Barbara Mikulski

We are the United States of America. There's nobody with our size and our scope.

I want the American people to believe that it has scientific independence and integrity. No gag rules. No muzzling. No selectivity of the information.

I need a sense of urgency here. We're going to fund the research. We have a sense of urgency.

I appreciate that clarification.

It's unfortunately a great scientific experiment, but we're part of it.

I'd like to know. I mean, that's the NOAA job.

So you said in moderation. And I'm going to ask you to submit for the record what additional research you think needs to be done and what needs to be done as we move forward in our appropriations.

So if that is the case and we're losing that much oil that quickly, we have to be concerned about any opportunity to reduce its impact on marine life.

There is BP security that is keeping people away from documenting the information.

The oil producing act won't let you find out what another country does.

We look forward to looking at that legislation and perhaps being joined as an early cosponsor with you.

Better information is needed to determine the window of opportunity and percentage effectiveness of dispersant application for different oil types in different environmental conditions.

But we should not say no, you may not use any dispersant, because, at the time, we were risking that which we've all seen on TV, which is large amounts of oil at the surface, which got by the skimmers and got by the burners and would end…

Well, yes, and to go to our friends--where we should have learned--lessons learned from the Valdez, which was a horrific experience for our neighbors in Alaska; they used 250,000 gallons for the whole spill.

And then who certifies the States in terms of a level of competency to test for this?

And I presume they're scientific advisors to you.

And, again, we're not bashing anybody, but here, as I understand it, EPA had concerns about the amount of dispersants being used.

Our No. 1 concern is the safety of the American people, safety of the air they breathe, and the food they eat.

It's time now to really conclude the hearing, and we thank you for your generosity of time.

I believe that we must--that we're the research and the funding for research, because whatever we do, I'm going to be sure it's independent.

There's a continuum of actions here. One is an outright ban. That, I think, has to be well founded on solid research.

When Administrator Jackson asked BP to please look into the use of a different kind of dispersant, she was essentially blown off by BP.

I'm not being critical of you and I'm not--we're looking at public policy areas where we need to really tighten up so we don't screw up.

I'm going to either ban or limit the use of dispersants, could you have the power to act unilaterally?

The UK, as I understand it, banned dispersants. That gave me pause.