs. Roshto. Yes.
        Mrs. Kemp. Yes.
        Mr. Braley. Now, one of the things that we do know is that
    Transocean was involved in reaching out to families after this
    disaster occurred. And, Mrs. Roshto, you talked about being
    contacted, I think you said, 6:00 o'clock in the morning by
    phone call?
        Mrs. Roshto. Actually, my mother woke me up. She had gotten
    a phone call from a friend of a friend that was on another rig.
    I actually did not hear from Transocean until 11:22 that
    afternoon to ask if it was a good contact number, and then I
    again talked to them about 2:20 and they did not confirm that
    he was on the missing list until around 4:00 when I was already
    in Fourchon.
        Mr. Braley. Can you just tell us the extent of your contact
    with a representative from Transocean as you went through that
    difficult first period?
        Mrs. Roshto. You talking about the first day?
        Mr. Braley. Yes.
        Mrs. Roshto. The first day I spoke with them periodically
    every--pretty much every hour, but it was this--after 11:00 is
    when I spoke with them pretty much every hour, but it was never
    any new information.
        Like I said, I didn't actually find out he was on the
    missing list until around 4:00. My mom actually is the one that
    woke me up and told me. I had heard that there was some in
    different hospitals that had already--I actually contacted
    different hospitals that I had heard some were at.
        We made it down to Port Fourchon. We stayed down there and
    then that's when we found out the boat was supposed to be
    coming in, went to where the seaport where the boat was
    supposed to be coming in, and that's about the time that I
    found out he was on the missing list.
        Mr. Braley. And when you talk about the boat coming in, are
    you referring to----
        Mrs. Roshto. The crew boat that was carrying the men, the
    survivors.
        Mr. Braley. Bringing the survivors back to shore?
        Mrs. Roshto. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Braley. What were you told, if anything, about the
    circumstances that had led to this disaster?
        Mrs. Roshto. At that point at the seaport, I really didn't
    know much. I knew what I had watched at the 3:00 o'clock news
    conference on the TV. That was the extent. At 3:00 o'clock when
    I watched the news conference, that was the most news, the most
    information I had heard then. The only thing I knew up to that
    point was that there had been an explosion.
        Mr. Braley. When was the first time you had contact with
    anyone from Transocean that gave you some sense of explanation
    of what had happened to your husband?
        Mrs. Roshto. Never. Never.
        Mr. Braley. And to this day you've never received an
    explanation?
        Mrs. Roshto. No.
        Mrs. Kemp. No.
        Mr. Braley. And, Mrs. Kemp, I see you also responding. Tell
    us what your experience was like in dealing with Transocean.
        Mrs. Kemp. I received a call at approximately 4:30 on April
    21st. The lady told me that there had been an explosion on the
    Deepwater Horizon and an emergency evacuation was taking place
    and the Coast Guard was on the scene. I immediately jumped to
    my feet and said, ``Where's my husband?'' And she said, ``At
    this time, we don't know.'' And I said, ``Can you tell me
    anything about him, anything about the crew?'' ``No, ma'am. We
    don't have any information.'' I said, ``OK.'' I took her name,
    her phone number, and I said that I would be contacting you.
        I then about 6:00 o'clock that morning I called--Wyatt rode
    back and forth with Wyman Wheeler, and I called his home and
    Becky was already en route to New Orleans, his wife, to--he was
    one of the ones injured. And I asked, I said, ``Where is Wyatt?
    You know, what's going on?'' And she said, ``Wyman doesn't know
    where anybody is. I don't have a clue. When I get down there,
    I'll try to find out something for you and get back with you.''
        They, Transocean, set up a hotline. I started calling the
    hotline every hour on the hour; and when I did around 2:00
    o'clock, someone answered the hotline and told me that everyone
    had been accounted for and no fatalities were reported.
        Mr. Braley. That was 2:00 o'clock the first day?
        Mrs. Kemp. 2:00 o'clock the first day, April 21st. At
    approximately 2:30, my sheriff in our parish came to the House.
    He is a personal friend of ours. He came to the House and he
    told me, he said, ``Courtney, let's go in this room and I--I
    need you to call this lady.'' And so I did so, and that's when
    she informed me that Wyatt was one of the 11 missing. And to
    this day, we have never received any kind of explanation as to
    what happened. There's a lot of speculation, a lot of things
    you hear, but we have never gotten an explanation from
    Transocean, BP, anybody.
        Mr. Braley. Thank you.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Braley. And, Mr. Markey,
    questions, please.
        Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And thank
    you for your testimony. It's very important for us to hear how
    our laws and how they are implemented impacts ordinary
    families. So the first thing I would like to tell you is that
    your testimony is going to help to make it possible for us to
    repeal the Death on the High Seas Act so that we never again
    have a situation like this.
        We have thousands of thousands of people who are out on
    these rigs on the ocean and there never was any intention for
    you and people like you not to be able to recover for your
    families, so that has to be changed and your testimony is going
    to very profoundly help us to be able to accomplish that role.
        Now, you talked a little bit about the concerns which your
    husband had about mud control, about well control. Was he
    concerned about the shortcuts that BP was making in safety out
    on the rig, Mrs. Roshto?
        Mrs. Roshto. Shane never made any reference to BP as far as
    safety. The last time Shane was home, we actually--he actually
    went to a safety school that Transocean put on, and he highly
    spoke of Transocean and their safety.
        Now, there were statements made that there was times he
    felt that there was agendas put over safety, you know, business
    agendas to get the work done. The last--when I spoke with him
    the weeks before--the first week he was out there before the
    accident, there was talk about high pressure and how they were
    pushing on to get finished and, you know, they were over
    budgeting, they were over their time in the hole, and yet there
    was concerns but never anything pointed towards BP or
    Transocean.
        Mr. Markey. What would you say to BP about the impact that
    compromises safety they have upon families when something goes
    tragically wrong?
        Mrs. Roshto. Let's just remember that it's--it's all going
    to be OK in the end. You are going to get that oil out of that
    hole regardless of how long it takes. But there were 11 men
    that suffered, 11 families that suffered, and let's not place
    the importance of oil over the importance of a life.
        Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mrs. Roshto. What would you say to
    BP about the compromise of safety in pursuant of oil?
        Mrs. Kemp. Again, like Natalie, I--I don't see how--you
    know, people say money is the root of all evil and in this case
    it really was. BP, it's--it's plain to see that, of course, BP
    was in a hurry because they were over schedule and, of course,
    trying to hurry up and get off of that well and move onto the
    next one, so in a--in a way it's just the fact that life is way
    too precious and no amount of money will ever be sufficient of
    bringing your--your spouse back or your father back or anything
    like that. And, frankly, it's not that important as far as you
    are talking about a life.
        Mr. Markey. Well, one way that we can hurt BP is to make
    sure that--BP stands for bills paid--that the money for
    families, the money to clean up the Gulf comes out of their
    pocket and that we repeal the Death on the High Seas Act and we
    change the laws in order to make sure that the companies are
    more accountable when they harm not only lives but the
    livelihoods of people----
        Mrs. Kemp. I really----
        Mr. Markey [continuing]. That are dependent upon these
    companies.
        Mrs. Kemp. I'm sorry.
        Mr. Markey. No, please.
        Mrs. Kemp. I really believe that BP will never understand
    the pain that we feel. And the only way that big companies like
    that will feel the pain is when it comes out of their pocket
    because that's basically how we have felt is all they are
    worried about. And until they are hurt bad enough, they will
    never understand what we have gone through. And even if they
    are hurt bad enough, they still will never understand the pain
    we feel.
        Mr. Markey. Well, we are going to make sure that they feel
    the pain and the two of you will always be remembered as we go
    back to Washington.
        Mrs. Roshto. And if you can do that, this will serve
    justice to all other men. If you can do that, this will make
    all the pain--I can speak for Courtney too--and all the
    suffering's worth every bit of this just to see something
    change out there.
        Mr. Markey. Thank you. Thank you for being here.
        Mr. Stupak. Ms. DeGette, questions, please.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Roshto, you
    talked in your testimony today and also in your written
    testimony about the safety schools, meetings, fire drills, and
    safety regulations that your husband, Shane, went through. Did
    you feel like he was really thoroughly trained about emergency
    procedures on the rig, what would happen?
        Mrs. Roshto. Yes and no. Every Sunday, especially the last
    Sunday before he would come home on Wednesday, he would always
    say, ``Last safety--I mean last fire drill, baby. I got to
    go.'' They practiced, practiced, practiced, practiced
    evacuation drills and that kind of stuff. But throughout all
    this, I've learned that and also knew that at 10:00 o'clock
    every Sunday it was at the same time every Sunday, same place.
    If there can be something different done as far as maybe under
    different conditions or different ways of going about it each
    time, you can practice, practice and you can do it; but when it
    really comes down to it like it did the night of April 20th, it
    all goes out a wash. And in an incident like that, if there
    could be something done different to make them in different
    situations.
        Ms. DeGette. So they were training to do one thing but
    maybe not respond to a situation like this?
        Mrs. Roshto. Right. Correct.
        Ms. DeGette. Mrs. Kemp, what about your husband, Wyatt?
        Mrs. Kemp. Yes. Yes and no. They were--they were trained.
        They were--they were made to do things and--and go through
    different trainings and all of that, and all of that was great.
    And then Wyatt would say, ``You know, some helped, some
    didn't.'' But--but at--at this catastrophe, the magnitude of
    this accident, it--from what--when we talked to some of the
    crew members and everything, all of their safety plans, all of
    their, you know, fire safety drills, all that went out the
    window. They were not--they were not expecting something of
    this magnitude to happen.
        Ms. DeGette. Right.
        Mrs. Kemp. You are talking about a blast that--that threw
    the--the axes off the window, broke them in half. There was
    things there that they couldn't do anything to help the other
    people and because they were not expecting a blast like this.
        Ms. DeGette. Right. One of things that we--so--so the
    answer--and--and Mrs. Roshto said this in her testimony: It's
    not more training, it's better training and more focused
    training.
        Mrs. Roshto. Right.
        Mrs. Kemp. Right.
        Ms. DeGette. One of the things we have seen in the news
    accounts is a criticism that there wasn't any real chain of
    command, that there was this pressure both of you talked about.
    There was this pressure to get things done. And a lot of people
    had concerns: The mud concerns, the gas build up, the hurry up.
    And we have seen that from you and other people, but what they
    are saying is that no one was really sure exactly who they
    could go to and talk to about those concerns and get those
    concerns addressed.
        Did your husbands talk to you about that, Mrs. Roshto,
    about a lack of a place--of a sort of a system in place to
    address that?
        Mrs. Roshto. Shane was fully aware of the chain of command
    and who--if he had a problem, who to go to. Now, from the
    testimonies and different things I've heard from that night,
    there was a mix up or, you know, who should have been in
    command, who should have made what call. I think that should be
    addressed because it is a dynamically positioned rig and you do
    have a line up and you do have a captain. There needs to be a
    fine definition of who is in charge, who makes what call in
    what situation.
        Ms. DeGette. Mrs. Kemp, do you have any thoughts on that?
        Mrs. Kemp. I agree with Natalie's statement in that, you
    know, my husband knew who to go to personally, but in something
    this horrific it, like I said, all went out the window.
        Ms. DeGette. Do you know if your husband felt like he could
    go to people and talk about this gas build up that you
    mentioned and how that was addressed, or was it just sort of a
    fact that he was reporting?
        Mrs. Kemp. It was more of a fact that he was reporting. I
    know--I feel certain that he and Wyman talked about it, Wyman
    Wheeler, because they were travel partners. Wyman is also a
    toolpusher. So as--as far as the chain of command goes, he is
    above Wyatt, so I'm sure that they spoke about it and
    everything, but to what extent, I'm not sure.
        Ms. DeGette. You know, this is one of the things we are
    hearing about.
        Mrs. Kemp. Yes.
        Ms. DeGette. Everybody knew about these problems, but
    nobody--but there was a chain of command but nobody felt nobody
    could--could stop it or slow it down or--you know what I'm
    saying? They knew there were problems, but they were just sort
    of going to go along and do their job.
        Mrs. Roshto. I know about smaller issues the men could
    report and not feel that there was any way of losing their job
    because in 2008--no. Yes. 2008 my husband received an award for
    spotting a dropped object, but that was within Transocean. That
    was not within BP. So I think within the company, Transocean,
    and the men on his rig, Shane always felt like if there was an
    issue that he could express it to his Transocean fellow co-
    workers. But never once did he ever make a statement to--to me
    about feeling comfortable about speaking with BP or, you know,
    if he did see a concern with Transocean, would they ever follow
    up with BP.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can Mrs. Kemp answer
    real quickly?
        Mr. Stupak. Yes.
        Mrs. Kemp. Also, with my husband, you know, BP company men
    are--they are the ones that call the shots. It's their well.
    But as far as with the rig and everything with Transocean, my
    husband was willing and able and--and could go speak to a
    Transocean member. But as far as with BP, it was not like that
    because they called the shots.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Ms. Schakowsky for questions,
    please.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much. Let me follow up on
    that. There was talk about pressure because it was--the project
    was being rushed to be finished. Did that pressure come from BP
    to Transocean or was that just internally Transocean? In other
    words, did the Transocean employees feel like they were being
    pressured by BP to complete the job? Do you have any sense of
    that?
        Mrs. Kemp. Not really sense of it, but I believe, you know,
    that that was the extent. BP was, you know, in a crunch and
    they were behind on the well and everything and they had fallen
    behind schedule, so I think--I know speaking for Wyatt that he
    was pressured in trying to hurry up and get things done.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And that pressure would have come from
    his--from his bosses, but he felt that it was really BP that
    pressured Transocean to get it done? I'm trying to understand
    who might have short circuited a little bit and what the cause
    of that would have been in terms of safety.
        Mrs. Roshto. I think it was a trickle effect.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I can't hear you.
        Mrs. Roshto. I think it was a trickle effect.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I see.
        Mrs. Roshto. I mean it came from the well holders and
    then--I mean Transocean knew that they were their well holders
    and that was their contract. That's how they paid their men on
    that rig. I think it was a trickle effect.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Was any of the slow down--it was a
    difficult well, I think both of you have mentioned, but was any
    of the slow down particularly identified as things that would
    effect safety?
        Mrs. Roshto. They were losing tools in the hole and had to
    go back and drill a side drill because they had lost the hole.
    I mean this is--we're talking about the same hole that inside
    they were--they abandoned for the same issues but yet they put
    the Deepwater Horizon rig over this hole and were still having
    problems in the first two weeks that they got over this hole.
    They lost the well and had to drill a relief well beside it.
        Ms. Schakowsky. All right. Has Transocean ever made any
    statements to you or assurances about financial compensation
    that your families would be all right? You said that they are
    right now paying salaries, but do they ever--ever really talk
    to you about the future?
        Mrs. Kemp. They have come to me and made a settlement
    offer, but it's not enough.
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
        Mrs. Roshto. We spoke, but nothing of a serious nature.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And what about BP, what kind of contact
    have you had with British Petroleum since the incident,
    letters, phone calls, visits?
        Mrs. Roshto. Two BP men attended Shane's services and
    they--they never extended a hand, a hug, never extended a
    ``we're sorry,'' their condolences. The only words that came
    out of their mouth was where they were to be seated and I never
    saw them after that.
        Ms. Schakowsky. They said--they asked you that? They came
    right up to you and asked that?
        Mrs. Roshto. That--I met them. We were greeting at the door
    at Shane's services, and I never saw them after that and I have
    not spoke with one.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And what about you, Mrs. Kemp?
        Mrs. Kemp. Two BP--two BP men came to Wyatt's services and
    one extended his hand. I shook it. He told me that he was sorry
    for my loss. He asked if he could hug me. He did. The other
    gentleman extended his hand, told me who he was, and they sent
    two plants to the services; and that is the extent of my
    conversation or any dealings with BP.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Did they identify themselves as to--I'm not
    looking for names but as to how high up they were in the
    company in any way?
        Mrs. Roshto. No, ma'am.
        Mrs. Kemp. No, ma'am.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Was there ever any indication from either
    of your husbands that there was a tension with--between
    Transocean and BP, that different instructions somehow were--
    were coming down, that there was any feeling that BP wasn't
    doing what it should do; was there ever any of that?
        Mrs. Kemp. My husband never spoke of stuff like that.
        Mrs. Roshto. No.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So aside from your--both of your feelings
    that we should repeal the--what's it called?
        Mrs. Roshto. Death on the High Seas Act.
        Mrs. Kemp. Death on the High Seas Act.
        Ms. Schakowsky. You feel like--it sounds like you don't
    think there needs to be new legislation but rather enforcement;
    is--is that right? Is there anything else that you would think
    we ought to do in order to prevent this in the future?
        Mrs. Kemp. I think that there are plenty of safety
    regulations in place. It's just the mere fact of them being
    enforced and not being neglected and having some accountability
    for when they are neglected.
        Mrs. Roshto. I--I fully agree with Courtney. I think that
    there should somehow be a way to make these companies have to
    be looked at by maybe a third party to come in and investigate,
    maybe say this safety rule's good. You have this back up plan,
    but let's revise this back up plan. Because if they are
    regulating theirselves, how do we know if they are doing it the
    right way or the wrong way. Undoubtedly, it was the wrong way
    in this situation.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Ms. Christensen for questions,
    please.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I know many questions have
    been asked but, again, thank you for being here. Mrs. Kemp, I
    understand that your husband, Wyatt, worked with Transocean for
    four years prior to the explosion. And we know that he was a
    hard working individual and he had recently been promoted to
    assistant driller. Did he work on the Deepwater Horizon for all
    of those four years.
        Mrs. Kemp. Yes, ma'am. Actually, he worked a little more
    than four years. It was approximately four and a half, five
    years and he had only worked on the Deepwater Horizon.
        Mrs. Christensen. OK. Because my question is going to be
    then, and how would he have compared that to other sites? So I
    guess----
        Mrs. Kemp. He had worked on a land rig but not in the Gulf.
        Mrs. Christensen. OK. And, Mrs. Roshto, your husband also
    was a very hard worker, was training to work at the subsea
    level. He had worked also for four years----
        Mrs. Roshto. Yes, ma'am.
        Mrs. Christensen [continuing]. With Transocean? Did--both
    of you had testified that your husbands spoke to you about the
    difficulties, the mud leaking, and the loss of equipment, and
    so forth. Did Shane work on any other projects that he would be
    able to have compared?
        Mrs. Roshto. No, he didn't. But the day he got hired, he
    got the phone call from Transocean and he called the guy that
    actually got him hired. The guy told him--he also worked for
    Transocean. He said, ``If there is any rig that you want to be
    on, it's the Deepwater Horizon.'' He said that is by far the
    safest rig in the Gulf.
        Mrs. Christensen. Well, did any of them--I'm trying to get
    a sense of--the purpose of my question was to try to get a
    sense of the difficulties that were being experienced in this
    operation was different from others.
        In their maybe discussions with other workers in this deep
    water operation, did you ever get a sense that the difficulties
    that they were experiencing were different or greater than
    might have happened, might have been experienced by their co-
    workers who worked on other rigs?
        Mrs. Kemp. Wyatt would always--Wyatt just told me that, you
    know, it was--it was typical to--to get some kicks from a well
    and to have some problems, but it was their job to deal with
    the problems, fix them, and go on with it. This well was
    different in the fact that they were having so many problems
    and so many things were happening and it was just kind of out
    of hand.
        Mrs. Christensen. And that was your sense also, Mrs.
    Roshto.
        Mrs. Roshto. The numerous kickbacks that they were having
    and the loss of the well is what really concerned Shane, and
    the loss of the mud because he had never worked in it before.
    That was his three main concerns, you know, that we talked
    about a lot.
        Mrs. Christensen. OK. Well, although a lot of information
    is being uncovered, there is still a lot that we don't know;
    but I think you can walk away from this hearing with assurance
    that this subcommittee, as it does in every instance, will not
    let up until all the questions are answered and we know what
    happened and who's responsible.
        Again, thank you for being here and honoring the lives of
    your husbands with your testimony. I yield back.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Mr. Melancon, questions, please.
        Mr. Melancon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On a bright note,
    I've spent many a hunting season in Liberty, Mississippi, about
    six miles north of McComb Highway when I was in college and
    several years after. So if Shane was a hunter and fisherman,
    and if Wyatt was too, I understand. And Jonesville is a good
    hunting area and fishing area, so I--they are probably guys I
    would have had a lot to talk about with.
        The Death on the High Seas thing bothers me tremendously.
    And just so you will know, I will support and work to try and
    make sure that we repeal and reform that section of law. It's
    egregious that there is no recourse other than, I think, the
    only obligation that the company has is to reimburse you for
    the funeral. I think that's it. I may be wrong. So that's--
    that's very disheartening. It's--in these days and times, even
    back in those days and times, it probably shouldn't have been.
        Did Transocean advise either of you how long they intended
    to continue giving you your husband's checks and are they going
    to continue health benefits or----
        Mrs. Roshto. I know until the life insurance is issued, we
    will receive his paycheck; but now as far as health insurance,
    no, we have not spoke on that matter.
        Mrs. Kemp. We have touched on the health insurance part,
    and it is my understanding until a settlement is reached we
    will be compensated with health insurance. And up to a year
    after the settlement, we can receive health insurance but we
    have to pay for it at the company rate; and then after that
    year we are on our own.
        Mr. Melancon. Now, the life insurance, is that a company
    benefit or is this life insurance that your husbands and you-
    all purchased.
        Mrs. Roshto. It's a company benefit.
        Mrs. Kemp. It's a company benefit.
        Mr. Melancon. Is it adequate to maintain your family for--I
    mean we don't know how long that might be--the rest of your
    life?
        Mrs. Roshto. I would say so because last year when the
    Deepwater Horizon started taking water and they had a problem
    or whatever, Shane came home and said that he realized that he
    was working in a very dangerous atmosphere and it just really
    opened his eyes up. And we actually purchased some----
        Mr. Melancon. Purchased some.
        Mrs. Roshto. Not purchased, but through the company we took
    out some extra insurance plans because he said he wanted----
        Mr. Melancon. But you still had to pay for those yourself.
        Mrs. Roshto. No. They came out of his check and things like
    that, but it was at the company's expense. But now, regularly,
    if you just take what the company offers and don't take an
    extra plan, I wouldn't say that it's compensatable. Would you?
        Mrs. Kemp. No. And we just--we took what--the company plan.
        Mr. Melancon. There has been--I have heard, don't know if
    it's fact or not and I don't know if either of your husbands
    had a conversation, but as I understand it, Schlumberger was on
    the rig prior to the explosion and about 11 hours out said they
    were getting off the rig. Did either of your husbands have a
    conversation with you about that or----
        Mrs. Kemp. My husband did not, but I am aware of
    Schlumberger being out there.
        Mr. Melancon. And saying that they felt it was an unsafe
    condition and----
        Mrs. Kemp. Yes, sir. My father is close friends with
    someone who works for Schlumberger and he told my dad.
        Mr. Melancon. I mean would you think that your husbands--of
    course, they can say to the Transocean people if they are
    getting off, then maybe there's a problem and we ought to be--
    --
        Mrs. Roshto. Yes. Let's--let's follow in behind.
        Mr. Melancon. Yes. I mean they should have been putting
    them on the same crew boat or the same helicopter if, in fact,
    that was, and maybe leave a skeleton crew to try and cement in
    the hole or whatever the procedure would be there. Did--did
    either one of them--did--when you talked did you-all talk to
    them that afternoon in that period of time that they may have
    said something about Schlumberger pulling off?
        Mrs. Kemp. My husband never talked to me about
    Schlumberger. I work in a dangerous job as well and he didn't
    want--I don't think he wanted to bother me about----
        Mr. Melancon. Didn't want you worried.
        Mrs. Kemp. Sorry?
        Mr. Melancon. He didn't want you worried.
        Mrs. Kemp. Right.
        Mr. Melancon. And what do you do.
        Mrs. Kemp. I'm an investigator for child protection.
        Mr. Melancon. OK. Sheriff's office or DA's office.
        Mrs. Kemp. No, sir, with the Department of Social Services.
        Mr. Melancon. OK. Yes you can get in some hairy situations.
    The--one of the things that I want to say to the committee,
    this lady's from Mississippi. This lady's from north Louisiana.
    I think if we look at the residencies of the people on the rig,
    we've probably got Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee,
    you name it.
        Mrs. Roshto. They are everywhere.
        Mr. Melancon. They are from everywhere. So this is one rig
    and all of them lack that that touch families from throughout
    the south as best I can tell.
        I support drilling. I'm just hoping that we can find
    something between shutting down and drill baby drill to give us
    the balance to maintain the community to provide the good jobs;
    but at the same time, we need to make sure this never happens
    to anyone again and safety should be our first priority. And
    the committee, I thank the chairman and the ranking member.
    That's where I will work to try and make sure that when you go
    to work the expectation is that you will be coming back from
    work.
        Mrs. Roshto. Right.
        Mr. Melancon. So thank you all for coming.
        Mrs. Roshto. Thank you.
        Mrs. Kemp. Thank you.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Melancon. Mr. Scalise for
    questions, please. Five minutes.
        Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You both talked about
    the safety regulations and, you know, I guess whether there
    should be more regulations or just follow the existing. And I
    think both Mrs. Roshto and Mrs. Kemp both said that maybe it's
    more of a case that the existing safety regulations weren't
    followed more than--more than we need more.
        Can you both touch on were there things that you saw and
    conversations you had with your husbands about safety
    regulations that weren't followed or how the regulations
    weren't being properly administered by the federal regulator?
    What things did you see to make you feel that way?
        Mrs. Kemp. I didn't speak to my husband about safety
    regulations particularly on this well, but I didn't learn about
    all of the shortcuts and everything that was taking place until
    after the explosion.
        Mr. Scalise. In conversations with some of the other
    families?
        Mrs. Kemp. Correct. With conversations with some of the
    other crew members and just things that have come out in the
    media and everything.
        Mr. Scalise. Mrs. Roshto.
        Mrs. Roshto. Looking back on Shane and I's past
    conversations the weeks leading up to the accident when he was
    on the rig, I never thought about it when we were talking about
    it. I never thought about the--I guess really the problems that
    they were having and what--how it could end up. But when I
    found out and as I had conversations with the crew members and
    I thought about what he said, it really made me realize that
    there was a problem and he saw it. He knew that there was a
    problem.
        Now, as far as safety on this particular rig, he never
    specifically pinpointed a safety issue that they had, but he
    did make reference to safety, you know, that was in practice.
    He was always very prideful about Transocean and how they
    practiced safety, but never--it was always Transocean practiced
    safety, never BP practiced safety.
        But he always was very prideful in Transocean practicing
    safety; but at the same time, though, there were downfalls to
    their safety, different ways they went about doing safety
    things and tank cards and permits they had to get. There were
    issues with that, not necessarily just on this well, but on his
    time on the Deepwater Horizon.
        Mr. Scalise. We have heard some stories, mostly secondhand
    accounts, that there may have been some--some pretty strong
    disagreements between some of the Transocean people on the rig
    and BP, especially about the displacement of the mud when they
    brought in water and during the sealing period and maybe there
    was a disagreement in which procedure to use.
        We had a hearing with Transocean and BP, and--and they said
    there wasn't a disagreement, but we are hearing that there were
    employees--and I don't know if you-all have heard that, but
    there was some pretty strong disagreements over the process
    that was used to displace the mud with water. I don't know if
    you've heard anything about that.
        Mrs. Kemp. I've heard that from some of the crew members
    who--one in particular that walked in and they were--BP and
    Transocean were going back and forth on what was supposed to
    take place that day and--and about the displacement of the mud
    with sea water, and I--I think it was a--kind of a heated
    conversation.
        Mrs. Roshto. That's the same thing I heard.
        Mr. Scalise. Did you-all ever hear--did your husbands ever
    share stories of the MMS, who is the federal regulator, coming
    onto the rig and doing inspections? Was it all--did they just
    kind of cede that responsibility to the companies to do their
    own inspections or do you know?
        Mrs. Roshto. I've learned more about MMS in the past weeks
    than I ever knew about them.
        Mr. Scalise. Because there's some talk of--one of the
    answers is splitting them up. And it seems like if you have got
    an agency of over 1,700 people, whether it's one agency or
    three, if one agency wasn't doing its job, having three
    agencies not doing its job doesn't seem to accomplish anything.
    But I don't know if you-all had heard anything about that
    because that's something else that we'll be looking at.
        And I think from some of the things you said earlier it
    sounds more like a case of just doing your job right as opposed
    to not doing the proper inspections. I think whether you're for
    big government or small government, I think we should all be
    able to expect competent government, and I don't know if we got
    that here.
        And so that's something else we've got to look into on our
    side to make sure that for other families, as you talk about,
    that they don't have to worry about things like that in the
    future.
        One last thing, you both talked about what the industry
    means to your lives and, you know, what it meant to your
    families and, you know, how much your husbands, the pride that
    they had. I know it's being talked about. We're going to deal
    with it in terms of policy possibly of this--this potential
    shutdown, a ban, that in essence, would run all of these rigs
    off for maybe three to five years or more because if you lose
    that infrastructure. Can you-all share just what the industry
    means in terms of what it meant to your families and your
    husbands working?
        Mrs. Roshto. What it meant to my family was being able to
    put a roof over my child's head. I attended college. I had
    every intention of--I was actually supposed to graduate May the
    13th. I had taken an incomplete because of the incident. I
    had--Shane had every full intention of putting me through
    school to get my masters. And what it--what it meant to us was
    a way to provide for our child, a way to provide a life-style
    that most 21 and 22 year old people cannot provide for their
    child; because everyone knows sitting in this room that
    offshore you make more money than you do on land. It's just a
    fact of it.
        But at the same time, though, it meant being able to come
    home and spend three weeks every day with his family. Most
    people don't get but the weekends, whereas our husbands
    received three weeks of--with us ever single day doing what we
    wanted.
        Mr. Scalise. Mrs. Kemp.
        Mrs. Kemp. Back in--in my town and my part of Louisiana,
    you--you can walk down the street and you can ask somebody what
    do you do for a living. 75 percent to 80 percent of them will
    say they work offshore or they know somebody that works
    offshore or they know somebody that works for Transocean.
        The oil field industry is--is a very, very large industry
    in our state and with the coastal states, especially in my
    hometown. And like Natalie said, it's--it's one that my husband
    could go out there, make good money, and be at home with me and
    the girls, and--and give us his--his devoted time.
        Now, you know, Mr. Melancon talked about hunting and I had
    to share that with my husband because he enjoyed his fair share
    of hunting, but--but that was definitely--definitely one thing
    that he enjoyed was the time at home with his family, that he
    didn't have to worry about the rig or he didn't have to worry
    about work, and one thing that--that we all really enjoyed.
        Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank both of
    you. As a father of a three year old and a one year old, I
    can't imagine, you know, what it's like, but I can just say I
    appreciate the strength that both of you are exhibiting. If
    there's anything my office can do to help you along the way,
    but thank you so much for your testimony.
        Mr. Stupak. We'd like to thank you again for your
    testimony. Let me just ask you for your counsel. You both
    indicated you had counsel. We know Transocean's asked for a $17
    million cap.
        We would like your counsel just to explain to us how the
    Jones Acts, whether that would be part of it and affect it
    because you certainly raise the awareness of the committee on
    that issue. And I think we would like a full explanation as we
    move forward to try to amend that act, at least to try to
    assist here.
        So if your attorneys would, your counsel would give us some
    insight on that, especially with that cap sitting out there, we
    would like to know more about it and we would use it to
    supplement the records since there's been many questions from
    members on that particular act.
        OK. Thank you. We will dismiss you and thank you again for
    your courage, for your testimony, and feel free to stay if you
    would like for the rest of the hearing. Thank you both.
        Mrs. Roshto. Thank you.
        Mr. Stupak. I'd now like to call up our second panel of
    witnesses. On our second panel we have Ms. Wilma Subra, who is
    a chemist that provides technical assistance to the Louisiana
    Environmental Action Network. She has extensive knowledge on
    the human health and environmental effects associated with the
    spill; Mr. Ronnie Duplessis, who is an oyster and shrimp
    fisherman from Davant, Louisiana. Ronnie's shrimping grounds
    and oyster beds have been closed putting him out of work; Mr.
    Kelby Linn, who is president of ACP Real Estate, a beach front
    property sale and rental agency on Dauphin Island, Alabama; and
    Dr. Moby Solangi, who is founder, president, and executive
    director of the Institute for Marine Mammal Studies in
    Gulfport, Mississippi. Dr. Solangi has studied and written on
    the effects of Louisiana crude oil on fisheries.
        As with the last panel, it is the policy of this
    subcommittee to take all testimony under oath. Please be
    advised that you have the right under the rules of the House to
    be advised by counsel during your testimony. Do any of you wish
    to be represented by counsel? Everybody's shaking their heads
    no, so great. And let me ask you to please rise, raise your
    right hand, and take the oath.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Stupak. Let the record reflect the witnesses have
    replied in the affirmative. They are now under oath. We will
    now hear an opening statement from our witnesses. We ask you to
    keep it to five minutes. You may submit a longer statement for
    our record or to supplement our record at a later time.
        Mr. Linn, if you don't mind, we'll start with you, if
    that's all right.

     STATEMENTS OF KELBY LINN, OWNER, ACP REAL ESTATE, INC., VICE
        PRESIDENT, DAUPHIN ISLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; CLARENCE
       DUPLESSIS, OYSTERMAN; MOBY SOLANGI, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND
      EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF MAMMAL SERVICES; AND WILMA
                    SUBRA, PRESIDENT, SUBRA COMPANY

                        STATEMENT OF KELBY LINN

        Mr. Linn. That's fine.
        Mr. Stupak. I'm going to ask you to pull that mic over and
    speak into the mic and we will be ready to go. Begin, sir.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Linn. I want to first thank the--the ladies for their
    testimony. We are here to talk about in my case, you know, the
    impact on businesses, environment, but nothing can equal the
    impact that--that they have, so our condolences.
        My name is Kelby Linn. I'm vice-president of the chamber of
    commerce. I'm also an owner of a real estate and property
    management company on Dauphin Island, Alabama. We are a small
    island that depends totally on tourism, charter fishing, that
    type of thing. It's sand beaches. The environment is probably
    our biggest draw.
        Once the news hit the press, we got ourselves into a
    situation where about seven days later all of our
    cancellations, our reservations started occurring. We have a
    hundred and ten vacation rental properties that we manage for
    other owners on the island. We are one of the larger employers
    on the island; and as our business goes, so goes so many of the
    others such as your T-shirt shops, your--your restaurants, the
    small things.
        There is not a traffic light on the island, for example.
    There's five or six independent restaurants. We don't have a
    franchise, so it's all pretty much family geared and our
    tourism is pretty much family based.
        We have come into this season with the best year that we
    have experienced since, I think, a lot of you folks were here
    from Hurricane Ivan and Hurricane Katrina, so I won't go into
    the hurricane history that everybody around here knows all too
    well. But we--we were coming in--literally year-to-date this
    year we were 33 percent over last year.
        Most of us were coming in with the first year in the black
    that we had seen since 2005.
        That being stated, within the four weeks or five weeks, we
    lost over 175 reservations and dropped from almost an 80
    percent future occupancy rate down to approximately a 30
    percent future occupancy rate.
        The businesses that--that we have around us, it has all
    been in preparation. The government has responded pretty
    strongly. Governor Riley in the last two or three weeks has
    really stepped up and has started helping us a lot. BP's part
    of this whole thing is--the preparation on Dauphin Island has
    actually been pretty strong.
        We have a lot of preventative measures that have been put
    in place; we have protective sand barriers that were built; we
    had the National Guard come in and put containment systems
    along the water's edge on the north side of the island; we have
    several berms or actually booms that have been put in all the
    way around. There's been more preparation in actual need of the
    work in the beginning.
        Now, last week, week and a half is when we first had our
    first tar balls hit and now we are into tar patties and now we
    are into the connections of those, which is making a bigger and
    bigger spill.
        We have not seen the devastation in the marshes that they
    are seeing here. We are primarily more of a sand beach. We do
    have our estuaries. We do have our--our oystering and things
    that are around us, but it has not impacted quite yet here or
    there like it is here. It's coming. We all know it. We now know
    it's at Pensacola Beach. We know the sheen is within a mile of
    offshore.
        There has been significant odor at times depending on the
    wind. The quality of life has, not only for those that live on
    the island such as myself, but for anyone who would want to
    come visit, has definitely deteriorated substantially. There's
    no end to this, and I guess the next step I have to come to is
    what is BP doing for us to help us get through this.
        The claims process has been cumbersome. There are been--
    there have been tremendous amounts of $5,000 checks that have
    been just given out to the individuals, fishermen, the
    oystermen, all deserving. When it comes to the small business
    side to anyone who has more of a P&L impact or a business
    approach to things, we have seen nothing in terms of any claim
    response so far.
        In our case, we ended up finally deciding to go with a
    local attorney to help us through that because I'm still trying
    to keep the business together and must focus on it. I hated to
    do that, but I feel that the claims process is not helping us
    in any way whatsoever and it's going to take that type of
    clout.
        The suggestions that I have I--I would hope would come out
    some more in the questions and answers rather than go into--
    into here in terms of helping us. We do feel a little bit like
    the ant fighting the elephant at this point in time with the
    individual businesses on Dauphin Island. Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Linn follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Mr.
    Duplessis, you may want to pull that up there a little bit,
    please.

               STATEMENT OF CLARENCE DUPLESSIS, OYSTERMAN

        Mr. Duplessis. Yes. First, I want to also express my
    condolences to the two very, very strong young ladies that
    spoke earlier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    committee on energy and commerce for allowing me to tell how
    this tragic loss spill has effected me and my family. The worst
    part of this tragedy for me has been the unknown.
        A brief note about myself. My name is Clarence Duplessis. I
    was born in a small fishing community named Davant just north
    of Point a La Hache, Louisiana in 1945. My family settled in
    Plaquemines Parish six generations before me. After high
    school, I joined the United States Marine Corp and served a
    tour of duty in Vietnam.
        While in the military, I met my beautiful wife, Bonnie, who
    was in the Navy. After the military, I worked here in Chalmette
    for Kaiser Aluminum. I was laid off in 1989 after the plant was
    shut down. After that, I went to full-time commercial fishing.
        In 2005, my wife and I lost everything we owned to
    Hurricane Katrina, then just a few weeks ago we were faced with
    the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This one was the worst of all
    these stressful and economic tragedies.
        Now, before the critics lower their heads and say no way,
    I'll explain. During my tour in Vietnam, I was faced with an
    enemy that wanted to kill me. This was a problem with a
    solution: Kill them first, survive for 13 months, and the
    problem was solved.
        When Kaiser Aluminum shut down, I had a young family to
    feed, clothe, and educate. This also was a problem with a
    solution. I had experience with fishing, oysters, and also
    shrimping. I had saltwater in my veins from birth. I went
    fishing and my children paid their college tuition by working
    as deckhands on boats, and I might mention they loved every
    minute of it.
        In 2005 Hurricane Katrina hit us with a crippling blow, a
    major problem. Even then, though the entire region was wiped
    out and the insurance companies packed their bags and left us,
    there was still a solution. And just in case there is anyone
    here who has not yet noticed, the people of south Louisiana and
    the fishing communities of south Louisiana are some--some of
    the hardest working, most defiant, yet kindest people on God's
    earth. After the storm, we faced a difficult task of
    rebuilding, but that was the solution.
        Now, five years later we are facing the Deepwater Horizon
    oil spill. This is the worst of our problems because there are
    no answers, no solutions, only questions. As we watch our
    livelihoods and even an entire culture being washed away by
    crude oil and chemicals that no one knows the long term effects
    of, we ask will we have the mortgage payment next month? Will
    we be able to go to bed tonight instead of falling asleep in
    front of the TV hoping for some good news? What if they don't
    stop the leak? How long will this last? Will I be able to go
    oystering next year or ever again? How long will it take the
    fisheries to recovery? Will BP come around with the much needed
    monies they promised? Will BP do the right thing or will they
    also pack their bags and leave us like the insurance companies
    did? What can I do to survive? What if we get a tropical storm
    or hurricane in the Gulf? How can I get a loan when the SBA
    still holds the mortgages on all my property from Katrina? I
    have a thousand questions and no answers. I hope now you can
    understand why this is the worst tragedy of my lifetime.
        I thank you for your time and may God bless you all.
        [The statement of Mr. Duplessis follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Dr.
    Solangi, your testimony, please, sir.

                       STATEMENT OF MOBY SOLANGI

        Mr. Solangi. I thank the committee to invite me to testify.
    And, again, my condolences to the young ladies, Mrs. Roshto and
    Mrs. Kemp. This is certainly a tremendous tragedy.
        My name is Moby Solangi. I received my Ph.D. in Marine
    Biology in 1980 from the University of Southern Mississippi,
    and little did I know that the subject of my research which was
    the effect of south Louisiana crude oil on benthic and pelagic
    fishes would come in handy.
        Research focused on the pathological changes of organs of
    these fishes exposed to both whole crude oil and its water-
    soluble fractions and the potential recovery once these
    toxicants were removed. For the past 30 years I worked with
    marine mammals, specifically dolphins and sea turtles in the
    region.
        The waters of the Mississippi, Chandeleur, Breton Sounds
    and the adjacent waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico are home
    to one of the largest dolphin populations in the United States.
    The Sounds are also inhabited by several other endangered,
    threatened, and protected wildlife species.
        Dolphins are an important part of the ecosystem, and being
    on top of the food chain, are a good biological indicator of
    the health of the environment they inhabit.
        They are constantly impacted by a variety of both natural
    and anthropogenic factors. In the aftermath of the Horizon oil
    spill, it is now even more necessary and important to study the
    potential changes that may occur in both the dolphins and their
    habitat as a result of the oil spill.
        The Institute for Marine Mammal Studies was established in
    1984 as a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to
    education, conservation, research on marine mammals and their
    environment in the wild and in captivity. It serves as a
    liaison between public and private entities interested in
    marine mammal science. The subjects of research have covered a
    broad range of scientific disciplines including population
    dynamics, underwater acoustics, health, genetics, microbiology,
    endocrinology, behavior, biomagnetism and ecology. The
    institute has conducted studies in cooperation with scientists
    from the University of Southern Mississippi, Mississippi State,
    Jackson State, Oklahoma State, Portland State, University of
    Miami, University of California Berkeley, National Marine
    Fisheries Service, Naval Oceans Systems Center, Louisiana
    State, and the Naval Research Laboratory.
        The institute is the only organization in the Gulf Coast
    states of Mississippi and Alabama with the capability and
    expertise to care for sick and injured marine mammals while
    simultaneously conducting programs in education, conservation,
    and research of marine mammals. The institute has been a
    participant in the National Stranding Network for over 25
    years, and as a National Marine Fisheries designee, has been
    involved in the care and rehabilitation of sick and injured
    marine mammals in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. In fact,
    the institute has developed a full service marine mammal
    research and rehabilitation center in Gulfport, Mississippi.
        It is really fortunate that in this case that we have a
    facility that can at least help in the rescue and recovery and
    rehabilitation of some of our endangered and threatened
    species. So far we have handled the largest number of sea
    turtles, which is over a hundred. Only a few of them have been
    involved in oil--oil spill related activities.
        The majority we have had no evidence of any oil damage. We
    have had close to eight or nine dolphins in our area, and so
    far none of them have been involved in any oil spill activity.
        The Horizon oil spill is one of the largest in U.S.
    history. The Mississippi Sound and adjacent waters are a very
    unique habitat consisting of bays, bayous, estuaries, marshes,
    and barrier islands. The northern Gulf is shallow, has a mud
    and clay bottom, and the tidal exchange is low as compared to
    other areas. The region is also very rich in fishery resources
    and produces a substantial amount of seafood. If the oil well
    is not capped quickly, the effects of the oil spill on the
    habitat and its wildlife could be catastrophic; and the time
    for recovery would be dependent on the amount of oil spilled in
    the environment and the time of exposure.
        Crude oil is a very complex chemical compound and it's
    degradation is extremely complex as well. Many crude oil
    components can enter the food chain and affect the productivity
    of the ecosystem. The potential effect of the oil spill
    including the large amount of dispersants used will not only
    effect the ecosystem but could also effect the livelihoods of
    commercial and recreational fishermen and tourism. This in turn
    could be a domino effect, have a domino effect on the regional
    and national economies.
        Oil exploration, like many other activities, has its
    benefits and risks. We believe that prudent development and use
    of our resources require adequate safeguards as well as safety
    net to protect the environment and those that make a living
    from it. Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Solangi follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Ms.
    Subra, your testimony.

           STATEMENT OF WILMA SUBRA, PRESIDENT, SUBRA COMPANY

        Ms. Subra. Thank you for the opportunity of presenting to
    this subcommittee. My name is Wilma Subra, and I'm providing
    testimony on behalf of Subra Company, Louisiana Environmental
    Action Network and the Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper.
        There are two human populations that are experiencing the
    most exposure due to the BP crude oil spill. One, community
    members along the coastal areas of Louisiana, Mississippi,
    Alabama, and the upper Florida coast; and two, fishermen and
    workers employed to install booms and clean up the crude oil
    spill.
        BP's ongoing crude oil spill has resulted in the formation
    of crude oil aerosols in the air. The aerosols have moved
    onshore way ahead of the crude oil slick and continue to move
    onshore along with the crude oil slick.
        These crude oil slick aerosols have caused and/or
    continuing to cause community members to experience odors along
    the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the upper
    Florida coast.
        In Louisiana and the other states, the crude oil aerosol
    has resulted in health impacts, including headaches, nausea,
    respiratory impacts, irritation to eyes, nose, throat, and
    lungs, and asthma attacks. These health impacts have been
    experienced by people living along the Louisiana coastal areas
    in St. Bernard, where we are here today, Plaquemines,
    Jefferson, Lafourche, and Terrebonne Parishes, as well as the
    metropolitan area of New Orleans.
        New Orleans is at mile marker 100. That means it is 100
    miles south of the mouth of the Mississippi and it is--people
    in New Orleans are also having these severe health impacts.
        These symptoms have also been experienced by workers and
    fisherman in the general area of the crude oil slick and the
    marshes and the estuaries where the oil has come ashore. The
    EPA Web site clearly says some of these chemicals may cause
    short-lived effects like headaches, eye, nose and throat
    irritations and nausea.
        In order to offset the loss of livelihood, BP was
    encouraged to hire the local fishermen who have first-hand
    knowledge of the wetlands, marshes, and water bodies. These
    fishermen were hired to install the booms and to start cleaning
    up the spilled oil and the absorbent pads.
        On May the 4th, 2010, Louisiana Environmental Action
    Network and Louisiana Riverkeeper received and began
    distributing protective gear to the fishers to utilize during
    their cleanup activities. These protective gear consisted of
    face respirators with organic cartridges, goggles, gloves and
    sleeve protectors. LEAN and LMRK continue to distribute these
    equipment to the fishing community and to individuals who have
    gone into the polluted area.
        Workers hired by BP began reporting health symptoms such
    as, severe headaches, nausea, difficulty breathing, and
    dizziness. However, the workers were very reluctant to speak
    out because they were scared they would lose the job and this
    was the only source of income they had. The wives, however,
    were speaking out because they were very concerned about their
    husbands. And then all of a sudden, the wives got really quiet
    because they were scared their husbands were going to lose the
    jobs if they testified.
        LDEQ and L-Department of Health and Hospitals has stated
    that oil cleanup workers should avoid skin contact and oral
    cavity or nasal passage exposure to the oil spill products by
    using appropriate clothing, respiratory protection, gloves, and
    boots.
        On May 7th we went to U.S. District Court on behalf of the
    fishermen because they were challenging BP, who didn't want to
    provide them proper training and proper equipment; and a
    consent decree was signed by BP that they would be responsible
    for appropriate training as well as proper protective
    equipment, yet BP continued to fail to provide adequate
    protective gear to the fishermen.
        Subra Company, LEAN and LMRK have provided information to
    the EPA on the lack of compliance by BP with the terms of the
    consent decree as well as OSHA not being there to protect the
    workers as they dealt with the oil.
        On May 16th OSHA finally issued a detailed directive of the
    kinds of training that were required for each different kind of
    task as well as having required BP to provide the appropriate
    gear. Still BP failed to provide respirators to the workers
    exposed to the crude oil and the workers experienced health
    impacts over and over and over again. However, when the--some
    of the fishers brought their respirators on the boats with
    them, BP told them to put the respirator away or leave the job,
    you are fired.
        Shrimpers that have been employed to do the booms are
    actually pulling in the booms with the oil on it from their
    shrimp boats with bare hands and no protective gear. As stated
    earlier, on May 26th and 28th, there were workers that were
    injured and brought to the hospital and they complained of
    headache, nausea, dizziness, and chest pains, then OSHA finally
    began to inform BP of their deficiencies as far as their worker
    safety programs.
        Let me just say that even after OSHA did this, the issue
    now becomes heat stress. One of the issues OSHA was pointing
    out to BP was they didn't have adequate protection of the
    workers from heat stress. So now the word on the street is you
    cannot use a respirator because it increases your risk of heat
    stress. However, if we are in a situation where the workers are
    being exposed to heat as well as the toxic organic chemicals
    from the spill, they should be protected against both insults,
    not using heat stress to allow them to continue to inhale the
    toxic chemicals. Thank you.
        [The statement of Ms. Subra follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Stupak. Thank you. And thank you all for your
    testimony. We will begin with questions, if we may. I'll begin
    on Dr. Solangi.
        In your testimony, I'm looking at the second page, you
    indicate that if the oil well is not capped quickly, the
    effects of the oil spill on the habitat, on its wildlife, could
    be catastrophic and the time for recovery would be dependent
    upon the amount of the oil spill in the environment and the
    time of exposure. But my question is: You know, how do you cap
    the well, stop the flow of oil, but then you have to have some
    cleanup and it's still going to be around for a time before the
    water waste purges itself of this oil, correct?
        Mr. Solangi. That's correct. One of my--part of my research
    was--in the '80s was, of course, you expose animals to oil for
    different concentrations and the question was how soon can they
    recover. And so it was really dependent upon the time of
    exposure, for how long did you expose both the pelagic and
    benthic organisms and how long it took for them to recover. And
    we did find amazingly that nature has a way to recover, but the
    speed of recovery depends upon how much they are exposed to and
    how long they are exposed to it; and that's what I was
    referring to.
        Mr. Stupak. Well, I showed this ad earlier by--by British
    Petroleum, and I bring it out because yesterday we were down
    south of Venice there where the mouth of the Gulf Coast and in
    the marshes there we saw some oil. There's really no way you
    can get in there and clean that up, is there?
        Mr. Solangi. It is very difficult and it's going to take a
    natural process. One of the biggest problems with this
    particular disaster is that it's very difficult to mitigate
    these issues. You know, we are all very familiar with
    hurricanes and earthquakes. We can build roads, but it's--you
    know, it's going to take time for nature to fix itself.
        Mr. Stupak. In the area we were yesterday, Pass a Loutro--
    am I saying that right--Pass a Loutre or Pass a Loutre, they
    said 90 percent of that area is affected; and the only way you
    can really flush this out, clean this out is really through the
    Louisiana or Mississippi River flushing itself naturally,
    right?
        Mr. Solangi. That's--that's correct. That's one part of it.
    Of course, there will be natural degradation; there will be
    bacteria; there will be other processes that will take care of
    eliminating the oil, but it will take time depending upon how
    much oil there is. Small amounts for small periods of time,
    nature has its way of taking care of it.
        We do have natural seepages of oil in different places and
    nature takes--but this has been the most concentrated amount of
    oil that is coming through; and if it continues to come
    through, you are going to see a prolonged exposure and a
    prolonged effect.
        Mr. Stupak. So the initial effects of the oil on animals
    or--or any of our aquatic life really depends on the time of
    exposure; and I'm sure each species must depend on what amount
    initially affects it. It just depends on each species, right?
        Mr. Solangi. Yes, Congressman, that's an excellent
    question. The lady to my left had mentioned about inhalation,
    and probably it's a hundred miles away. Many of these animals
    breathe right on the surface or close to where the oil spill
    is, so you do get respiratory problems, marine mammals
    specifically.
        And just like you and I, they breathe the air and they give
    birth, they give milk to their young ones and they eat the fish
    that is contaminated, so it's really compounded considerably
    when these animals are very close to the surface or to the
    spill. And so I think it's going to be a very significant issue
    in mitigating the after effects.
        Mr. Stupak. Mr. Duplessis, did you indicate--did you
    receive the $5,000 check from BP initially for your loss of
    revenue?
        Mr. Duplessis. Yes, I did.
        Mr. Stupak. Nothing since then.
        Mr. Duplessis. No. I met just yesterday with an adjuster
    and he said that I would be getting another $5,000 check.
        Mr. Stupak. I was reading that shrimpers can go out, maybe
    earn 5 and 6,000 a day if they have a good day, right?
        Mr. Duplessis. That's--that's right.
        Mr. Stupak. OK. So like Mister--so like Mr. Cooper, Acy
    Cooper, was going to testify today, but he was asked to go out
    and do some cleanup.
        Mr. Duplessis. Right.
        Mr. Stupak. So he's been, what, head of the Louisiana
    Shrimp Association, so this was his opportunity, so
    unfortunately he couldn't be here today. He took the
    opportunity to work.
        I also read like it's almost like a lottery, like--or I
    don't want to say a lottery, but you might work for a few days
    on the cleanup, but it's a month later before you are called
    again. So you get the $5,000 check for working for a few days
    or I guess like an initial payment? I guess I'm trying to
    figure it out.
        Mr. Duplessis. The $5,000 checks that they have been giving
    out to the commercial fishermen is supposed to be to--in
    mitigation for lost wages, for lost income. Now----
        Mr. Stupak. But that's only a day's work.
        Mr. Duplessis. Right.
        Mr. Stupak. For shrimpers.
        Mr. Duplessis. Yes. Well, don't--I mean we--shrimpers
    make--we might make $5,000 per day, but then we have these long
    down periods that we don't.
        Mr. Stupak. Sure.
        Mr. Duplessis. We don't have income at all. But, for
    example, the first time I met with the adjuster, my wife and I
    sat there and he asked the question, ``Well, how much are you
    losing this month and how much do you expect us to--to pay
    you?''
        Mr. Stupak. Right.
        Mr. Duplessis. Well, my wife went through the paper and she
    said, ``Well, last May we made $27,000.'' And he says, ``Well,
    we are going to give you a check for $5,000 now and you give us
    your proof of income and next month we'll--we'll finalize these
    adjustments.''
        Well, I just met again with them yesterday and another
    $5,000 check is what we are going to get, what they promised to
    me anyway.
        Mr. Stupak. So you are still $17,000 short for one month.
        Mr. Duplessis. For one month, yes.
        Mr. Stupak. Well, let me ask you this: BP puts out things,
    these daily statements on what they are doing; and they said
    more than 2,600 vessels are now involved in response effort
    including skimmers, tugs, barges, and recovery vehicles? So
    that would be some of the shrimpers and other people working in
    the Gulf going out there. There's not 2,600 vehicles out there
    today. There's been--that's like the cumulative amount over the
    last seven weeks, 49 days, since this spill's been going on,
    right?
        Mr. Duplessis. Well, my name's been on the list from day
    one.
        Mr. Stupak. OK.
        Mr. Duplessis. And I have yet to get a call from BP to go
    to work.
        Mr. Stupak. So your boat's never been out there.
        Mr. Duplessis. My boat's never been out there.
        Mr. Stupak. So you might be out on--you might be one of
    those 2,600 vessels that they speak of, but your boat's never
    seen the water.
        Mr. Duplessis. That's a possibility. I don't know.
        Mr. Stupak. OK. My time is expired. Thank you. Mr. Burgess
    for questions.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr.--no, let's stay with you for
    just a moment. Now, the $5,000--and, again, as a student of the
    consumable crustacean, I thank you for what you do and your
    contribution to the country's economy, and it is important that
    we get you up and running.
        The $5,000 payment that you get, is that like a--how is
    that being treated, as business interruption insurance?
        Are you taxed on that? Is that to go--just to pay your
    overhead that you are not able to pay but not anything for--for
    your income? What--what is that--what does that $5,000
    represent?
        Mr. Duplessis. BP's explanation is this is payment in lieu
    of final settlement.
        Mr. Burgess. OK. So it's a--it's a temper rising measure on
    their part.
        Mr. Duplessis. That's their explanation to me.
        Mr. Burgess. And I would never tell the IRS, but how are
    you and your accountant handling that; is that taxable income
    to you.
        Mr. Duplessis. Oh, I would imagine it is. Yes, I would say
    it is?
        Mr. Burgess. It's not treated as business interruption
    insurance, which obviously would be an insurance payment that
    would come to your business that would then not be taxed. At
    least that's my understanding, but I'm not an accountant, so
    don't take that to the bank.
        Mr. Duplessis. Yes. I would have to talk to my accountant
    about that.
        Mr. Burgess. Mr. Linn, you are from Alabama. Mr. Stupak is
    not the only one in a newspaper. Wall Street Journal, this
    morning reading on the plane down here on the way from Texas,
    talking about the--how emotions are boiling over in Alabama. A
    BP official met with local leaders on Saturday to discuss
    cleanup efforts and he was threatened with incarceration.
    ``I've got a solution. We can put you in our jail and you can
    sit there until you figure it out,'' Edward Carol, the city
    councilman in Orange Beach, Florida [sic], told Bob Fryer, a BP
    senior vice-president. Is that pretty reflective of the--of the
    feeling back home?
        Mr. Linn. It is rapidly escalating in terms of frustration.
    We--the gentleman here was talking about the boating situation
    of 2,600 vessels. We were told--we had--we invited BP to speak
    at a chamber meeting, too, for our local businesses. They told
    us basically that there they had 1,400 vessels.
        They had 400 contracted, they had 400 in waiting, and 50 on
    the water, which kind of blew us away.
        Mr. Burgess. Yes.
        Mr. Linn. Now, we were not in--we were beginning the war
    with the tar balls and the things. You know, we weren't totally
    slammed at that point, but that was sort of the attitude.
        The money situation is the same--same thing. The 5,000 has
    been given out just almost as if it's more a marketing ploy
    than it really is an accounting ploy. They are coming back with
    second payments to some of the folks, but the vessels of
    opportunity folks that have signed on that actually have been
    called and are working have not seen monies as of this morning
    at 9:00 when I called.
        The businesses, when you talk about $5,000, we have a
    $60,000 a year--a month overhead for my business, so I would
    get two and a half days out of that. That's why I ended up
    saying, OK, I've got to do something else. I've got to go--I am
    now doing an SBA loan, which I had no intentions of having to
    try to borrow again but this is on and above another one that
    we had from the hurricanes, of course. It's the only way we are
    going to keep our business alive is to have cash flow. We do
    not feel that BP is going to be stepping up to the plate.
        Mr. Burgess. Yes, but an SBA loan with no end in sight to
    this, I mean how--how are you going to manage that aspect of
    the cash flow?
        Mr. Linn. Our problem right now is survival over the next
    six months. I feel that between you guys, everybody stepping
    into the plate up here and then helping us out, I feel that
    there will have to be some help from BP coming down the road.
    We have approximately two months left of cash flow.
        Mr. Burgess. Yes. I'm going to interrupt you. I agree with
    you there. There will have to be some help.
        Dr. Subra, let me just ask you a question. You detailed the
    safety concerns that you have. Where is the EPA in this? I mean
    this is federal oil. These are federal hydrocarbons produced on
    federal land. You talked about OSHA, you know. You talked about
    Louisiana Health and Human Services, but should not the EPA be
    out there front and center issuing--to heck with what BP says.
    The EPA should be giving the directive for these people to have
    protective gear.
        We just finished a very contentious 9-11 bill in our
    committee where the EPA, under a different administration, was
    excoriated for not having done more to protect the people who
    were sent to do the cleanup of the 9-11 site, and now Congress
    is--is left taking care of--taking care of their disabilities
    for the rest of their natural lives. Why is the EPA not more
    proactive in this--in this environment, in this emergency?
        Ms. Subra. We've been--we have been working with the EPA
    from the very beginning on this, and they have put up monitors
    on the shore on--on the solid land. There are three in
    Chalmette from Arabi south, and then there are three in the
    Venice area and then they also have mobile monitors.
        EPA is telling us that BP is responsible for doing the
    monitoring out in the areas over the slick and in the boats and
    in the area that the workers are working in. That data
    supposedly has been given to EPA, but EPA has not made that
    public. And we have asked for that now for over a week and a
    half, to receive the BP data so we can see exactly what they
    are monitoring and if they are monitoring for the right thing
    and what kind of conditions because we know the fishers are
    sick.
        Mr. Burgess. Well, it seems like the EPA should assert its
    authority and cause BP to put protective gear--make the
    protective gear available to the people who are involved in the
    cleanup. After all, it was BP's fault that they are out there
    having to clean the stuff up in the first place. Just my
    observation, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Mr. Braley for questions, please.
        Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to focus
    on the BP claims process because BP has repeatedly stated to
    this committee and to the public and the press, we will pay all
    legitimate claims.
        And when I missed the tour of the marshes last night
    because of a flight delay in Dallas, I got in the car and I
    drove down to Venice in a monsoon. And as I was driving back
    last night, I saw a sign on the side of the road that I think
    captures the attitude of most people in the Gulf Coast toward
    BP right now, and it said, ``Damn BP, God bless America.''
        And I think that's how these witnesses who have gone
    through so much in the past 40 days feel about what's happening
    to them, their way of life, their families, and that's why this
    hearing is so important. Because when I was down in Venice, I
    saw a lot of vessels that were sitting in dock. And when I
    talked to the folks down there, they told me they hadn't been
    out in days or weeks, even though they were hired by BP.
        So one of the things I want to talk to Mr. Duplessis and
    Mr. Linn about is this BP claims process. We have heard that
    they created a claims process for fishermen and for small
    business owners impacted by the spill. And, Mr. Duplessis, you
    talked a little bit about how that claims process worked; but
    as I understand it, you are required to present documentation,
    and if you are a boat captain or a deckhand, you can receive
    from 5,000--up to $5,000 per check up front. Can you tell us a
    little bit about how that process actually works; do you know?
        Mr. Duplessis. From the start or when they started the
    program, they sent out a list of things that we would need for
    proof of income for them to mitigate this. They wanted three
    years of income tax records; they wanted trip tickets, which
    are tickets that we use on most of the shrimping and oystering
    logbooks for the oyster people; and I went in with everything
    they requested. The guy almost looked like he didn't want it.
    He just--he took the three years of income tax records because
    my wife had already made--made copies for them to take. I--I
    almost had to--I forced him to take it.
        Here, you want it, I've got it. And they issued me the
    following day--gave me a check for $5,000 and said that this
    was not payment in full.
        And I might add when the payment process--when they first
    started the program, I--I was a week or two into the process
    before I--I did mine. The attorneys, local attorneys and the
    state's attorneys read the paperwork that they had the
    fishermen sign, and they were actually signing paperwork that
    was releasing BP from liability when they signed this
    paperwork.
        Mr. Braley. So they--they were requiring you to sign----
        Mr. Duplessis. Yes.
        Mr. Braley [continuing]. A waiver against future----
        Mr. Duplessis. Exactly.
        Mr. Braley [continuing]. Claims in order to get this
    upfront payment?
        Mr. Duplessis. Exactly.
        Mr. Braley. And I'll bet you nobody explained that to you
    when you applied for that first payment?
        Mr. Duplessis. Well, by the time I got there, the state's
    attorney was all over BP and made them do away with this
    paperwork.
        Mr. Braley. But it was after some of the----
        Mr. Duplessis. Oh, yes.
        Mr. Braley [continuing]. Had already received payments and
    signed that paper for them to waive claims?
        Mr. Duplessis. Yes. But they also made them take those
    paper--papers and null and void them.
        Mr. Braley. Now, you indicated in your opening statement
    you had a thousand questions and no answers. Is there anything
    about your experience with the BP claims process you would like
    the American people to know, Mr. Duplessis?
        Mr. Duplessis. It's a cluster. It's a total mess. Just
    three days ago, there were three adjusters in this building
    taking claims. Three fishermen would walk out and each one was
    told different things from each individual adjuster. One
    fisherman, he's a good friend of mine, told me that the
    adjuster basically threatened him by telling him that, hey, you
    have a big--very large top line here on your taxes and your--
    your bottom line is very small. We want to put you on notice
    that you are going to get payment on this bottom line, not your
    gross income.
        Mr. Braley. Mr. Duplessis, my father enlisted in the Marine
    Corps when he was 17 and served on Iwo Jima, and I just
    recently interviewed my cousin who served in the Marine Corps
    in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive. You are the embodiment of
    the Marine Corps motto of Semper Fidelis, always faithful, and
    I'm very grateful you came here and shared your story here with
    us today.
        Mr. Duplessis. Thank you so much. Thank you.
        Mr. Stupak. Those adjusters, are they BP representatives or
    insurance companies for BP?
        Mr. Duplessis. I think they are hired, contracted
    adjusters.
        Mr. Stupak. OK. Mr. Markey for questions, please.
        Mr. Markey. Thank you. Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, said
    that BP would pay for all legitimate claims of fishermen, of
    tourism--tourism based industries. You presented your bills,
    your profits from last May and it was $27,000, but they only
    gave you a check for $5,000. What did they say to you?
        Mr. Duplessis. They said that this was not a final
    settlement, that there would be--this was only the beginning of
    the process. In--in other words, what they are saying is that
    they--they are just giving this amount of money to us to hold
    us over until final----
        Mr. Markey. OK.
        Mr. Duplessis [continuing]. Mitigation, but----
        Mr. Markey. BP made $6 billion in January and February and
    March of 2010. They say they are going to pay every legitimate
    claim. You walk in with your tax records proving that last May
    you made $27,000, so what did BP say to you? They'll wait later
    or are they just waiting you out? Are they just waiting for
    the--kind of the storm to pass and they won't have to pay all
    these claims for all of the fishermen? Because that's what I
    suspect their real plan is.
        Mr. Duplessis. I'm just hoping that it doesn't end up the
    way I'm thinking it will: When the storm's over, they're going
    to pack their bags and leave us.
        Mr. Markey. You know, there's a law right now that does
    protect them against having to pay----
        Mr. Duplessis. I know that.
        Mr. Markey [continuing]. Any more than $75 million to all
    of the fishermen of the Gulf, to all of the tourism industry of
    the Gulf. They are only really responsible for cleaning up the
    mess out in the ocean. But in terms of the impact on you,
    there's a limit of $75 million.
        Would you support repealing that law so that there is
    unlimited liability for BP to ensure that all of you are paid,
    not because BP out of the goodness of their heart determines
    that they are going to give you a check, but because the law
    requires that they have unlimited liability? Would you like to
    see that law repealed?
        Mr. Duplessis. 100 percent.
        Mr. Markey. How about you, Mr. Linn?
        Mr. Linn. No doubt about it. If you----
        Mr. Markey. Repeal that law. How about you, Mr. Solangi?
        Mr. Solangi. I agree with you.
        Mr. Markey. How about you, Ms. Subra?
        Ms. Subra. I agree.
        Mr. Markey. All right. So we got agreement on that. How
    about the--how about the Jones Act, do you want to repeal that
    law, you know, the limitation on damages for families, Mr.
    Linn?
        Mr. Linn. No doubt about that one at all.
        Mr. Duplessis. Of course, yes.
        Mr. Solangi. I agree with you.
        Ms. Subra. I agree.
        Mr. Markey. Agree. Now, I think what we are seeing already
    is business as usual at BP. Giving you $5,000 when you have
    incontrovertible evidence that last May your family made
    $27,000 is just the beginning of a long story that we are going
    to have.
        And as Dr. Burgess just said, we just had a big debate nine
    years later about the health impacts on people who were working
    on 9-11, people exposed on 9-11, and there's still a debate as
    to whether or not we should basically take care of those
    people. We are having a hard time doing that now. And the
    lesson we learned, Ms. Subra, is that we have to get in at the
    beginning. We have to give them the protection at the
    beginning.
        Do you think that BP is providing the resources necessary
    in order to ensure that the equipment is there, the training is
    there, to protect these people who are being exposed to these
    chemicals?
        Ms. Subra. Not adequately, and that's what we have been
    working on since the very beginning.
        Mr. Markey. Mr. Solangi, do you think that BP is doing the
    work to ensure that there is a full understanding of the impact
    these chemicals are having on the ocean, on all of the
    unintended consequences of shooting dispersants into the ocean
    in terms of the impact that it can have upon the livelihoods of
    the people who live down here in the Gulf?
        Mr. Solangi. I don't think they were prepared for it and I
    think not enough is being done yet.
        Mr. Markey. Yes. BP did not stand for being prepared. We
    know that for sure. But we don't want to see them nickel and
    diming each one of these issues either in order to ensure that
    there is full protection. In terms of tourism, Mr. Linn, what
    has BP done to ensure that there is some anticipatory help for
    you in Alabama?
        Mr. Linn. They granted--they granted $25 million to the
    state of Alabama, which is----
        Mr. Markey. How much did you say?
        Mr. Linn. 25 million----
        Mr. Markey. 25 million.
        Mr. Linn [continuing]. To the state of Alabama. Part of
    this is for preparation, part of it was for advertising, you
    know, to try to counter all the things that are being said in
    the press.
        Mr. Markey. How much does the--how much does the tourism
    business make in Alabama?
        Mr. Linn. I'm not sure of the grand total. I know Orange
    Beach and Gulf Shores are the big brothers. We are the smaller
    brother. I think we bring in somewhere in a range of around--as
    a state it could be in the range of $70 million, but I'm not
    sure.
        Mr. Markey. OK. Seven----
        Mr. Linn. $70 million, I think, as a state, Alabama, but
    I'm not sure----
        Mr. Stupak. You are running over.
        Mr. Markey. Thank you.
        Mr. Linn. Does that work?
        Mr. Stupak. Go ahead. Finish your answer.
        Mr. Linn. The--the trickle down effect on that is $10
    million is going to Baldwin County. Ten million is going to
    Mobile County, which is on our side. Baldwin has the Orange
    Beach, Gulf Shores guys. That's being broken down to--
    approximately seven million of it on our end was going to
    preparatory use to prepare a second protective sand barrier to
    try to stop the oil on the beach. They are not doing it in the
    water because of surf and things like that. It trickles down
    from there to--a good sizable sum was going back to the fishing
    community to help there, again, back to the vessels of
    opportunity. And I think we ended up with the Dauphin Island
    Chamber of Commerce in conjunction with the town of 125,000.
        Mr. Markey. My goal is going to make sure they have
    unlimited liability to protect each and every one of you and
    your families in this incident.
        Mr. Stupak. Ms. DeGette, questions, please.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Linn, I want to
    follow up on--on something--on--on some of these questions that
    Mr. Markey was asking because Mr. Duplessis also confers, but
    then you said in your written testimony while it is grossly
    inadequate that some of the fishermen and the shrimpers are
    getting some payments for like $5,000 in a month; but what you
    said in written testimony is for the small businesses like you,
    you have overhead of $60,000 a month, that the claims process
    seems to be much more cumbersome. Have you been getting any
    payment from BP?
        Mr. Linn. None whatsoever.
        Ms. DeGette. You have got no payment whatsoever from BP?
        Mr. Linn. No, ma'am. We started out talking directly to BP.
    I was transferred from one department to another department
    because they had not dealt with a small business, according to
    the adjuster that I had or the--you know, the guy on the other
    line with BP.
        It is now my understanding that while we have on Dauphin
    Island and Bayou La Batre, our neighboring city, two claims
    offices, they are not geared at doing anything more than
    gathering information from the small businesses. Everything is
    going to Hammond, Louisiana and it's processing four states
    worth of small business activity.
        Ms. DeGette. Have you--have you been given any indication
    when you might start getting some compensation?
        Mr. Linn. No, ma'am. I--in my--in my case I did go to an
    attorney, local attorney, to start helping me with the process
    because I was getting nowhere.
        Ms. DeGette. And are you having to pay that attorney to get
    your compensation?
        Mr. Linn. I'm afraid it will be coming up, yes, ma'am.
        Ms. DeGette. And that bill will be coming in the mail?
        Mr. Linn. That is why, again, the SBA became important to
    me.
        It's not that I want another loan. It's that I have to keep
    active.
        Ms. DeGette. So--so now you're having to take out loans?
        Mr. Linn. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. DeGette. Mr. Stupak was talking about this. You're now
    having to take out loans to keep yourself afloat because the
    claims process is so slow?
        Mr. Linn. Exactly. Exactly.
        Ms. DeGette. And do you think this claims process could be
    made more easy? I guess let me back up. Mr. Duplessis, I think,
    has the most organized wife, maybe as organized as my husband
    is. You can even--you can--is she here?
        [Mrs. Duplessis indicating.]
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you. So--so you can find out from May of
    last year what your income is. I assume you have similar
    records.
        Mr. Linn. I do. I have good records. In fact, the same
    information that we are supplying to the SBA is pretty much the
    same information----
        Ms. DeGette. Right. And--and so they should be able to
    determine what kind of compensation you are going to get----
        Mr. Linn. Yes.
        Ms. DeGette [continuing]. If as--if as Mr. Markey says, Mr.
    Hayward--he--by the way, when he said this, he was under oath
    just like you are today, that everything would be made clear.
    So do you expect that's going to happen?
        Mr. Linn. My real hope--and this is the only statement on
    this part I'll make. We as individual small businesses, the
    fishermen, ourselves, have--have not--we do not have a chance
    of fighting BP. We will not win that battle. You guys can help
    us. The SBA can help us. I should not be borrowing money from
    the SBA. I should be getting a grant from SBA that BP pays and
    you guys get the money from BP.
        Ms. DeGette. Well, guess what? We intend to--we intend to
    help you, so we're----
        Mr. Linn. Because we can't do it on our own.
        Ms. DeGette. As you heard, we are going to stay on this
    until we do.
        Mr. Linn. I really appreciate that.
        Ms. DeGette. I just have a couple questions, Ms. Subra,
    about the environmental impacts because you talked in your
    written and your oral testimony about these dispersants and
    your great concern for the Gulf Coast residents. The EPA has
    also expressed concerns about the burning of oil and the use of
    oil dispersants, and they have asked BP to use less of the
    toxic dispersants. Do you know what BP's response was?
        Ms. Subra. Well, EPA used--asked them to use less toxic
    ones.
        Ms. DeGette. Yes.
        Ms. Subra. And they came back basically justifying the
    existing one, and then EPA asked them to use less. One of the
    major concerns I have is that most of the constituents of the
    two dispersants they are using are proprietary so when the
    workers were ill----
        Ms. DeGette. You mean the chemicals that are in the
    dispersant?
        Ms. Subra. Right. The chemicals that are in the dispersants
    are proprietary. So when the workers are ill and they go to the
    hospital, the workers don't know what potential chemicals they
    are exposed to and so they don't know how to treat them, and
    it's an issue that we have been working on for a long time, but
    that kind of information needs to be available to the general
    public, but if not to the general public, it needs to be
    available to the medical community----
        Ms. DeGette. To the first responder?
        Ms. Subra [continuing]. Immediately so that they know how
    to handle the cases.
        Ms. DeGette. Now--now, is there some alternative to these
    dispersants to start to begin to clean this up?
        Ms. Subra. Wait. Could you ask that again?
        Ms. DeGette. Is there some alternative way to clean this
    up, to minimize the risk than using the dispersants?
        Ms. Subra. Well, the alternative ways are to have it as a
    slick and recover it from the slick and disperse it into the
    water column, which has a huge environmental impact when it's
    dispersed into the water column. And both the slick and the
    dispersed chemical--chemical in the water column come onshore.
    It's just when it's dispersed in the water column it's not as
    visible as when you see it coming onshore, as you-all saw when
    you-all went--went on the tour.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Let members know we're going to try
    and go two rounds here if we have time here. We are trying to
    wrap up by 2:00, but let's get one round through and, if we
    can, we'll get a second round on the panel for questioning.
        Ms. Schakowsky, questions, please.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Ms. Subra, you have told us that
    BP forced commercial fishermen who signed up to work on the
    cleanup to sign waivers that severely eliminate--limited any
    future legal claims, but that was resolved. Was that in court
    that these waivers were removed from employment agreements or
    did you just get them to do it? How did that happen?
        Ms. Subra. We went to court on May 2nd, Sunday afternoon,
    as a result of the inappropriate waivers they were making the
    fishers sign and BP signed an agreement that those waivers
    would no longer apply; and that was limited to the State of
    Louisiana. So even when he talked about them not knowing,
    once--once we get a decision in court, it's not enforced.
        Five days later we went to court, and the court said BP
    must train and provide the protective gear. And, again, it's
    not being enforced, so we have done all the right things.
        It's lack of enforcement and lack of engagement with a lot
    of the agencies.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So, first of all, though the agreement only
    applied to Louisiana. In the context of this, did BP ever
    explain their rationale for saying that they wanted to remove
    any liability for themselves?
        Ms. Subra. No. They just agreed in court that afternoon and
    signed an agreement that it wouldn't be appropriate and
    therefore it wouldn't hold water on any of the agreements that
    had been signed previous----
        Ms. Schakowsky. In Louisiana?
        Ms. Subra [continuing]. Or it wouldn't be included in the
    new agreements.
        Ms. Schakowsky. In Louisiana?
        Ms. Subra. In--well, the--they did the agreement, and then
    the states of Mississippi and Alabama stated if it was to apply
    in those states the case would have to be brought in those
    case--states.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I see.
        Ms. Subra. They made that decision.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Now, are you saying that BP still is not
    providing any kind of appropriate protective gear?
        Ms. Subra. They are providing Tyvek suits in some cases. In
    the case of those shrimpers, they weren't providing that. They
    are not providing the respiratory protection; and that's where
    you get the inhalation of the toxic chemicals off the spill and
    any dispersants. And, in fact, if the workers bring a
    respirator that we have provided them and others have provided
    them, they tell them they are going to fire them unless they
    put the respirator away.
        And now since OSHA said you need to protect them against
    heat stress, they are using heat stress as an excuse not to
    have them where the respirators. And, in fact, you can't deal
    with heat stress and just ignore the inhalation stress. You
    need to address both issues. And yes, it's very hot in
    Louisiana, it's very humid, but this is a workplace environment
    and they need to be protected against both situations.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So your organizations have provided, at its
    expense, these private organizations with equipment that now
    they are prohibited from using?
        Ms. Subra. That is what BP is doing. They are prohibiting
    the workers from using the respirators.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And tell me the role that OSHA has played
    or the role that you think OSHA should play?
        Ms. Subra. I think they should be out there enforcing the
    regulations that they have to have appropriate workplace safety
    and protection for the workers.
        Ms. Schakowsky. But to the extent that, well, that's their
    job, but have you seen them and is this work being performed?
        Ms. Subra. Well, they were a little slow in coming on the
    scene.
        We had to work through EPA to demonstrate that they were
    really needed, and then they issued a directive on exactly what
    kind of training and the protective gear and it was required by
    BP to provide that. And now, we are seeing when they are going
    out and evaluating they are really taking on BP and focusing a
    lot on the heat stress, and still the workers are getting sick
    when they inhale the off gassing from the slick and from the
    aerosol.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And I assume you have brought that to
    OSHA's attention as well as to the company. What's the response
    to that in terms of the respirators?
        Ms. Subra. The--the issue of the heat stress versus not
    wearing the respirators just came to light after I had prepared
    my testimony over the last four days, so we are trying to
    figure out what kind of response we can get through EPA and to
    OSHA to BP, so we are working on that right now.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Some of these economically stressed workers
    who were hired to do this job apparently expressed fear that
    they would be fired if they complained?
        Ms. Subra. Right.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Is that accurate?
        Ms. Subra. Yes. And I'm hearing that from fishers all the
    way across Louisiana as well as in Mississippi and Alabama.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And--and were they fired because--or how
    did they get that impression that if they complained they would
    be fired?
        Ms. Subra. From working for BP or BP's contractors.
        Ms. Schakowsky. And have people been fired that are
    complaining?
        Ms. Subra. The fishers will tell me and tell a lot of the
    NGO's this; but when it comes down to telling it to someone
    that will do an affidavit, they are very reluctant because they
    are desperate for these jobs.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Thanks. Ms. Christensen for
    questions, please.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like
    to thank the witnesses for taking the time to be here with us
    this morning; and thank you for two rounds.
        Ms. Subra, in your testimony you say--and this kind of
    follows onto what my colleague, Ms. Schakowsky, was asking. You
    said decisions have been made that have and will continue to
    result in detrimental impacts to human health and the
    environment as a trade-off for attempts to reduce the quantity
    of crude oil from reaching the shores, estuaries, and wetlands
    to the northern Gulf of Mexico. Both are important.
        Why can't we do both? Why can't we protect the health and
    environment as well as protect the shorelines, the estuaries,
    and the wetlands? Is it not possible to do both? What is it
    that you think needs to be in place to make sure that we can do
    both because both are important? We need to protect the
    wetlands and the estuaries and we need to protect the health
    and the environment. This is an advanced country. This is the
    leader of the free world. Can't we do both?
        Ms. Subra. First of all, the response that BP has provided
    as the oil moved closer to shore and came onshore in the
    wetlands and on the sandy beach areas and dispersed into the
    water column and came on shore in the water column has not been
    adequate. It has allowed the slick and the dispersant to come
    onshore and contaminate the wetlands and all.
        But the issue of the workers, the workers should have been
    protected from the very beginning. It's a bad enough situation
    we have with the oil coming ashore and contaminating things,
    but there's no reason why these workers shouldn't be hired and
    shouldn't be put in the position to be totally protected as
    they do their jobs for BP.
        If BP had a job site on a rig, you would expect them to
    have total protection and safety for the workers, and yet these
    people seem to be treated as if they are expendable; and if
    they try and protect themselves, they are threatened with being
    fired and losing their job.
        Mrs. Christensen. So it comes down to the protection
    issues, the protective gear, the mask, and so forth. That's
    what it comes down to. That's--that's what we need to focus in
    on.
        Ms. Subra. Right. When they are dealing in the area with
    the crude oil, they need protection to stop the inhalation
    pathway of exposure.
        Mrs. Christensen. Yes. And, you know, in all of the areas,
    as I've said in my opening statement, I've asked about
    protection, protective gear and have been assured that that was
    in place; so those assurances obviously didn't mean anything
    because it wasn't until your organization and other
    organizations and regulations forced the issue that it began to
    take--be put in place, so thank you. Thank you for your work
    that you have been doing.
        Mr. Linn and Mr. Duplessis, obviously with this being the
    largest oil spill in the history of our country, there's lots
    of media attention. On balance from your perspective, has it
    been--has the overall impact and balance been positive for your
    businesses or negative?
        What has been the end path on tourism and fisheries?
        Is the full story being told by our media or is it just the
    bad side, and what has the impact of the media been?
        Mr. Linn. Start here?
        Mrs. Christensen. Yes.
        Mr. Linn. The impact on us by the media has been pretty
    much 90 percent negative. It's hard to have a positive impact
    when the only thing that they can bring to the table is the
    ultimate contamination of the island, the picture--the awful
    pictures of the birds, the environmental quality.
        We have been fielding so many calls regarding people trying
    to cancel in our case. And this is--I'm--I really am speaking
    for pretty much most of the Alabama tourism coast with this.
    The--the questions they are asking are do we have to go out and
    look at these dead birds laying on your beach? This is the
    impact that the press has had.
        Our PR guy for the town of Dauphin Island did a quick study
    and, you know, these numbers are approximate, but they--they
    looked at the average advertising cost. If we had gone out and
    bought the--bought the time, it's $7.5 million in negative
    advertising.
        Now, we have a $40,000 a year advertising budget for the
    Chamber of Commerce, so we have got a battle that's uphill. But
    that's--our--our impact has--has been terrible as a matter of
    fact.
        Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Duplessis.
        Mr. Duplessis. Just like Mr. Linn has said, everything that
    comes on the TV is birds that are being--that are oiled and
    this is all negative, negative, negative.
        Now, our area, our seafood and promotion board, did manage
    to get some money from BP and they are running some--some
    pretty good advertisement about our seafood that is still safe,
    which is--it's hard to convince people that the seafood is safe
    when you've got oyster areas that are being opened and closed
    daily and shrimping areas are being closed and not re-opened.
    It's hard to--to convince people that the seafood is safe and
    it's negative.
        And as far as the media is concerned and the TV and
    everything, I am up to my neck in advertisements saying if you
    have been affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I am up
    to my neck in it. I am just----
        Mrs. Christensen. You've had enough. And to you Mr.
    Duplessis, the Louisiana promotion----
        Mr. Stupak. Time's up.
        Mrs. Christensen. My time's up.
        Mr. Stupak. Yes.
        Mrs. Christensen. OK. Didn't hear it.
        Mr. Stupak. I'm running a little tight and we all want a
    second round. Mr. Melancon, questions, please. Five minutes.
        Mr. Melancon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Subra, let me
    ask you--and, of course, there's been a lot of issues about
    dispersants, whether it's helping or hurting long-term, but I
    guess where I'm going with it is with or without dispersants,
    what do you see? We shutdown the oil tomorrow, which would be
    wonderful, but what do you see in the time frame for recovery
    for the Gulf and for the estuaries should they be impacted.
        Ms. Subra. I see a very long-term recovery. I think that
    estimate is better served after we've stopped the flow of oil
    and we've gotten rid of the slick as well as the dispersed
    water column oil; and then we will have information about the
    contamination, both in the marshes, the wetlands, as well as
    the sea bottom and then we'll be able to figure out an estimate
    of how long recovery will take.
        Mr. Melancon. That's--that's why I was using if we shut it
    down tomorrow, which I pray that it would happen, or at least
    get it closed off. Because it's somewheres in the range of half
    a million barrels to a million barrels a day is, I think, where
    the numbers are. That's five--that's 12 to 19,000 or 20,000
    barrels a day, so that's--I'm sorry--million gallons a day.
        Mr. Duplessis, in light of the fact that this may be a
    decade long degradation problem to the estuaries to the place
    where the shrimp start their life cycles, where the speckled
    trout, the red fish, the snapper, and all that that comes out
    of the estuaries, what's in your mind? What's in your thoughts?
    What are you feeling right now is the future for you and the
    communities like Gulf Shores, Grand Isle, Venice, Point a la
    Hache?
        Mr. Duplessis. Mr. Melancon, just like you, I am a sport
    fisherman and hunter, and I've--I've been trying not to discuss
    it, but I have four children and 14 grandchildren. All four of
    my children hunt. We are big time duck hunters; and as my
    grandsons grow up, we--we are teaching them. We are taking them
    out in the marsh hunting, and this part of our culture is--it's
    really--it's devastating to just think about it. I can't--I
    won't--it's a possibility that I won't be able to take my
    grandkids out and hunt with them.
        And the other side, the economic side of it, I'm 65 years
    old now. I'm not young anymore. I can't--I can't change my
    livelihood, so it's--it's going to be--it's going to be a rough
    ten years ahead of me.
        Mr. Melancon. It--it's exactly the feeling I have. Mr.
    Linn, you are on the opposite side in--in one respect, but I
    remember Dauphin Island when it was like a Grand Isle. Of
    course, it's probably more condominiums than more of a beach
    now, but what--what do you feel? I mean we can clean the
    beaches quicker, but you have got those estuaries right behind
    the island that are important to the fisheries. That's what
    brings people to Dauphin Island. How are you feeling about this
    short-term, long-term?
        Mr. Linn. I--I think that's the--the biggest difficulty
    that we are all having with this. None of us can get our arms
    around it like you can a hurricane, which, you know, no one
    wants to hug one, but we can see an end, we can fix things, we
    can get on with our life. Dauphin Island really hasn't changed
    that much, sir, at this point. We have a couple of condos, but
    the--the culture, the--the whole life I--I fear is--it's going
    to be decades. And that's--that's even an if because the stigma
    of what is going on here, how long it will be.
        We are still being told that our island was cut in half by
    Katrina, when actually it was part of the uninhabited part.
    That's five years later. This kind of a stigma of oil on our
    beaches, the shrimping, the estuaries, the oysterman, the
    culture, it's--it's gone. And none of us from day-to-day know
    how we are going to cope through this. We are talking short-
    term keep your business alive. A year from now are we going to
    be able to survive in the same business or is it just pack it
    up and get off the island, and none of us know.
        Mr. Melancon. Yes. When--when this first started and the
    SBA came and said we'll do----
        Mr. Stupak. Time's up.
        Mr. Melancon. If I can just finish the thought real quick.
        Mr. Stupak. Real quick.
        Mr. Melancon [continuing]. Started talking about the
    emergency loans, which they can defer payments for a year which
    will give you the opportunity, I thought well, oh, great, you
    know, because that would give the business owners and the
    fishermen and those people that are impacted an opportunity to
    see where this thing's going to play out. But if we are talking
    about a decade or decades, it's not going to play out in our
    lifetime and it may not play out in my son's lifetime.
        Mr. Linn. And I--I will say one thing on SBA. One phone
    call and my two deferred--my two loans were deferred for 12
    months. It was not a hassle. It was we are here to help, so I
    have to give them that credit.
        Mr. Melancon. Thank you.
        Mr. Stupak. Mr. Scalise for questions, please.
        Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Subra, when you
    were talking about the testing that EPA's doing, it's over land
    and you said BP's doing the testing over water right now for
    air quality?
        Ms. Subra. That--that is how it is now. EPA's doing the
    land, and BP is supposed to be doing it over the water and in
    the work area where the workers are.
        Mr. Scalise. But we are not getting access to--to those air
    quality reports over water?
        Ms. Subra. We have asked for it over the last week and a
    half.
        When we found out that EPA was receiving the data from BP
    and not putting it up on their Web site, then we asked for it
    at that time.
        Mr. Scalise. Why--why isn't EPA putting that data on their
    Web site; have you not gotten an answer on that?
        Ms. Subra. I haven't gotten an answer.
        Mr. Scalise. Then we will get that answer for you because
    there is no reason if----
        Ms. Subra. It would be very helpful to have that data.
        Mr. Scalise [continuing]. EPA is monitoring the air quality
    and that's--that's what their job is, they're tasked with doing
    that, why they would send parts of that to BP, I don't know.
    But if they've got the access to the data, either they should
    be doing it or they should be getting the data and making it
    public, but it shouldn't be withheld from the public for sure,
    so we will--I know my office will work on that and--and if we
    get the committee to--to dig deeper there, too, to get some
    real--to get some real transparency from EPA on that air
    quality.
        I want to talk about the chain of command; and maybe, Mr.
    Duplessis, Mr. Linn, you-all can touch on this. One of the
    problems we have been having is getting--getting things done
    when--when our locals who are doing everything they--they know
    how to try to protect the marsh, to try to protect our way of
    life, it seems like we just keep running into road blocks and
    locals are told to go talk to BP and you can't get answers
    there sometimes.
        What have you-all found from the defensive efforts? I know
    we fought for weeks to try to get the sand barrier plan. It
    took us over three weeks to get an answer from the federal
    government on putting sand barriers in front of the marsh to
    try to at least protect the marsh.
        What are you-all seeing when it comes to protecting
    beaches, protecting marsh? Are you directed to go talk to BP to
    get approval? Who's--Who's telling you to go where?
        Mr. Linn first, then Mr. Duplessis.
        Mr. Linn. Basically what would have normally been a Corps
    of Engineer type project on our island in terms of beach re-
    nourishment and things like that was all put aside.
        Between BP and--and the federal government, I believe--I
    know the national guard was highly involved, they came in and
    within three weeks time we had a protective sand barrier along
    our--our main road, which is where the water and sewer
    infrastructure runs in order to try to protect.
        Because of the hurricanes, our island has lost a lot of
    sand on the far west end where all the tourism really is.
        Any high tide with a--with a southerly wind can actually
    cause an over wash on that west end, which brings stuff right
    into the sewer system, so that was the reason for that
    protective berm. The----
        Mr. Scalise. And you-all got approved from BP or who----
        Mr. Linn. It--it was actually a BP start. It was clean
    harbors, Doctor--oh, he--he's helping us actually with the town
    of Dauphin Island in doing a study of the beach.
        Mr. Scalise. I'm glad you-all did because----
        Mr. Linn. Yes.
        Mr. Scalise [continuing]. Like I said, it took us over
    three weeks and we still went round and round.
        Mr. Linn. Yes.
        Mr. Scalise. I don't even think they started dredging in
    the sand yet in our marsh.
        Mr. Linn. Yes. We--we had action quickly on Dauphin Island.
        We truly did in terms of actual emergency protection
    devices.
        Mr. Scalise. OK. Mr. Duplessis.
        Mr. Duplessis. Well, I'm from Plaquemines Parish, as you
    know, and Billy Nungesser, bless his heart, they're going to--
    BP is going to cause his demise.
        Mr. Scalise. I've been in talks with Billy. I tell him to
    take care of his health, because he's working hard I know.
        Mr. Duplessis. Right. With the--the berm or the rebuilding
    of the Chandeleur and Breton islands, we have been trying to
    get this done for years, as you know, and trying to get--I
    really don't know what the problem was with--we had the Corps
    of Engineers. We needed approval from the Corps of Engineers
    and they took, what, three weeks, four weeks and finally they
    got approval of part of it and then----
        Mr. Scalise. They still have only approved one-fourth of
    the----
        Mr. Duplessis. One-fourth of it.
        Mr. Scalise [continuing]. Plan and again I don't think
    they've even started dredging sand----
        Mr. Duplessis. Right. It's----
        Mr. Scalise [continuing]. And we are six weeks into this
    disaster now.
        Mr. Duplessis. I don't know if the problem is--is not
    knowing the effects, the long-term effects, as they say from
    studies and stuff; but as far as my side of it, they have been
    studying this for years. They have been studying it for years,
    so why should we have to start new studies.
        Mr. Scalise. And I think it's most irritating to us----
        Mr. Duplessis. We know that it'll help.
        Mr. Scalise [continuing]. Is when they say we need
    environmental studies and in the meantime our environment's
    being destroyed.
        Mr. Duplessis. Right, right.
        Mr. Scalise. But I know I'm out of time, but we have got to
    set a better chain of command; because I know the president
    keeps saying he's in charge and then every time something's not
    happening nobody wants to be accountable for it. When you can't
    get booms, when you can't get berm, when you can't get--and
    there's still things like this happening every day.
        And even though the president says he's in charge, we are
    not getting the resources we need and nobody wants to say they
    are in charge when things go wrong. Well, that's when you need
    leadership. So we need to protect your oyster beds, we need to
    protect those seafood beds, we need to protect Dauphin Island.
        Mr. Duplessis. Well, I understand that. At the same time--
    --
        Mr. Scalise. I don't think enough's being done.
        Mr. Duplessis. Yes. And at the same time I can also
    understand our president's position. If--if--just like with
    the--with the drilling, if everyone says, well, you know, don't
    stop the drilling, don't stop the drilling. But if--if he says,
    go ahead and drill and next week we get another oil spill, the
    same people that are saying, you know, go ahead and drill, they
    going to say, hey, you dummy. You shouldn't have done that. We
    just had an accident.
        Mr. Scalise. Right. We just want to make sure they follow
    the safety guidelines that are already there and clearly they
    weren't doing that.
        Mr. Duplessis. Right.
        Mr. Stupak. Mr. Scalise, I'm in charge, so I'll take
    control here.
        Mr. Scalise. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        Mr. Stupak. I'm going to ask the members to respect the
    time--the five minute time so we can get through another round
    of questions. Everyone's expressed interest of doing another
    round, so let's get another round in if we can because we
    promised we'd finish up here by 2:00 o'clock.
        Let me ask this sort of quick throwaway questions, do any
    of you believe that estimate of oil coming from that blown well
    as BP says?
        Mr. Linn. No.
        Mr. Duplessis. No.
        Mr. Stupak. You are all shaking your heads no. OK. Dr.
    Solangi, let me ask you this. In your statement, your last
    line, you said, we believe that prudent development and use of
    our resources requires adequate safeguards as well as a safety
    net to protect the environment and those making a living from
    it.
        What are the safety nets you're--you're looking at?
        We were down, as I said, way down south yesterday in the
    marshes outside Venice and you could see oil rigs only six or
    seven miles from the places where--of concern, endangered
    species of birds, insects, animals live. We were all alarmed to
    see how close the rigs to places where people and animals live.
    We were surprised how many rigs were clear and visible to the
    coastal land.
        Dr. Cowan told the committee staff that platforms--and I
    don't think you have it for the witnesses, but we have this
    document here. There's like 3,500 oil and gas platforms in the
    Gulf very, very close to the shoreline along your 1200 miles of
    coast here. I, for one, believe in oil, drilling for gas and
    oil, but I just think there's some environmentally sensitive
    areas you really shouldn't do it.
        It took me a long time but I got the ban on oil and gas
    drilling in and under the great lakes, which my district
    comprises three of the five great lakes. I don't think we
    should be drilling for oil and gas there, so--And--and I was
    surprised it looked like there was--right in the marsh there
    was a well being drilled as we were on the fan boats there
    yesterday; so what are the safeguards we should have here?
        Mr. Solangi. I think this is an engineering issue, as you
    have said, that for decades, you know, it's a fact of life. Oil
    and gas is crucial to this country and its survival and it can
    be done properly. There are many, many safeguards, engineering
    issues, that can be done. This is an anomaly. We have had
    really a lot of questions why it happens. It is something that
    both nature--I mean a lot of people go to the rigs to do
    fishing. Rigs can become a part of the ecology of the system
    where you can see increased productivity, so it's not all
    negative, but if it's done properly, if it is done safely with
    all the proper safeguards. And I think it is your job to make
    sure that accidents like this don't occur. Small issues can be
    reconciled. I mean that's human.
        Mr. Stupak. It seems like the engineering to drill deeper
    and drill in more sensitive areas has been developed, but the
    technology, the engineering, if you will, the science behind
    the clean up is the same science that we did back in the 19--
    early 1900's: Burn it off, try to mop it up.
        There doesn't seem to be, at least from where I sit--and
    I'm no expert in this area--there doesn't seem to be the
    emphasis on what if something goes wrong, how do they contain
    it? How do we shut it down? It seems like we have developed one
    side of the equation but not the other.
        Mr. Solangi. You are absolutely right. I think that is the
    side of the equation people are having difficulty with as to
    what do we do now? How do we respond to emergencies like that?
    And we are lacking in that aspect considerably.
        Mr. Stupak. OK. Ms. Subra, what's the long-term effects of
    inhalation of oil? You also mentioned hauling in these booms
    with their hands, oil on their hands. What's the long-term
    effect?
        Ms. Subra. Well, first of all, there are two major
    components of the crude oil: There's volatile organics, which
    it's contended that they off gas really quickly, but in a lot
    of cases it's not off gassing real quickly; but one of the
    components is benzene, a known human cancer causing agent.
        The other mentioned component of the crude is polynuclear
    aromatic hydrocarbons, and a large number of those components
    are known and suspected to cause cancer.
        So when they start inhaling it, they take it into their
    body and they are out there working and they will be out there
    working for an extended period of time, and if they are not
    protected, they are having acute impacts, which is what I
    described, and then they can have the long-term impacts.
        They can have cancer, but they can also have heart and lung
    problems that can increase with the increased efficiencies of
    breathing in it each time into the body, going home at night,
    coming back out, getting exposed again.
        So it's the chronic, the heart, the lung, and the potential
    of cancer that are for the long-term. And what we don't want is
    we don't want to create a population that became contaminated
    because they weren't provided with proper protection.
        Mr. Stupak. You mentioned enforcement, you get a court
    decree and then they don't enforce it. Who's responsible for
    enforcement, OSHA, state and federal OSHA?
        Ms. Subra. OSHA primarily because it is a workplace issue.
    The agencies at the federal level have the oversight. And the
    one that are at the command center could do something to
    require that BP actually provide the protective gear, which the
    court has said, which the agencies have said, and which OSHA
    has said; so it's a big enforcement issue as well.
        Mr. Stupak. Supplement your testimony with a request for
    that air monitor information you want and also the dispersant
    and I'm sure our committee can get some answers.
        Mr. Burgess for questions.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Ms. Subra, let
    me stay with you for a second. You said the EPA is monitoring
    on land and BP is monitoring on the water; is that correct, the
    air quality.
        Ms. Subra. That--that is how it's divvied up at this point,
    yes.
        Mr. Burgess. And is the--is the land monitoring data being
    made available real time on the--on the EPA's Web site.
        Ms. Subra. Could you ask that again, please?
        Mr. Burgess. Well, do you have access to the--to the levels
    that are--that are being recorded on land.
        Ms. Subra. That EPA is monitoring for, they put them on
    their Web site usually with one or two days delay, but they are
    up there on a regular basis.
        Mr. Burgess. Now, you said the concern about the off
    gassing and the crude oil aerosolization, the EPA had the
    official statement wrote down that there were only short-lived
    effects; is that correct?
        Ms. Subra. Correct.
        Mr. Burgess. And yet, if the levels of these hydrocarbons
    and benzene are higher, there could be long-term effects; is
    that correct?
        Ms. Subra. Right. The concentrations in the aerosol are
    being detected in the monitors that they have on land and the
    monitors on land are some distance from the marsh. The
    workers--the workers are exposed to a lot higher
    concentrations.
        Mr. Burgess. But my understanding from watching some of the
    news shows, that there are people who are not involved in any
    of the work at all but just who simply live in the area who
    have complained of some of the respiratory complaints, some of
    the dizziness and nausea. Is that happening.
        Ms. Subra. Could you ask that again please? I'm sorry.
        Mr. Burgess. People who are not involved in the cleanup,
    people who just live in the area----
        Ms. Subra. Right.
        Mr. Burgess [continuing]. Are they being effected.
        Ms. Subra. Right. They are having the effects from the
    aerosol that's in the air that's being carried onshore when
    there's a south or southeast wind.
        Mr. Burgess. So whose responsibility is the protection of
    those individuals? Obviously, OSHA would not be the--the
    federal agency.
        Ms. Subra. The federal health agencies.
        Mr. Burgess. OK. And are they--are they fulfilling their--
    their obligation under the--under the law.
        Ms. Subra. They--they are starting to send some of their
    mobile clinics.
        Mr. Burgess. That's a yes or no question, not ``they're
    starting to''. Are they fulfilling their obligation.
        Ms. Subra. Not adequately.
        Mr. Burgess. What are--what are some of the levels of
    benzene that are being recorded on land by OSHA's monitors.
        Ms. Subra. I'm sorry. I couldn't quite understand.
        Mr. Burgess. The OSHA monitors that are now up and
    deployed, what are the levels of benzene that they are--they
    are recording.
        Ms. Subra. The amounts of benzene that they are picking up
    on the land----
        Mr. Burgess. On the land.
        Ms. Subra [continuing]. In the six monitoring locations do
    not exceed the ambient standard in Louisiana, but they are very
    close to the ambient standard. And the ambient standards are
    established to determine where in the general area it exceeds
    that standard and what are the sources and work on reducing the
    sources.
        Mr. Burgess. So is that the 1.4 parts per billion standard.
        Ms. Subra. Yes.
        Mr. Burgess. And to date with--with the people complaining
    of the odor from the--from the spill, those--those levels are
    not being exceeded.
        Ms. Subra. The benzene level, but the cumulative impacts of
    all the chemicals, all the volatiles that are being detected,
    the cumulative impacts are sufficient to cause the health
    impacts. And we have asked over and over again for an analysis
    of the semi-volatiles and they have not started that yet.
        Mr. Burgess. The EPA has not.
        Ms. Subra. EPA, correct.
        Mr. Burgess. On the--would it be surprising to learn that
    the--the application that was submitted by BP to the Minerals
    Management Service suggested that they did not have to provide
    environmental data in a worst case scenario.
        I know Mr. Dingell and myself brought that--this up at our
    very, very first hearing, and the application that BP submitted
    was woefully inadequate, so shame on them for not--not filling
    that application out but shame on Minerals Management Service
    for not taking that application back to them and saying, this
    is not acceptable. You will have to show us how you are going
    to mitigate the environmental effects. If you're drilling a
    well that is capable of producing a hundred thousand barrels of
    oil today, if this thing gets away from us, you are going to
    have to show us how you are going to mitigate those effects.
    But that, unfortunately, was lacking in the application
    submitted to MMS.
        Mr. Linn, let me just ask you a question. I am so concerned
    about your--and I appreciate that the SBA has been good to work
    with, but having to run a business myself, I understand when
    you start borrowing for operational expenses, you can only do
    that for so long. Are you the--the sole signatory on those SBA
    loans.
        Mr. Linn. My wife and I. It's a corporation.
        Mr. Burgess. Is there--is there a line there where BP can
    sign on.
        Mr. Linn. That's what I'm sure hoping you can find, but
    they have not offered it yet.
        Mr. Burgess. One thing, if they go away as a consequence of
    this, then you are going to be left holding those loans; is
    that correct?
        Mr. Linn. Totally, yes.
        Mr. Burgess. You know, that just seems like an
    unsatisfactory arrangement, one we should try to remedy.
        Mr. Linn. It's--it's like being on the second floor of a
    building on fire though. You have a choice of burning up or
    jumping and taking a 50 percent chance you will live on the
    fall. That's why we are getting loans. We--we know BP's not
    going to hold up at this point in time within a timely fashion.
        Mr. Burgess. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Dr. Burgess. Mr. Braley for
    questions, please.
        Mr. Braley. Dr. Solangi and Ms. Subra, I want to follow up
    the point that Dr. Burgess was just raising because it seems
    like this process was upside down and backwards from the
    beginning in terms of the leasing approval process and the
    environmental analysis. Because we know that the way the courts
    have traditionally looked at this type of environmental impact
    analysis, they are supposed to have a more exacting review of
    that environmental impact as drilling becomes eminent, and yet
    the exact opposite happened here; because we know that the
    multi-sale economic impact statement done in the preliminary
    stages of the review did examine the possibility of a larger
    offshore spill for these particular leases and, even though it
    never just analyzed the impact of those spills, it reached the
    conclusion that a spill larger than 10,000 barrels had greater
    than a 99 percent chance of happening during the 40-year lease
    period under consideration. And yet despite that information in
    the permitting process, a conclusion was reached by MMS that an
    offshore spill larger than 1,000 barrels would not have a
    significant environmental impact. What do you think of that
    conclusion, Dr. Solangi?
        Mr. Solangi. I think it was inadequate. Those are all
    hypothetical considerations and really, you know, it wasn't
    about those practices.
        Mr. Braley. Ms. Subra.
        Ms. Subra. I think it's almost impossible to have a spill
    the size that they said and not have any environmental impact,
    and yet this obviously got accepted and the process moved
    forward.
        Mr. Braley. One of the other things we know is that BP had
    discussed a worst case scenario response in its initial
    exploration plan for this lease, which is referred to as
    Mississippi Canyon Block 252, indicating that it considered a
    potential large scale spill. And their exploration plan said
    that the worst case scenario would be a blowout at the
    exploratory stage leading to a spill of a 162,000 gallons or
    3,800 barrels per day of crude oil; and their exploration plan
    indicated that their regional oil spill response plan for a
    worst case scenario had been approved by MMS, and yet we know
    that during the hearing we had previously, the CEO of BP
    testified that they were capable of handling a release of
    250,000 barrels per day without having a disastrous impact on
    the environment.
        And yet their initial representations is this spill we've
    been talking about was releasing somewhere between a thousand
    and 5,000 barrels per day. So what do you think of BP's
    representations to MMS during the permitting process in terms
    of their capability of handling a catastrophe of this
    magnitude?
        Mr. Solangi. I think at this time they have not
    demonstrated that they had the capability of handling a
    catastrophic oil spill which was a couple hundred thousand
    barrels. I mean, right now, I believe it's more than 5,000
    barrels; and ultimately, you know, we are going to find out
    that this wasn't very well thought out.
        Mr. Braley. Ms. Subra.
        Ms. Subra. It gets back to enforcement or oversight. And if
    they put this forward as they were able to handle it, they
    should have had to have a mechanism to demonstrate they could.
    And obviously, they didn't have the capability because this
    spill hasn't been contained and has caused environmental
    damage.
        So how much, as you review these applications, do you just
    accept as face value and how much do you require them to
    provide sufficient information of how exactly they would handle
    such a situation.
        Mr. Braley. Well, one of the things that's hard for me to
    understand, given the magnitude of this spill and the region
    it's affecting, is how a company like BP can get an exemption
    at the later stages of the leasing process that prevents them
    from having to do an environmental impact study, considering
    all of these different scenarios based upon where that well is
    located. Because if you look at the regulations and then notice
    that MMS issued on May 1st of 2008, if you are in Florida, and
    Florida can be an affected state, you have to do the more
    detailed analysis.
        And, Dr. Burgess, I'm also shocked to see that if you are
    in Texas, and Texas is a potentially affected state, then
    during the initial exploration plan, you have to go into more
    detailed analysis of the impact of such a spill, and yet we
    know that in the central Gulf region where this well is located
    they are not subject to those same requirements under MMS's own
    regulations.
        So I think we need to have MMS look closely at this issue
    because I don't care where you are in the Gulf. I don't care
    how big the economic impact from the oil and gas industry, we
    have to protect the livelihoods of the people like we have here
    today. And I yield back.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Braley. Mr. Markey, questions,
    please.
        Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Subra, you
    mentioned that BP wasn't publishing BP's air quality data,
    which my staff asked EPA why not. EPA told us that it can only
    post its own quality control data, but on May 20th EPA and the
    Department of Home Land Security ordered BP to publish that
    data on its own and they have complied, and it is on BP's Web
    site if you want access to it. Have you had an opportunity to
    look at that?
        Ms. Subra. No, I haven't and I will. Thank you.
        Mr. Markey. Yes, ma'am. So I'm told that's the case that--
    --
        Ms. Subra. But it would also be great if EPA would also
    publish----
        Mr. Markey. I agree. I--I think that the more information
    we can put out there, the better. But the good news is that
    it's on BP's Web site. After today's hearing, we will make sure
    that it is vital that everyone has access to it, but it is out
    there.
        Dr. Solangi, what do you think could be the long-term
    consequences to the health of marine life as a result of
    exposure to these dispersants?
        Mr. Solangi. I think it can be devastating. The area that
    they are looking at is very unique. It's unlike Valdez or the
    Prince William Sound. These are bays, bayous, estuaries, muddy
    bottom, very--the flushing, you know, the tidal fluctuation is
    very minimum, one to two feet per day versus 10 to 12 in other
    areas.
        I'm sure you--you are going to hear about mud masks, you
    know, when you go to a beauty parlor or somebody--mud actually
    retains oil, and most of your mud from here on to the mouth of
    the river has mud and clay, and it's going to retain quite a
    bit of these toxicants in that mud.
        Mr. Markey. What is--what is your concern, Dr. Solangi,
    that this combination of oil and chemicals that is creating a
    toxic stew out in the Gulf of Mexico could have on the food
    chain that human beings are exposed to? Are you concerned about
    the health impacts on human beings?
        Mr. Solangi. Absolutely, sir. I think this will go through
    the food chain, smaller organisms eating larger organisms, and
    through bioaccumulation, through biomagnification, you will see
    some of these contaminates go through the system. However,
    nature has its way of trying to get rid of them, and as I've
    pointed out in my testimony, that the amount of exposure and
    the time of exposure will determine how nature will fix itself.
    Eventually it will take time to fix it. We have had, during the
    war in Iraq, 500,000 gallons was spilled in the Arabian Gulf
    and it has taken time to recover.
        But, again, there are serious consequences from the area,
    especially the wetlands and the bays and the bayous that are
    the area where critical habitat for young fish and shrimp and
    others to develop.
        Mr. Markey. So--so we could have health impacts that come
    from human beings eating seafood in the future----
        Mr. Solangi. Yes.
        Mr. Markey [continuing]. That have unfortunately been
    exposed to this toxic stew of chemicals and oil?
        Mr. Solangi. That's correct.
        Mr. Markey. And we have human beings right now who are
    being exposed to chemicals and oil that could have long-term
    negative impacts on the health of Americans.
        I just think that there should be no expense spared to
    ensure that we put in the preventative health care guarantees
    that we are not going to allow for this to affect the people
    down here in the Gulf especially, but ultimately all across the
    country. Because this food chain starts here, but it goes right
    up the Mississippi and right up the Atlantic coast as well.
    Many of the fish that spawn here wind up being caught by
    fishermen up in George's bank off of New England. Dr. Solangi.
        Mr. Solangi. Yes, sir. You could--you could take over my
    job.
        You have very eloquently summarized my testimony.
        Mr. Markey. Well, again, I'm only reflecting your
    testimony, what you say in your testimony.
        Mr. Solangi. Yes, sir. It's very appropriate and you
    eloquently summarized what I was wanting to say.
        Mr. Markey. It is--it is powerful what we are hearing here
    today. This is----
        Mr. Solangi. And one of the things we do is by monitoring
    the dolphins, being on top of the food chain, like we are on
    top of the food chain in the terrestrial environment, the
    smaller fish eat larger fish and eventually the dolphins become
    the good canary in the mind. And by monitoring them, we can
    monitor the environment. What ultimately happens to the
    dolphins will happen to us.
        Mr. Markey. You have--all of you have laid out a
    blistering, scalding indictment of what BP has left as a legacy
    for the Gulf for the generation to come. We--we very much
    empathize with all of your problems, and we are going to try to
    do our best to make sure that BP and the federal government are
    there for you as long as we have to.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Stupak. Ms. DeGette, questions, please.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much. Dr. Solangi, I want to
    follow up please on--on the questions about dolphins because
    you said that so far you have seen eight to nine dolphins that
    have--treated that have not had oil damage. I--I assume you
    expect to see some oil damage as it works its way up that food
    chain?
        Mr. Solangi. Absolutely. This time of the year, this is the
    birthing grounds for the dolphins. We have approximately 3 to
    5,000 dolphins that inhabit the area from Breton, Chandeleur,
    and Mississippi Sound. They come to shallow waters to give
    birth, so we have double jeopardy. We have a whole bunch of
    baby dolphins and baby turtles all out there, and these are
    very inquisitive animals. They go into these lakes. The first
    thing they do is they inhale, they have respiratory problems,
    then they have skin problems and they contaminate the fish.
        Ms. DeGette. How long would you expect to see before you
    start seeing those effects?
        Mr. Solangi. I would say in the next couple of weeks we
    will start seeing many of these mammals coming to shore.
        Ms. DeGette. We heard last night from the Fish and Wildlife
    Service from the state that there were about a hundred dolphins
    that they had seen, only one confirmed died from oil damage,
    but they are also expecting to see more, so we should expect to
    see these--these impacts occur. And--and do you have any
    projection about how--how large the impact will be on these
    dolphins?
        Mr. Solangi. I think it could be a very serious
    consequence. As I mentioned, we have about 3 to 5,000 estimated
    in this area; and with the large number of young babies having
    being born, it could be very serious.
        Ms. DeGette. Ms. Subra, I had a question based largely on
    the fact that I'm from Colorado where heat stress is not a big
    worker issue. And my question is: You talked about how people
    are being--workers are taking--being told to take off their
    respirators and not use them because of the--of the heat
    stress.
        Is there some kind of a--a way that people can't--that we
    can treat both of those issues at once, that they can both use
    the respirators so that they don't suffer, so that they don't
    inhale these contaminates, and at the same time that they can
    be relieved from this heat stress?
        Ms. Subra. OK. First of all, they are not giving them the
    respirator in the first place, but they are using the heat
    stress as a reason not to give it to them.
        Ms. DeGette. Not to give it to them.
        Ms. Subra. Yes. Right.
        Ms. DeGette. But is there a way they both have to use the
    respirator and also treat them for stress?
        Ms. Subra. Sure.
        Ms. DeGette. And how would that work?
        Ms. Subra. One of the ways you avoid the heat stress is you
    provide sufficient shade and enough cool liquids to keep you
    hydrated.
        Ms. DeGette. OK.
        Ms. Subra. And then if you are hydrated and you are not
    being impacted by the heat, then you can use the respirator and
    work----
        Ms. DeGette. Right.
        Ms. Subra [continuing]. And not have it stress your body
    that much more.
        Ms. DeGette. But that would seem like to me--seem like to
    me that the breathing was really related to the coolness and
    the shade part?
        Ms. Subra. Right. And it's difficult to breathe through a
    respirator, but you have to remember that the majority of the
    people, even though we have heard testimony differently, are
    fishers from this local area or that's what we had gotten an
    agreement on.
        Ms. DeGette. Right.
        Ms. Subra. And those fishers are used to working on the
    water----
        Ms. DeGette. In heat.
        Ms. Subra [continuing]. For long periods of time in the
    heat and the sun.
        So if they provide them with what they need and don't
    depend on the fishers to bring out sufficient food, drinks, and
    a mechanism of shade, then they can work with the respirators
    and not stress their bodies----
        Ms. DeGette. Right.
        Ms. Subra [continuing]. And protect their bodies.
        Ms. DeGette. I'd like to hear Mr. Duplessis' opinion on
    this because he's been fishing in these waters.
        Mr. Duplessis. I think BP's thing with the respirators is
    more of a public relations thing, if for the camera, see these
    people with respirators. They going to say, hey, this is
    dangerous. Even though they know it's dangerous, I think it's a
    PR thing more--more than anything else, that plus the good
    respirators are expensive. That could be part of the problem
    also.
        Ms. DeGette. So--but what--what Ms. Subra is saying is
    that, if people are inhaling these chemicals, that could be a
    very bad health damage. And what she's saying is, if you gave
    people the respirators, don't make them buy them themselves but
    BP pays for them, they put them on and they have sufficient
    shade and they have sufficient hydration, they could both have
    the respirator to protect their health but also not get the
    heat stress. Would you agree with that?
        Mr. Duplessis. Exactly. The people down here are used to
    the heat and--and the humidity. I think it would be less
    stressful on the body with the heat rather than the fumes.
        Ms. DeGette. Yes, right.
        Mr. Duplessis. And less harmful, no doubt less harmful.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you
    for coming and sharing your wisdom with us. There's--there's no
    substitute for going out in the field and hearing exactly
    what's happening. We really, really appreciate it. We have
    learned a lot today.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Ms. DeGette. Ms. Schakowsky for
    questions, please.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Yes. I want to echo my colleague's
    statement of gratitude. Coming here really does equip us, I
    think, with a different perspective when we go back on what
    really, not only is happening, but what needs to be done, so
    thank you very, very much.
        I would--used to spend a week every summer with my family
    at the Navarre Beach, which is right next to the national
    lakeshore near Pensacola on that--in that amazing white sand,
    sugar white sand beach; and I saw a piece on television last
    night where one of the local officials had called on BP because
    there was some--there were these oil globs that they wanted BP
    to get to work on and it took a long time to get any response.
    And at the end, they--hours later, they--in any case, the
    response was inadequate from BP. It sounded to me like they
    were going to get some local, either volunteers or government,
    so I have a couple of questions.
        One, what has been the experience in terms of the timing of
    the response for help from the--the requests for help from BP?
    And, secondly, what has been the state and local response and
    is there decent coordination going on.
        One of the things that we thought when we came down for the
    hearing on Katrina was that the bureaucratic stacks of various
    levels of government really postponed the kind of responses
    that should have happened. So first, Mr. Linn, if you would
    tell us your experience?
        Mr. Linn. Dauphin Island itself, which as I said, we are
    the little brother of the Alabama coast line, we actually had
    an adept amount of preparation and almost an overkill at the
    time. They were using us as a staging ground. It became pretty
    much the command center, shall we say, for clean harbors,
    O'Brien Interstate. All of the major cleanup contractors had
    been hired by BP.
        Also in Mobile was a--was a strong strategic point, so we--
    we had a lot of people wandering around, hundreds of people
    wandering around on the beach in HAZMAT suits when there was
    absolutely nothing there, which also had its own issues.
        You may have seen the child in the swimming water--in the
    swimming suit playing on the beach with the HAZMAT people
    behind them walking around. That made national news and helped
    us a lot.
        Besides that, our initial preparation was we did have
    people on the ground when it came time. They are working in the
    range of 20 to 30 minutes, an hour we were told, again, because
    of the heat stress issues that are going on out there.
        Orange Beach and Gulf Shores seem to be much less prepared,
    and I don't know if that was from government response, local
    effort. I really don't know about what happened there. It is my
    understanding, though, that they were going after quick
    training to try to pull unemployed folks in the area to get
    them out there and start helping.
        I think part of the problem is they did not think it was
    going to get to them.
        Dauphin Island is always sort of on the west side of the
    bay. We sort of catch all the grief and all the stuff. Mobile
    Bay comes out and washes to the--to the west. I think everybody
    is surprised at the enormity of this thing and that it's now at
    Navarre, that's it's now at Pensacola, and that Apalachicola is
    right down the road.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So, again, one of the things you want
    people to know is that Dauphin Island has talk come on down for
    the summer; is that what you want people to say----
        Mr. Linn. Yes.
        Ms. Schakowsky [continuing]. To hear that, you know----
        Mr. Linn. We would have liked to have seen that, but now
    even that's a hard thing to explain. Even on our own Web site,
    the first thing on our home page is a 0 to 5 impact. We had to
    do it. I mean we're an upfront company. You tell people to come
    down, but when we have odors in the air, we have tar balls on
    the beach, changing environment every day, National Guard on
    one end of the island, three command centers on the island,
    it's--it's not--and sand--sand protection, sand barriers, which
    we are so glad they are there, but you got to climb over to see
    a beach let alone get to it. We are not a vacation heaven right
    now.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Got it. Any other comments about the role
    of local, state, and federal government and how that
    coordination is going, any other comments on that?
        Mr. Duplessis. Well, down in Plaquemines Parish, which is
    more or less the epicenter, in the beginning was mass chaos. We
    had people and news media and BP and everyone was crowding down
    to Venice, Louisiana. That's where most of the boats were
    leaving out, Venice. That was the closest land point from--from
    the--the actual rig site. And it was--it was pretty bad at
    first, but now it's--it's kind of calming down.
        But it seems in this area it's been a parish by parish
    operation. Each parish is doing things a little differently
    from the next parish. It's not like during the hurricane
    evacuations when all--everybody is--you know, it's been planned
    and we evacuate and things run smoothly with the contraflow and
    everything all the way up to Mississippi. Everybody is pulling
    together. But this thing here--and nobody--no one with plans.
    It was a surprise. We were ambushed, but now it's--it's--the
    local government's kind of getting it together.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        Mr. Stupak. Mrs. Christensen for five minutes.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Solangi, you said that the dolphins can be the canary
    in the mine or in this case the sea, I guess, when you were
    talking about the food chain, the impact of the ingestion of
    oil toxins in the food chain. What is--what do we know about
    the impact on dolphins living ingesting oil toxins, at least,
    or other sea life that has ingested oil toxins? What has been
    the impact on the dolphins?
        Mr. Solangi. OK. We have been studying dolphins for the
    last 20 or 30 years. We are part of the stranding network. Any
    animal that dies, we get to bring him and do necropsies and
    pathologies. And I have in the room Dr. Chevis who's our
    veterinarian, does an outstanding job with us since 1993; and
    we have been able to develop some sort of a background profile
    and by studying the environment and the animals, we have really
    positioned to understand what is going to happen to this
    particular--in this environment in response to this particular
    episode. So we not only see what the ingestion is going to do,
    but what the other environmental factors. We swim in it. The
    animals swim in this. We eat the food, they eat the food, so it
    is--it is a good model.
        And that is one of the things that I think we are capable
    of doing, that we'll be using one particular model to give us a
    big broad understanding of what may be happening. When you see
    a large number of animals showing up on the beaches, we can be
    assured that we would be next.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Dr. Solangi. Mr. Linn and Mr.
    Duplessis, I'm concerned about workers that--I'm assuming you
    have employees. Have you had to layoff employees during this
    period? And if not you, what about other people in your
    industries and what is happening with those workers that might
    have been laid off? Are they being employed by BP or are they
    just still looking for work.
        Mr. Linn. From a--of course, the individual, the oysterman,
    the fisherman, that group, a lot of them are under contract or
    have at least been able get some sort of income started up. The
    retail businesses, the real estate businesses, property
    management companies, most are taking--I know of some layoffs
    that have already taken place. In our particular case,
    actually, we added a person to handle the overflow in the
    deterioration that was going on.
        Back to the small business loan, I hate to bring it up, but
    that's another reason is our primary interest is to keep the
    employees that we have. It's been a family effort, not as
    family goes, but they have worked for us for years, so we are
    their only hope on that island. There's no other jobs. You
    can't go to work for Wal-Mart.
        We have 20 to 25 contractors that work the base, that fix
    houses, that do all of these things. Without having companies
    such as ours, and this is across the board, I don't know where
    people are going to turn. They are an independent bunch. That's
    why they are there. So I really don't know what they are going
    to do.
        I hope--I hope that somehow with your help in this whole
    situation, we will be able to turn the tide and survive, and I
    think they all feel the same way.
        Mr. Duplessis. Our company is a small family company also.
    And most of the workers that we employ are deckhands that work
    seasonal. And when I don't work, they don't work, so they are
    not employed either.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I think I'll yield back my
    time.
        Just let me, again, join my colleagues in thanking all four
    of you and the previous panel for coming out and testifying and
    sharing this information with us. Thanks.
        Mr. Stupak. Before I recognize the gentleman from
    Louisiana, I would point out that when you gave me that lighted
    pendant for St. Bernard's Parish, I didn't know I'd be yielding
    five minutes to you sitting here; so I would yield to Mr.
    Melancon for five minutes.
        Mr. Melancon. Thank you, Mr. Braley. Let me--let me try and
    put some things in perspective for the committee.
        Stafford Act applied to a natural disaster--disaster
    declaration by the president. Basically, when that disaster's
    declaration is put forth on a natural disaster, all agencies,
    everything the government has can be applied.
        Under NORA, the event of national impact, it is a totally
    different response because we have not the vessels, not the
    equipment, not the technology. The only thing we can basically
    put is the boots on the ground and try and help get the boom
    that's coming down and other things to make the Coast Guard, of
    course, be more forceful rather than just being--get along, go
    along, which it appeared the perception was early on.
        Wilma, it took me two weeks to get a mobile health clinic
    to Venice. There is--West Jeff has put a facility on Grand
    Isle, but BP would rather put people that get ill or whatever
    in an emergency unit and send them up to Lady of the Sea, which
    is about 30, 40 miles away. The closest hospital to Venice is
    about 80 miles away, which is Ochsner across the interstate
    from Belle Chasse. So the frustrations of the expectation of
    what the government should or shouldn't or could or couldn't
    have done is kind of out there and it's blurred, and so there's
    frustrations all around.
        One last point: After Katrina in an effort--because
    Stafford Act was not adequate and we are finding out that the
    National Oil Spill Response is not adequate and we need to
    reform and amend and take care--Because this isn't a spill,
    this is a leak. And Katrina, Stafford Act didn't take care of
    all our problems and we found reforms we had to do there
    because it lacked adequacy.
        So with those two things, regardless, I am finding in our
    first hearing that an agency of the federal government waived
    the law so that a permit could be issued to drill, and I
    couldn't get a federal agency to waive a rule after Katrina to
    help the people in this region. Waiving a law, I don't think--I
    think that's basically breaking a law, so we need to look as
    deep as--as possible to find out what's going on with that.
        What little time I have left, let me offer to--and since
    you are one of my constituents, Mr. Duplessis--the four of you,
    if you've got anything that you have not been asked or you wish
    that you would like to express, please?
        Mr. Duplessis, first, if you have got anything or if
    anybody else has anything they would like to just add?
        Mr. Duplessis. Just one little comment. The gentleman here
    was talking about the dolphins. My wife is heartbroken because
    one of her favorite things to do was when we were shrimping to
    hand feed the dolphins. When we would shut down at the end of
    the day or go on anchor, she would hand feed the dolphins. I
    couldn't get her to work for two hours. That's all. And it's
    going to be sad if we lose these dolphins.
        Mr. Melancon. Mr. Linn?
        Mr. Linn. I think we have really--I think you have asked
    some very astute questions, and I hope that we have kind of
    given you a feeling for one of the frustrations that really the
    dire straights we--we truly are in at this point in time.
        Mr. Melancon. Dr. Solangi.
        Mr. Solangi. I think the reason why people are here is the
    way of life. If that changes, it could be a very significant
    impact, not only on this region, but for the entire country.
    There's a huge impact. It's just not a Mississippi, Louisiana,
    Alabama issue. And I think nobody should look at it prudently
    that we should go into emotional decisions, but let's make some
    good decisions, rationale decisions so that everything is
    balanced. I think that's what gets lost in, you know, panic
    situations where you lose rationale. And so there's a lot of
    things that we need to think about and fix and make sure that
    this never happens again.
        Ms. Subra. In that same vein, I think we have to be very
    aware as we go through it because each day there's a new issue,
    a new rule that comes forward and accumulate that information
    as well as what happens when the flow stops and how long it
    takes. After that, learn from those and put together some
    mechanism.
        I wanted to respond to her issue of them not responding
    quickly. When the slick hit St. Mary, Iberia, and Vermillion,
    BP said that they could not respond and start doing any cleanup
    until they had samples taken and analyzed to be sure it was
    proven to be their crude oil. And if that's the same thing
    that's happening as the slick is moving in Mississippi and
    Alabama and Florida, that's something--it's clearly coming from
    the rig site and moving across the Gulf. There's no question
    whose it is. And that you lose very valuable time in addressing
    the problem immediately versus waiting three, five or seven
    days for the lab to get the results back.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Melancon.
        During Katrina, Mr. Melancon kept our committees deep in
    the fire, as I mentioned when we came down here. But we're
    going to have more of these hearings for the regulators to
    waive the rule. We will have those hearings probably later this
    month; and if we are not doing the formal hearings as Charlie
    insisted we did on Katrina, we would invite the parties up and
    we would put them in the room and tell them the results of
    these differences and cut through the red tape.
        So I just want you to know your delegation, especially, Mr.
    Melancon--because we saw him on Katrina--is always there
    representing and fighting for your interest.
        With that, Mr. Scalise, questions, please. Five minutes.
        Mr. Scalise. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.
        I know one of the many things that we are dealing with and
    fighting with is trying to maintain the integrity of--of what
    Louisiana seafood means, and obviously for so long we had built
    that up. It's a--it's a prized commodity. It's--Our chefs are
    world famous in many ways because of the things that they have
    done and taught the world how to do with Louisiana seafood. I
    don't think there's anything better than the taste of a fresh
    Louisiana oyster.
        With that, Mr. Duplessis, there's a lot of people that have
    misunderstandings. You know, there is tremendous testing done.
    And anybody who can buy Louisiana seafood today, they are
    getting good quality seafood. The problem is how limited is
    that commodity and how much is available, how much will be
    available in the future.
        Can you tell me, first, how many seafood beds are--are
    still open today because they're in areas where there's no oil
    versus how many are closed because of the threat of the oil
    right now?
        Mr. Duplessis. Today, I can't tell you. Yesterday, we had--
    I think out of 14 areas, there was like six areas open for the
    oysters. I can't be certain of that.
        But the shrimping, there's a small area left on the--on the
    West Bank that's still open and the East Bank is--I'd say 80
    percent of the East Bank is open presently, but they are
    talking about starting to close it.
        Mr. Scalise. You are talking about the East Bank of the
    Mississippi River----
        Mr. Duplessis. Right, right. I'm sorry.
        Mr. Scalise [continuing]. For my colleagues that don't
    know.
        Mr. Duplessis. The East Bank of the Mississippi River.
    That's from the Mississippi state line to Mississippi--I mean
    to the Mississippi River. I'm sorry.
        But what's happening with the shrimping, because all the
    other areas are closed, it's caused a concentration of boats in
    one area and the shrimp can't handle that being pounded round
    the clock so hard. And what's happening is the shrimp are
    leaving. When normally they would stay, they are leaving, so
    it's a problem. It's--we don't have the area to work. We have a
    lot more people that are working the small areas that are left.
        And the oysters, right now the oyster industry is faced
    with a lot of regulations that just started this year with us
    with the refrigeration requirements and all this other stuff,
    and this is also a problem for the oyster fisheries because the
    oystermen have to move to different areas in order to work and
    it puts them further away from home base and it's creating a
    problem with--with the guys that have refrigeration and don't
    have refrigeration.
        Mr. Scalise. Yes. And I know, you know, a lot's still being
    done to try to--to mitigate the disaster. Early off everybody
    was talking about what they are going to do after the oil hit,
    and so many of our people were saying hold on a second, we want
    to be proactive. We want to stop the oil before it hits the
    marsh because, once it gets into the marsh, it's going to be a
    whole different challenge, a much tougher challenge to clean it
    out than if you just keep it out in the first place.
        And that's why we, of course, the top priority is still to
    get this--this well plugged but also to--to put a barrier in
    front of the marsh so that the oyster stays away from the marsh
    and the seafood beds and then hopefully stops any of the real
    long-term damage from being done to areas that haven't already
    experienced it, so that's something that we have to continue to
    push.
        One of the things I wanted to ask about. We hear all of
    these ideas and there's--I'm sure Charlie and I, at least, and
    the others on the committee, we get more ideas from people; and
    some, you know, maybe somebody didn't get enough sleep and some
    sound like they are brilliant ideas and you wonder why they are
    not getting tried. And you see the hay that's put in the water
    and it absorbs the oil, you've heard of the super tankers in
    Saudi Arabi, you've got--Kevin Costner came here with a machine
    that--that transfers--displaces the oil from the water.
        You don't see any of these being tried. There's more than
    enough good ideas that they should all be being tried
    throughout the Gulf right now; and if 10 of them work and 20 of
    them don't, you--you do more of the 10 that work and you keep
    doing more. But it just frustrates all of us to see that
    nothing is being tried from all of these brilliant ideas that
    you've heard. Have you--have you seen any of these put into
    action from all the things that you have seen and heard?
        Mr. Duplessis. No, I have not. And I don't know why BP--it
    would--it would seem that it would be in BP's best interest to
    try some of these ideas because it would help them to get this
    thing cleaned up. And I really don't know.
        We were talking about Kevin Costner. The last I heard about
    that is he was going to come in this area and demonstrate it,
    and I haven't heard anything from them.
        Mr. Scalise. And I saw the demonstration. It looked like it
    worked. We have got to try some of these things. That's why we
    need a real chain of command instead of everybody's in charge
    and nobody's in charge and nothing's getting done.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Stupak. Thanks, Steve. Thanks for your help coming down
    too. Well, that concludes all questions. I want to thank our
    witnesses for coming today and thank you for your testimony.
        I want to thank St. Bernard Parish for being a gracious
    host. Their staff has been great to work with in lending us
    this building today.
        And also, the area of Chalmette, we appreciate the--the
    opportunity to be here with you. Our committee is continuing a
    thoughtful investigation of this incident. We are looking at
    all the major factors and all the major entities that play a
    role or should have prevented this disaster from happening.
    This subcommittee will continue to investigate and hold
    hearings until we get the answers that we are looking for, and
    at times we will order members of those responsible parties
    into Washington. We will try to get them to work out some of
    these problems that are confronting the local residents that's
    why it's so important for us to be down here to learn
    firsthand, so we thank you for being here.
        We plan on three more hearings yet this month just in this
    incident alone, so we just don't do one hearing and forget
    about it and leave. We are going to stay with you through this
    whole process.
        We would ask some of the witnesses to supplement your
    testimony. We would like you to do that, if you could, within
    ten days. And members will also have ten days to submit
    questions that we can address to the appropriate witnesses.
    Again, thank you all for being here. That concludes our
    hearing. The meeting of the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, the subcommittee was adjourned.]