He placed blame both on the oil industry for not adequately self-regulating and on Congress for underfunding the Minerals Management Service, the now-defunct agency in charge of offshore drilling oversight.

Reflecting on a long day of presentations on the April 20 Macondo well explosion, Reilly said, “I’m conscious of the fact that what we heard about were apparently a lot of decisions that were difficult to explain or look like they were just plain wrong.” But he did not elaborate, even amid criticism of one of the commission staff’s key findings: that the companies involved in the well explosion did not deliberately favor cutting costs over safety.

Co-chairman Bob Graham, in his closing remarks, suggested that mistakes were made due to the pressure to complete work on the Macondo well by April 20. “There seemed to be a compulsion to get this rig completed in that April 19, April 20 time period and as a result of that a number of things that might have made the outcome quite different were differed or abandoned,” he said.

The Gulf oil spill prompted Obama to call for a national oil spill commission to improve offshore drilling standards. (Erik Lesser/ZUMApress.com)

Former Obama administration Minerals Management Service Director Elizabeth Birnbaum, who resigned amid criticism of the agency in the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill, spoke publicly today for the first time since leaving her post in May. In testimony before the national oil spill commission, Birnbaum painted a picture of an extremely flawed agency and offered a number of recommendations for its restructuring.

Birnbaum said MMS’s review of oil spill response plans was “woefully lacking.” She also said the agency did not have sufficient resources and funding to perform adequate environmental reviews of projects or to hire enough inspectors to oversee offshore development. At the same time, Birnbaum, like many others, noted that there was a too cozy relationship between industry and the inspectors put in charge of enforcing safety regulations.

Birnbaum’s testimony was part of a day-long meeting of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. The commission — which is co-chaired by former Senator Bob Graham and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William Reilly — was established by President Obama in a May executive order. In opening remarks, Graham called the spill an “enormous and shared failure.”

The commission has been criticized by Republicans and some Democrats, who argue that the panel is too heavily weighted toward opposing offshore drilling. The criticism has focused on the inclusion on the commission of Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke, who has supported the Obama administration’s deepwater drilling moratorium.

Though the meeting included several panels, Birnbaum’s was the most anticipated. Birnbaum testified along with two former Bush administration MMS directors: Thomas Kitsos, who served as acting MMS director from Jan. 2001 to Nov. 2001, and Randall Luthi, who headed the agency from July 2007 to Jan. 2009.

Birnbaum called on the commission to make a number of recommendations as the administration moves forward with restructuring MMS. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has already disbanded MMS and established a new agency, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. The bureau will oversee offshore drilling and renewable energy activities as the administration and the commission continue to determine how best to organize offshore drilling activities within the Interior Department.

Birnbaum said that the environmental review function of the Interior Department’s offshore drilling oversight should be elevated. But she stressed that it is important to maintain communication between the permitting and environmental review arms, as they go hand in hand. Salazar has recommended creating three separate agencies with the Interior Department to work on offshore drilling: one to deal with permitting, another that focuses on environmental review, and a third that collects revenue.

The commission should call for a “comprehensive overhaul” of offshore drilling regulations that improves communication within MMS, requires “double and triple checking” of drilling activities, and updates standards for environmental review, Birnbaum said. She noted that MMS was in the process of developing new safety and environmental rules and the commission should “insist that the regulations be finalized.” But new regulations should not be limited to MMS. Birnbaum also called for a “broader review of oil and gas regulations” at all relevant agencies.

To improve environmental reviews, Birnbaum advocated expanding oversight to other agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “All responsible agencies should review industry plans and reviewers must be held to higher standards,” she said.

Lastly, Birnbaum outlined the complexities involved in trying to change the culture of MMS. Because inspectors have to live on the Gulf coast to have access to offshore rigs, Birnbaum said it is difficult to separate them from the oil industry, which maintains a massive presence in the region.

Citing a series of scathing reports that found inspectors have accepted gifts from industry, Birnbaum said, “Inspectors who accepted gifts had extensive social, community, family relationships with industry.” Even if new inspectors were hired, “those inspectors would still have to live there,” she said, highlighting the difficulty of separating MMS employees from the industry. In addition, she said, it is difficult to hire inspectors who do not have connections to industry because “historically, people with experience working in the industry, have had the experience necessary to be inspectors.”

There are some potential solutions, including imposing penalties on industry officials who give gifts to MMS employees, but Birbaum said the commission should go “well beyond the technical standards to review all aspects of” the industry in order to address these underlying issues.

Commission members also pushed Birnbaum on her involvement in the Obama administration’s March decision to expand offshore drilling, a decision made before the April Gulf oil spill. Birnbaum said she had “extensive discussions” with administration officials on the expansion, warning them that new drilling would require additional resources to oversee environmental reviews and to hire new staff. But, she said, “In the end, I supported the administration’s decision.”

Earlier in the meeting, it came out that the administration did not work closely with two key federal bodies responsible for environmental oversight in making its decision to expand offshore drilling. White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairwoman Nancy Sutley said the council was not “specifically asked for anything” in the run-up to President Obama’s decision. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrator Jane Lubchenco said the agency was consulted in making the decision, but “was not in a position” to offer its approval of the final plan.

The revelation appears to be in stark contrast to March remarks by President Obama announcing the new offshore drilling plan, which would have allowed drilling along the lower part of the East coast and in parts of the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Obama said he had worked with members of his administration for more than a year to develop the plan. But the testimony of Sutley and Lubchenco indicates that the administration did not work closely with at least two key federal bodies responsible for the protection of the environment and the oceans — issues that have taken on new importance in the aftermath of the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

In addition, Lubchenco said NOAA was not asked specifically if it had the resources to oversee the environmental reviews associated with additional drilling. In fact, Lubchenco said earlier at the meeting, “We are seriously hampered by lack of resources to do many of these [reviews], especially under the time frames that are required.” Under the law, there is a 30-day time frame for certain environmental reviews.

At the end of today’s meeting, the commission heard testimony from two officials with the American Petroleum Institute — the oil and gas industry’s most powerful trade group. API has authored a number or safety standards for the industry, on which MMS relied too heavily in overseeing offshore drilling, administration officials have acknowledged. John Modine, director of global industry services at API, said the industry is working to improve its safety record, but defended the current system.

“[I]t is also important to recognize the strengths of a system that has helped avoid incidents. This system – expanded and improved in many ways over the years – provides a solid foundation to build on for all who want to enhance safety,” he said.

The commission is headed by Bob Graham, the former Florida governor and senator, and William Reilly, the former Environmental Protection Agency administrator. Obama said that he has tasked Graham and Reilly with “thoroughly [examining] the spill and its causes so that we never face such a catastrophe again” — investigating the causes of the Deepwater Horizon incident and authoring a report on how to “prevent and mitigate” such disasters in the future. He said the report is due in six months. The BP oil drilling site is still gushing thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, 40 days since the first explosion.

“We have an obligation to determine what went wrong and the reposnse needed,” Obama said. “If the laws on our books are insufficient to prevent such a spill, the laws must change. If oversight is insufficient to prevent such a spill, oversight must be reformed.” He described the Minerals Management Service, the BP well’s regulator, as “plagued by corruption” and “appalling activity.” He also bashed the “cozy relationship” between oil companies and regulators — promising “aggressive new standards.”

In light of current controversy about CIA briefing practices, I was surprised to learn that the agency erroneously listed an appropriations staffer as being in a key briefing on September 19, 2006, when in fact he was not. The list the agency released entitled “Member Briefings on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs)”, shows that House Appropriations Committee defense appropriations staffer Paul Juola was in that briefing on that date. In fact, Mr. Juola recollects that he walked members to the briefing room, met General Hayden and Mr.Walker, who were the briefers, and was told that he could not attend the briefing. We request that you immediately correct this record.

You can see the CIA’s briefing schedule if you click through this Wall Street Journal piece. I’ve asked CIA for a response and will update if and when I get one.

The Agency conducted a thorough and conservative review of its files, and we were in close contact with Senator Graham as we did so. What we told Sen. Graham was that our records show he was briefed once on enhanced interrogation techniques in September 2002. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t briefed on other occasions on detainee interrogations. The briefing chart provided to Congress last week focused solely on briefings during which enhanced interrogation techniques were discussed–not on other briefings related to the interrogation program.

According to this explanation, Graham is confused about what the CIA actually was telling him about what they had briefed him on. Apparently, according to this official, there have briefings for him and others about other aspects of interrogations that didn’t involve discussing “enhanced interrogation” techniques. Graham, though, has said he has no documentation for three briefings that CIA told him it held for him in 2002 — two in April and one of September.

Additionally, Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, sent out the following message to CIA employees earlier this afternoon, the first such message after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accused the agency of “misleading” Congress about what it told intelligence overseers on torture in 2002 and 2003. It’s called “Turning Down The Volume.” Text after the jump.

There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.

Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

My advice — indeed, my direction — to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.

We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. Our task is to tell it like it is—even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.

In other words, don’t pay attention to Pelosi; don’t mislead Congress; and get — that — dirt off your shoulder. Notice Panetta is saying that CIA briefed “truthfully” in 2002 on what interrogation techniques “had been employed” on Abu Zubaydah but it’s still “up to Congress” about whether those briefings were, in fact, truthful. If Congress determines such briefings were untruthful, though, will Panetta accept criminal penalties for an act that would violate “our laws and our values”?

The CIA, when I asked them what were the dates the briefings took place, gave me four dates, and I went back to my spiral notebooks and a daily schedule I keep, and the F– and the CIA concurred that on three of those four dates there was no briefing held.

I asked Little again if he wanted to confirm or deny this and I’m waiting on a response. But it’s worth pointing out that when the CIA issued its briefing timeline — you can read it if you click through this Siobhan Gorman story at The Wall Street Journal — it only lists one briefing for Graham, held on Sept. 27, 2002. That would seem to corroborate his story, on the face of it.

Oh, and Graham continues to back Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) by saying that he wasn’t told that the CIA waterboarded Abu Zubaydah or any other detainee.

When I asked the CIA when was I briefed, they gave me four dates, two in April and two in September of ’02. On three of the four occasions, when I consulted my schedule and my notes, it was clear that no briefing had taken place, and the CIA eventually concurred in that. So their record keeping is a little bit suspect.

If Graham is telling the truth, then the CIA is aware of at least some errors in its timeline of congressional briefings, which gives an additional layer of meaning to CIA Director Leon Panetta’s statement that “in the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened.” And if Graham is right about identifying three errors, it raises the question about whether there are other errors, and if CIA will update its account of the congressional briefings.

The question might be raised, but it’s not answered. I asked CIA spokesman George Little whether Graham is telling the truth and he declined comment.

“On that specific point I totally disagree. Over the 20 years I’ve been here, I’ve been briefed constantly by the CIA, and I’d say they’ve told me the truth as they see it.”

It’s been my experience that any attempt to generalize about the CIA is wrong. It’s not an organization of liars and it’s not an organization of torturers and it’s not an organization of liberals and it’s not an organization of barbarians and it’s not an organization of brave truth-tellers and it’s not an organization of risk-averse bureaucrats and it’s not an organization of lawbreakers and it’s not an organization of whiz kids and it’s not an organization of mediocrities. But come on.

The greatest intelligence officer the CIA ever produced was convicted of lying to Congress. I regret that I don’t have my copy of Tim Weiner’s definitive “Legacy of Ashes” handy to document quickly how routinely the CIA lied to Congress through its history.

More evidence needs to be introduced before concluding that the CIA lied to Pelosi. But no additional evidence needs to be introduced to conclude that it wouldn’t.

Today, though, Pelosi openly dared the CIA to escalate. “I am saying that the C.I.A. was misleading the Congress and at the same the administration was misleading the Congress on weapons of mass destruction,” she said in a press conference. You can read Marcy on that, too. I’ve got a request out to CIA for a response and will post it when I have it.

Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and Robert Windrem at the Daily Beast further develop the charge that the torture was about yielding information to justify the invasion of Iraq. (Wilkerson repeatedly refers to “my investigations” into Dick Cheney, which seems… bizarre. What investigations?) Josh Marshall thinks this, combined with Pelosi’s j’accuse, “has to create much more pressure to clarify what happened.” Let’s add one more piece to that — something that former State Department counselor Philip Zelikow said yesterday. Zelikow told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee that when he argued in favor of scaling back the CIA’s interrogation regime, his bureaucratic counterweights in the Bush administration would reply, “We briefed the following members of Congress — name name name name name name name — and they didn’t have a problem with this.”

Zelikow is in favor of “a thorough inquiry” into the Bush administration’s experiment with torture, “yielding a public report.” That looks increasingly where this is going.