we need to have a policy in place that means we will not suffer from the swings -- the impacts of >> other countries increasing oil production? >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> in just a few moments, a forum on the future of labor unions. then, the ocean energy safety advisory committee looking into ways to improve offshore drilling. the committee heard reports on the gulf oil spill and reports from the interior secretary kenneth l. lavar. -- ken salazar.

recounting a career in the oss, and a fresh look at the legend of america's first presence in debunking several myths several centuries old. also, the americanization of hawaii, beginning with the arrival of missionaries in 1820. find a complete schedule on booktv.org. sign up for alerts. >> now, a discussion on the future of labor unions in america, hosted by a university. this is 1.5 hours. >> to start the program, what i am going to do if asked each of the panel we have got to take a

minute, maybe two minutes max, and identify one dimension which is impacting it the movement today. we want to understand where the movement is today before talking about the future. talk about one item that is impacting the labor movement. it could be something impacting it positively, - 3, and would you like to start? >> yes. sure. thank you for having me here. one thing that is affecting the labor union -- labor movement right now, it is both positive and negative. to give scott walker, the mobilize their of the year award, this year. it is more than just an attack on collective bargaining. it is actually an attack on

democracy itself, because going after collective bargaining, they are going after the right to work, but they're also going after voters' rights, state rights. it was said that students in new hampshire is should now be able to vote because they are a row. that is a direct quote. they want to rewrite history. they want to take down a mural that talks about the history of maine because it was said to be to a worker oriented. taking away the strength of private-sector, trying to tie up our resources, but there is a positive side, and we are trying to do this. in wisconsin, we have organized five new universities since this battle.

1 -- [laughter] we're bringing in more so the backside and permanent increase in the number of people, and the other thing it had done the most effectively, i think, is to bring all progressive groups together. progressive groups are working together and solidarity more than ever. >> thank you. >> working in the automotive world, what is your dimension? >> well, it is for all labor movement, and it is much broader, as he was saying. there is a new social justice movement coming together, and i think that when unions are focused on everybody in society,

the great united labor table, bringing together the energy in the membership, and i hope that south is going to talk about his union it -- seth is going to talk about his union. >> ok, thank you. >> michigan, ohio, illinois, indiana, and wisconsin. i want to take a minute and reflect on what is going on in those states. it is very exciting. i think that this is an incredible moment in america. i think this is a moment when the political ground is shifting. also, in terms of the organization of people.

in ohio, there were 3000 people at the statehouse. i reminded them that six months ago, 3000 people was huge. 500 people is small. this is a challenge for us. it is a majority, not just unions, and you will see this happening across the midwest. tolet's move closer to home, the state level, and the state of michigan. >> so the first step to building that movement and across the borders is to build it with our own members. we live in a time when we have lost a lot of members and have lost a lot of opportunity.

when this country gives away the manufacturing jobs, that is 1 million families who do not top union at their dinner table or talk union to their neighbors, so we have to take are millions of members and mobilize them to build the majority we have been talking about. >> you know, there is a multiple of external challenges that we have, but as mark and others have said, i think it will be the internal things we do within our union. unions have to come together. two unions over here and two over here will never make for. -- four. it has to be a bad unions coming together, and if you believe there is strength in numbers and that we need strength to fight

those each rural programs, then we have got to bring the unions together, but we also have to truly, truly focus on localizing our members. we have to use that worker to worker process, where there are people at work sites who are actually talking. they are not just putting things on the board are getting something in the mail that they are not going to read. it had got to be communication, and that communication have got to be at the level where everybody is. i mean facebook and twitter and email and text, and wherever folks are, that is where we need to be, though it had got to be using the rank and file a lot more than we have in the past and trying to get them to feel some ownership. i have been around for over 40 years, where people have said to me, "you need to do something."

i am thankful, as well, for what is happening, because it helps us to mobilize and helps us -- it highlights the issues of who we are. >> let's move to the government sector. >> personally, i would like to thank everybody else for the opportunity to be here and participate in this panel, and from the federal side of things, i think we have both a challenge and opportunity with what is going on in the country right now, and the challenge and opportunity we really have, at the heart of that is how do we re-engaged and reenergize the federal work force which does become disenfranchised and demoralized. you avulsing the impact in the media. we have seen the attacks from congress with the federal employees. we know that government is on the verge of shutting down at midnight tomorrow.

we see an attack on benefits. we see employees characterized as overpaid, underworked, as lazy. and what this does is allow of the men and women to be disconnected, from knowing and believing that what they do matter of and that they make a contribution to the greatness of this country into our society, so what we really need to be about doing is changing the freight -- frame of reference. this is from the debate that has gone on in this country essentially from the elections of november of last year, and i think it is going to be a continuing debate, and organized labor needs to seize the opportunity to get engaged in this debate and to help frame

the debate and make folks understand that all working men and women offer something of value to this country that need to have a voice in the workplace. >> ok, we have bounced around a couple of times in our comments. wisconsin. for the people in this room, for the people watching and on c- span, what happened in wisconsin and why it is so important? >> sure. legislation was offered up by the governor and the legislature to essentially weaken or restrict collective bargaining rights for public sector unions. in response to that, the sleeping giant of organized labor rows up, and thousands of

active is -- rose up, and thousands of activists essentially took over the area. i think where we are right now, i think ultimately, whether that legislation is enacted or not will be determined by the boards. >> you made a great line. giving the best recruiter award to the governor of wisconsin. what can be done to take it managed of that situation so it does turn into recruiting could >> to actually paid a bit more of the picture of what happened in wisconsin, because we jump in right at the point of the battle. first, this governor gets elected, and he has a surplus in

his budget. he takes that surplus, and he gives major cuts to which america. he created what is a miniscule deficit, and he says, "now i have a deficit, and we are in crisis, so you have to give me something." phillie ask for a 5% contribution from the public employees and a 10% contribution from the pension plan. pension plans that were down because of the recession. here is what we found out when we started sifting through it. it was said that workers were paying too much. we found out is that they were paid less than their private- sector employees, not more. it was 25% less.

so we found out that there was a deficit. he did not have a problem with the pension. but the workers and wisconsin said they were willing to pay their pay -- their fair share. we will give you the 5% cut and the 10% from pensions, even though they are totally unjustified and that the rich people, corporations, did not have to share and it, -- in it. but he could not say yes. he said he wanted more. "i want to take away your right to bargain. i want to prevent new.

i do not want you to be able to talk about patient care. you, mr. fireman, a police officer, i will be able to dictate." and the public in wisconsin and everywhere else said, "enough. enough is enough. we hired you to create jobs, not destroy them." so they came out and tripled the grass roots movement. they could not get this thing passed because of all of the people. the democrats decided to leave the states and they could not have a quorum. so they literally in the middle of the night, near 3:00 a.m., they passed this thing in the middle of the night.

again, it backfires on them. they said "mathison of." if there is some thought about him or another governor are overreaching, he continues to drop like a rock in a shallow pool. workers have banded together. they have had an election on tuesday. all three democratic senators one because those on the republican side said that report -- support this governor. 55 to 25 just three months ago, and she came back and beat him, and that is the sea change. [applause]

i apologize for taking so long to get to your question. but i thought was necessary to have the background. so how you build on this issue continue to stoke it. there are petitions. we have enough votes for two more senators. take them to recall and flip that over, getting friendly candidates into the senate, and when they see the power that they have, it becomes infectious.

you talk about corruption, in ohio, they did not have enough votes to pass some things. they did not have enough votes, so they started the vote, and in the middle of the vote, they were moved two republican senators. to get it out of committee, and the vote is 17-16. if it had been the other way, they would have lost in committee, and it would have been all over. now we have a citizen veto. we are all together in this. a citizen veto. and when people see this to stop

overreaching governors, i think it becomes infectious. [applause] >> so i think what is happening not just in wisconsin but throughout the country, the story you have heard in ohio, there are 22 republicans. the democrats could not even stop any day. the republicans had a super majority. but there was a grass roots lobbying of citizens. not union members, citizens across the state. they created so much pressure that they could not get the bill out of the committee. then they could not get it through the senate morals committee to get a vote on the

senate rules committee. collective bargaining in ohio. this is important. it was citizen driven. this whole effort is a citizen driven effort. it is a bipartisan effort. it is a grass-roots effort. this is a very, very interesting phenomenon. it is to my knowledge, in the history of america, that the people have done this on the issue of collective bargaining. living wage, other things. but this has not happened to my knowledge anywhere else. this is a very conservative

state in a lot of ways. a combination of mass action, mass movement. coming together, not just for a bigger movement but the faith community being involved in doing stuff. quite dramatic. and it has an impact on the climate. the public and private sector, right? it had not been doing so hot for a variety of reasons. >> yes, i just want to chime in on the recall he is. -- recall peace. -- piece.

if they do not listen to voices or anything, they will listen to recall. for years to come, when we showed them the power that we have with the recall, we will never have problems. if we do a recall, i know they definitely will listen. >> bob, in the automotive industry, for the last couple of years, there have been a lot of changes in compensation and benefit packages. it was tough negotiations, tough to accept, but it did not seem to be as galvanizing as what was happening in wisconsin. >> i think that is because there were totally given situations.

the problem with all of these governors, and it is important to understand that this is a coordinated national attack on working people. they are trying to take more and more money away from seniors, from kids in school, k through 12, and give it all to the wealthiest. the fiscal problem is not too much benefit. the problem is we have given too much money to the wealthy, and if that money was back in our communities and back here, we would not be having this. when we went through the automotive industry because of some bad decisions that were made and everything, there was a crisis. part of the crisis was created by the same people. but we had to react. in my view, the crisis at the state and federal of it is a revenue crisis -- or federal

level is a revenue crisis. the first thing he did was to get away another $1.70 billion to $1.90 billion to corporations in michigan without asking for a single thing to help the community. that is the biggest welfare did when you can ever think of. there are no requirements. it is not that a single corporation has to bring in a single job for those dollars. and then, how does he want to finance it? he wants to finance it with taxes on the pensions of retirees. i know what it takes to get corporations to invest in the community, and one of the most important things that look that is what is the educational system in that community and what is the skills of the workers. this is trying to take $480 per

student away from k through 12 education. we should have 50,000 people in lansing. this is outrageous. these are hard-working people who because we have a lack of a labor movement, collective bargaining rights in this country, are working 40 hours per week and making poverty- level wages. many years ago, we should have why isn't up. now, he wants to take that away from them while he supports giving the wealth these millionaires and billionaires an extension on their taxes. so with the outrage here and basic fairness and basic justice is what i believe it is this notion social justice movement in the united states, and i am excited about it. i think you will see a change in the united states.

[applause] >> it seems to me what we're hearing is there is this whole sea change. traditionally, when i started a career, people would pay their dues. they would do their job and take their turns in the local union, doing their work to keep it going, and expect better pay, better working conditions, pay, and now, i pay my dues, i do my job, and i may lose some day and lose some benefits. how is that changing the mindset? >> the way you describe it in the past is right. now, these threats to them are from the outside.

who changed the lot i can no longer collectively bargain? they have always been part of a movement, but not everybody understood it. this is the opportunity to talk to them about being part of a movement and making that as important to them as the next contract, and you are beginning to hear a lot of communication that the reasoning of difficult negotiations is not centered right here in the company alone. the reason health care is on the table is not centered in the health of this alone. this is a national crisis. so we are using this opportunity, and we must, if our members are very receptive to this, we are using this opportunity to broaden their outlook, and i think it is only going to pay dividends, and, frankly, one concern that i have

is with the excitement and interest by members and people in the community, the election is a very important thing, too. >> and definitely, it has to last. the motion will make it last. i think we're doing a better job with the opportunity for education, and it is about educating not only the community but also educating our members, which is why when they understand what is going on, why they did not get a pay raise or whatever, so i think it is about education, and it is just a real opportunity to, again, bill the labor movement. >> we have been talking about -- this is today's world. what do employees what from

their labour unions? are they looking just for traditional services and a normal type of dues, or in this sea change, are they looking for something else? rich? >> first of all, i want to go back and attack the basic premise of what you said. but this is just something we have to except. we are still the richest nation on the face of the earth korea over the last 30 years, listen to this, all of the income gains that the country has seen has gone to the top 10%, and 58% of all of the income gains we have seen in the united states had gone to the top 1%, and 30% of all of the gains have gone to one-tenth of 1%, and that means that one american out of every 1000 gets 30% of all of the income gains. it is not giving people a fair chance to get ahead, and you are

seeing ian, and the quality level in this country suffer, and we hear the republicans. we heard ryan yesterday. "we cannot afford good jobs. we cannot do in here," says he. "we cannot afford health care for everybody." they do it in the rest of the world, but we cannot do it here, says he. retirement security, they do it in the rest of the world, but they cannot do it here, says he. and education, we have to cut back away. a good public education is now a frail or a commodity of the rich. -- now a frill. a governor like chris christie, the governor of new jersey,

says, "look. you do not have a pension, and these overpaid public employees do. let's take it away from them." in america, did we not always say, "somebody -- everybody needs to have a pension." they want us to scale back on the american dream, and we refuse to give up on the american dream. [applause] so this is a time for us to come together and actually reeducate america. there are some of my friends who are in education. a couple of others have come to me to tell me we are missing it. this is a time when you can be educating your members on a different type of economic

policy. and i think they're absolutely right. that is what we need to do, because america does not have to give away everything that made us great. we can still achieve it. i believe that. [applause] >> i think that is absolutely right, and this is why we are trying to do these things in different ways, to help organize citizens, and that is what this is about. people like chris christie and one from indiana have called this a privilege. it is a privilege to lead this country. the top 25 hedge fund managers

on wall street made $25 billion in 2010. that is enough to pay for, you know, three-quarters of a million teachers. to add more value to our economy? by the way, those hedge fund managers are paid taxes at a lower rate than the teachers in michigan. for most of america's history, for most of michigan's history, for most of wisconsin's history, good jobs and strong communities. these are connected. we need an educated population. we did it. we all pulled it together for a public education for everybody.

these are policies that help build the middle class in this country. for the past 30 years, we have had a different view of the world free trade without any labor standards, giving huge tax breaks to rich people in corporations and hedge fund managers. without any kind of regulation at all. we did that for the next 30 years. how is that working for america? this is an opportunity that we have for that kind of change. i think our members expect differently as a whole different level of communication. some of this is generational, right?

it used to be that some did not want to worry about the details. one of the challenges we face is to not just education on this but with email and text and social media to be a part of feeling very connected to this fight, very connected to the broad movement. >> we will change gears, but in the same general direction, in the communications business, we used to have wires. it used to be the every assembly test was done by a person, and now this robotics. the government is going into a whole new sets of programs.

how does that impact the unions? how do you deal with that could >> well, let me jump in. making a better nation. it means making a larger middle class, to me. understanding the framing of the issues today. people, just when they walk out of here, -- i lived in ann arbor, and there are bridges that they have cut off because they do not have the money to rebuild the bridge. it may collapse. we're becoming a third world country because we are letting the right extremists in this country define everything about cutting, cutting, cutting and giving it all to the wealthiest. the things that which talked

about. income created by workers be more productive. we were told of we were more productive, we would share in the gains from productivity, whether it be in manufacturing or new technology, instead of that, the compact is broken, and it is going to the wealthiest. what i see and is what i am concerned about is that people are waking up. we talked about the frustration of people voting. that has changed. the extremists have point -- pushed it so far that governor walker or scott, they have pushed it. they are realizing if they want a decent future for themselves and their kids and their grandkids, they have to stand up and fight.

president obama, and this is the final part. president obama in my opinion is the best present we have elected. he is more worker friendly, but here is a mistake i believe we made. we fell into this trap like we did about thinking it was about the contract. we thought if you let the right person, they will get the job done. we collected were obama, and we went back to our couches. -- we elective obama. where were we? not being activist enough. what you're seeing is as coming alive and realizing it is not about a socially election. -- a single election.

the sit-down strike. what is the great lesson of that? if they had waited for legislative change, the what would have never been changed. now, it was important that just before the sit-down, we learned that frank murphy, a democrat to be, it with he who refused to build -- bring in the federal troops to bust that strike. if we forget it is about a movement, every elected person, president obama, needs a fire under them pushing for justice. a broad segment of america to get people back to understanding. you always have to have direct action. you cannot leave that up to the people you elected. it is not fair to them. it is never successful. franklin delano roosevelt would

not have done the new deal without the bottom-up pressure that was on him. >> your question sams where i started, that there were fewer union members. 12 million and to get members cannot be wrong. when you cut education, you'll not only put teachers' salaries and school bus drivers and their benefits at risk, but the children and the rest of america. the 13 million, we can work with, and we can speak for. all of the nonunion parents of those kids who are impacted, and we are getting that, and we are getting better at that. this is a can this operation, but it does not go to union households. it goes to nonunion households,

and we find nonunion workers in michigan who think like us, and we signed them up, and they become part. this is growing, and i do not think it is stopping. >> to get to the technology piece, the innovation and technology in the last 20 or 30 years that i have been a union member, it is absolutely incredible. i think what the technology has allowed organized labor to do is we have the ability now to reach out to our constituency, not only within our own membership but within the communities where we live and work, and social networking, like facebook, like twitter -- i am not an expert on any of that stuff, but my

communications director is here. he is 25 years old, and he understands the difference that we have to make knowledge in terms of the tools we use to communicate with. all the facets of the work force that we represent. all of younger people, they do not read newspapers. they do not read print. they get their news off of the internet, so we have to capitalize on that and realize that the internet and all of the social networking tools not only give us the benefit to reach further, but there is an immediacy to it. you saw that with what went on in wisconsin in madison. the streaming video of this happening simultaneously was incredible, and that is powerful. it really gives organized labor the opportunity to really get

the message out, on point, you know, immediately and enables us, like rich was talking, to give this grassroots mobilization happening, where 20 years ago, it would have taken us days to do that with telephone calls and writing letters and you name it, but today, it is a matter of minutes or hours. it just really has become a tool for us, and we really need to take and manage of that, and we clearly and stand what communication works for different segments of the work force. >> it has really made it easier for us. we no longer have to ask members to write letters to congress.

it is definitely a tool, and it is definitely something we need to take advantage of. >> with all of the socially and the things talked about, the percentage of the work force that is in organized labor has been going down for a long time. as leaders of the union, how do you take that? do you try to focus on growing the numbers could >> yes. the absolutely focus on growing the numbers. in cwa, there has been a change in technology, and work has gone away. organized in 10 years 40,000 wireless workers who did not have a union, right? they did not exist before.

we're continuing to do that. one story about organizing in the moment, t-mobile. there is the very conservative home town of the governor of maine. it was that they had no right to organize. it was not a certainty but the possibility that t-mobile would be acquired by at&t, which is committed to a majority signup and neutrality. today, there are t-mobile workers. for the very first time, -- that

change and their ability to organize -- and obviously has to do with some changes in the industry. i think we will hear more about that in the months to come. >> first of all, i cannot let the opportunity pass to say that the decline in the labor movement did not happen by accident. it was a conscientious plan, just as there was a conscientious plan by the governor. neil liberals, ronald reagan, margaret thatcher -- neo liberals. you have regulations, and they affect the union, get rid of them. they understood something. they understood that we were the ground troops.

there was a great teacher who said that every time you point the finger at somebody, there are three more pointing back at you. we let young people go off. we have not tried to address their needs. we have tried to shoehorn them into a model. and now, we are trying to change that. "tell us what you need us to be so that we can represent you, so we can bring you to the labor movement." giving people a permanent seat at our counsel, and we're bringing the men in an advisory capacity. i asked them continuously what we can do. there are millions who are excluded from collective bargaining. if you are an independent contractor, if you are a health- care worker, if you are a taxi cab driver in new york, and we

are going after them. we're going after them and saying, "we are going to represent you." new types of organizing drives. the most exciting international organizing drive that i have heard of in a long time. an international drive. so we are really trying to change what we do and how we do it to make ourselves more relevant to workers, and it is catching on, because more and more workers are coming our way. we started an organization four years ago. it has 3.5 million members right now that say, "i want you to represent us in the political and legislative aspect," and now, they are also starting to say, "and i also want you to

represent me on the job." we have a lot of ground to cover. we sat back and let globalization come into being, and we kept denying it existed. now, we are seeing that it is here. it is not going away. >> it mentioned the need for the unions to more actively debt members. at the top of the discussion. why do the rest of you not china in on that discussion? >> -- chime in? >> to engage our membership and have them have an ownership. there is a powerpoint, and one of the things we said, members, in the 1950's coming here is what it meant.

-- in the 1950's, here is what it meant. you have to be an active part of rebuilding this in america. and i think it is really important to point out one of the reasons why unionization has fallen so far. the national labor relations act, we had a campaign in north carolina, where the workers of reorganized down the road, one block away from where they were. they saw the significant difference we made in workers' lives. the companies continue to be very successful, and the company did not agree to any fair practice, so we used another fair practice. 221 to 223. massive violations filed by the

national labor relations board with that corporation. you know that today, seven years later, every single member of the uaw at organizing person has been fired or driven out. we are taking direct action. we will not let them violate the first amendment rights, freedom of speech, the right to be a union and to have collective bargaining. our allies and friends, internationally, to join us in branding them human rights violators, and you will see this in the labor movement. t-mobile, all kinds of unions are saying we're finding other ways to protect labor rights because of the national labor relations board.

>> if we put a cross section of the country out here, you know, bill hall represented group, what is the public perception of organized labor today in america? >> i think it is radically different. >> we have been doing polis for about four years. >> you have an interest in this. >> yes, as a matter-of-fact. about 10 years ago or 12 years ago, but people started saying "the unions are not so bad, but they really cannot help me." then about five years ago, something helped make -- something happened. "unions are not so bad, but they can help me." we set out to get that chance because of what bob talked

about. the level of interest in unions, collective bargaining, understanding the process of what collective bargaining can do for you, whether you are a professional, whether you are a blue collar worker or a white collar worker or another worker. this has something to offer you. we have seen small business groups come up to was and talk about collective bargaining. to thank us for some of the things we are doing. if it is up to us to make sure that that fresh look is a good luck. about the things that we do positively, about the things that we help with. the minimum wage, health and safety on the job, protection, social security, an education for every kid out there, not where daddy and mommy's

pocketbook will take them, and we are trying our darndest. >> this is to really reach out to citizens, to be equal partners in building a movement. there is a tendency to say -- surprisingly, people did not line up at the door to do that. i think it is really important. a really good example is from ohio. a lot is involved. there are a lot of community organizations involved. to train 150 citizen activists. they see what is going on in

ohio, and they wanted to become a part of that. and people on the facebook page, and there are now over 130,000 people. health care america now, a wonderful organization. they have 18,000 people on their facebook page. a great campaign, spending millions of dollars, and face a page of 20,000, an elected official. it is hard to keep track of and hard to know. the democrats, the republicans, independents. they are union members and not. having a strong community. having good jobs. they want to be a part of it.

they want to be connected. to recognize that we have to do it now. we are trying to do that. to stand up for ohio and facebook is something you can check out. >> speaking for federal sector labor unions, our union was one of three unions that recently commissioned some polling, as well, to sort of figure out how we responded to this-media and congressional action that is happening with federal employees, and the results are pretty interesting, because the bottom line is when it is all said and done, the public in our

country things pretty highly of federal employees. and yet, when you ask the question "what do you think about the unions that represent these employees?" their approval ratings when announcing the delay, and i think part of it is due to basically this notion that somehow unions are disconnected from the employees that they represent, and that is nonsense. they are one in the same. the very word "union" implies that it is individual employees that come together to form an organization to represent and bargain, so we have got this disconnect, where we think this union is this nebulous thing out there, and people do not understand that that union is, at least in my case, made up of

federal employees. so what we need to do, and i think the message we need to tell folks, and what we are doing is we are taking the tack of having our members tell their stories. what is in, for example, we represent veterans in administration doctors and nurses who are held and the highest esteem of any federal employees in the eyes of the public. those folks went right at the top in terms of a positive impression that the public has of them, so we're asking our members who are nurses and doctors to tell their story, you know, what it is they can do, the health care they provide veterans, how does that contribute to the nation and to the economy, how does that contribute to making the community's stronger, and talk about, and, again, during the

reference from how much money that are paid. it is about the work that they do, the accomplishments that they have, and focus on making sure that those folks have the resources and the tools they need to continue to provide quality care for veterans, so it is about remessaging and getting out of the debate of whether the debate -- the deficit is $1.60 billion. the public really does not give a damn about numbers. they can care less about where you got your data, and we can have a debate about whether your data came from the heritage foundation or the department of statistics, and the average person out there does not give a damn, so it is not about data. it is about the work that people do and how that contributes to the greatest in this country and to the economy to get us out of

the financial mess that we're in and putting the 30 million unemployed and underemployed americans who need to get back to work back to work in this country, and that will go a long ways to taking care of this problem that we have in united states today. every company promotes they're satisfied customers, accept us. our folks need to talk about -- folks need to know that we handle more than grievances. we are handling grievances for the same 1% of the membership. leaders need to step back and led to our members tell their stories. when we do a press conference, it does not need to be us out there all the time. it is to be folks telling their

own story. in detroit, we have hard times getting the media out and the media told me, that is because we do not want to listen to you all the time. we want to listen to your members. what other kids about facebook. i need facebook to tell the union story. i've gotten -- they have said, i read that on facebook. i did not know that was happening. everybody needs to use that. >> ok. one more question. practice for questions. last question for the panel, let's look forward 25 years. what is one big change would like to see the labor union accomplished? >> a couple of things. i would like to see a larger

percentage of younger workers in my union and i have today. i think that is an untapped resource in terms of membership and in terms of future leaders. one of the things that -- we have an obligation to our organization to do some successful planning and make sure we have folks in the pipeline that have the tools and skills, the training, the innovation, the willingness to step into those shoes when the current leadership retires or moves on. i have to be honest, i do not think we have done a good job there. i think that is something that -- it is because we have not put a lot of energy into recruiting and organizing younger workers. that is something that we started -- we changed our

emphasis last year in our new organizing plan, our strategy. we're putting a lot of energy into reaching out to younger employees to figure out what it is that they need and what it is that we can offer them. to see some young faces in leadership, that would be one of the things i would like to say it -- see 20 years down the road. >> we have to be speaking for and representing workers, even -- even workers that are not in the formal relationship. we should be the voice for the unemployed, for example courage we should be the voice for the untrained, for example. we could become the entity that people think of when they think, i need to change careers, or do i look for help to do that.

i need -- i need better health care insurance and we need to have those offerings for these allies that we are -- so we can sustain that relationship. >> this was about the future of the labor union. the fact that you ask that question, i need to say, definitely, we will be around in 25 years, no matter what they do. we will be around. it may make it more difficult for us, but we will be here. in 25 years, i would like to see as using every single tool that we have. i would like to see us using our contingency groups better. i would like to see unions reaching out to each other to help one another. even now, we have those who have

relationships with elected officials that can help other unions, and i would like to see them come together and try to use that. i would like to see them using the central labor council and set up a triage kind of thing are everything is centered in there and unions come together under that banner to help each other. i guess that is self-serving, but i truly believe that they are the organizations that are there to pull everyone together. unions are so concerned about their unions, as they should be, but we are concerned about pulling them all together to be concerned about everybody. that is what i would like to see. >> let me jump off from that. we need to get better at doing

is working together. the labor -- in this moment, the head of -- we need to sustain that and in 25 years, at that will get taken for granted. that will not be something people even ask about. we need to restore the right of workers across the country to organize. in mississippi, south carolina. we need to put private sector workers everywhere. some of that has to do with figuring out how to do it and not waiting for someone to change a lot. the law will follow. that is really the top priority of the labor movement, to figure

out -- i hope we would have figured it out in 25 years. >> i believe in dreaming beg. what i would like to see in 25 years is a global middle-class. i would like for us to of rebuild the middle class in america. working within and across the world. and it is possible. it has happened in brazil. 20 million people taken at a poverty and move into middle- class because they are -- there are extremely strong union at movement. it is happening in china, and in mexico. i think it is possible. international solidarity, there is more work being done by unions together around the world to give workers the right to collective bargaining. >> the first thing -- i hope i

am still around in 25 years. [laughter] i would like to have us have been a part of creating a manufacturing base that is the world's envy. so that everyone who wants to work at the time has a chance to work at a union job. that we have fully integrated are minorities, women, immigrants, and young people, that they are fully engaged in a labor union. they are fully engaged in society so they can reach their potential. that we have created an educational system and a skills- based educational system that produces the best workers and the world. -- in the world. >> your turn. questions? are we going to use this microphone? ok.

identify yourself, please. >> my name is frank. i am probably the only person in here who has been both a union at stewart before a federal union and management lawyer. i'm currently teaching labor law here. i asked us to my class to be here. the hundred-pound elephant in the room is what happens -- employee pre choice act. you spend $44 million to get a lot -- obama elected trade he had supermajorities in both houses. my studies indicate that if it had gotten past, you would probably be at a 14% penetration instead of 7%.

how did it happen that your investment was also pushed off into health care as opposed to getting what you -- it will totally turnaround a labor union? >> i have been engaged in this fight for a long time. there is no question that if the employee pre choice act had been passed, workers would have organized. they would have been able to do so without harassment, without intimidation, and without being fired. 25,000 or 30,000 workers get fired every year over exercising their rights to join a union. it creates fear. i go back to one thing -- there was -- there was united and fierce opposition from the

republican party. the republican party filibustered over 400 built in the senate that the house of representatives passed. he needed 60 votes -- you needed 60 votes. we never had 60 votes in the senate because ted kennedy was sick. we never had 60 on the floor. had we had the 60, that would have been done immediately. that is not to excuse the lack of action and a lack of pushing for it because more should be done and we will continue to push that bill. do you know why? the vast majority of americans agree with that. a minority in the senate to can only support the majority will of the people for so long. you are seeing the support for collective bargaining right now growing. 70% right now the american public says people should have the right to collectively

bargain. that is their right and they should have it. we will continue to push that and look for vehicles that will give us around a determined minority in the senate and the house -- a majority in the house to prevent that from happening bread what is happening in wisconsin and elsewhere is what happened at the federal level. you had which benefactors demanding pay back for their investment in the election. i received this as a warning. -- iac this out as a warning. because of the citizens united bill, millions of dollars were spent by corporations in the last election. that will be chump change in the next election. they will buy the best politicians they can get. they will use those politicians to try to take away rights for us. less taxes for them, less benefits for you.

that is the fight that we have, and we will not quit. hopefully, we will get the employee. choice act done. workers deserve fairness and the current labor relations act is unfair to workers and is absolutely broken. [applause] >> in brad new immigrant here. i was nationalized last year. i may be having a heavy accent, let me know. somebody was talking about bringing manufacturing base again in this country. i was wondering, what has happened -- what has happened in

japan is very unfortunate. i feel very bad about it. because of what has happened in japan, there are plants closing down because they do not have parts coming from japan. instead of waiting for japan to get back on its feet? is there some possibility of doing that here? >> there is a lot of that happening out of necessity in a number of meetings with chrysler, a general motors, ford credit they will not produce products unless they find ways that have alternative sources. there are suppliers in the u.s. or scrambling now. everyone is tied into this together and everybody is making a huge effort.

the assembly companies go down, the buyer base goes down at. there is this great energy about suppliers and their customers to find alternatives are modes of production. at the same time, we are all very concerned about the people of japan and the devastation of the people in japan. we have to build a global middle-class. i do not want to read pitted against workers in japan or brazil or korea. i want our workers to make a decent standard of living so they can bite -- so they can buy electric or hydrogen vehicles, washing machines, build homes. the only way we will do that -- i want to build a better world. that is what we are all about here today. i wanted to add this opportunity -- i am proud of the

labor union. -- the labor movement. we do not want immigrant workers pitted against u.s. citizens workers. we want everybody to have human rights and dignity and to build a better society great america is a country of immigrants. it is so outrageous to me that the thames by the wealthiest is to pit us against each other rather than building a better world. especially this week as the anniversary of the assassination of martin luther king. he always talked about building a world that was better for everybody. there is a small group that wants a better world only for themselves. the rest of the what america is coming together and saying, this is not right. we will build a better world so

that everybody shares in the wealth of this country. >> ok. >> good morning. speaking on behalf of the six or so mediator's setter in the room, this is going to be a mediator question. we heard a lot this morning about all the alliances and the mobilization. in the midst of the need to do this, how does the labor movement in vision striking a balance so that another sector that they maintain those foreigners -- partnerships with are those employers who value you and what your partnership in good faith and want to keep employee in your members? >> i will try that.

i speak for my union. we have relationships with employers. it really helps if you are not participating in a political cobol and trying to wipe us off the map. it is hard to have a good relationship with people were trying to eliminate your existence. that story is the list, unfortunately. employers that we can have relationships with. i think that there is, you know, in my experience, unions are much more willing to be pragmatic about employer relationships than employers. the example goes back to the health-care debate in the clinton years. we tried to get one ceo of the seven, each of whom would of thought and a windfall of hundreds of millions of dollars

for the bottom line. it was and their self interest and the corporation. he tried to get one sec to stand with him. in support of something that was directly benefited their shareholders. they were committed to end be the logical based attack. that has got worse in a lot of ways in terms of the illogical attack on -- ideological attack on working people and on medicare and don health care for all and pensions. we are delighted to partner with employers when we count in support of -- making sure that education is properly funded so they have decent people in their workforce. if they do, as many companies are doing here in michigan, we

should take the tax breaks to corporations and still cut education, it is hard to find ways to do that. we're looking for ways to do that. the apartment with employers -- we have partnered with employers around other issues as well. >> but that just add something to that? >> on site. >> this is an important point. workers do not get to bargain over a lot of things that affect our lives. we do not get to bargain over capital investment. we do not to bargain over product design, even though the effect. steelworkers in the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's and 1980's were competing with mills made in the 1890's against companies with mills that had been made in the 1960's and 70's and eddie's. they would have loved to have the ability to negotiate with

u.s. steel about whether they need to modernize their mills. we do not get that. bob, back in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, about the product design grid they made what was put in front of them knowing that the product was in -- now they do a quality. they do all of that. one of the reason labor law needs to be modernized is so that workers and employers actually can come together and those type of is used to start working in a global economy to face the competition from a global economy. that is another reason why we need to change labor laws so that workers can have some input into their future. you cannot expect us to say, we want you to be invested in this company, but you do not have any

say in it. we simply do not. it is time for us to change those laws and perhaps limit -- give us a 21st century change. >> i am so proud of the auto industry. the best quality products today by j.d. power's are the cars that we are making in the big three, especially ford, a general motors, and chrysler. the most productive plants, more productive than the nine and a representative plans, are the uaw plants. 20 years ago, our job was to -- the market was captured -- our job was to fight for our fair share of profitability.

today, uaw members drive quality and the big three bread with a full-time representatives working with the company every day about quality. it is our representatives and our members that demand will focus on quality. it is exciting today. i am excited about organizing opportunities. the want to have the greatest voice? -- do you want to have the greatest voice? that is what we're doing today. >> we have three questions, six minutes. everybody is hungry. >> this is a comment. i feel like i should speak to this point because there's so much misunderstanding. when you have a mature relationship, you find the

places that you have connections. i sat down two weeks ago with its burk, with a -- pittsburgh, we see that we have common interests. you have environmentalist and iron workers and we figured out where we can meet. we did the same thing with u.s. steel. we have workers walked out at a u.s. steel facility in canada, we understand that we have to rebuild manufacturing. we work with our employers to save jobs. that is what leo gerard does every day. where we share common interests, we will work together. when they try to screw us, we will multiplied. right? [laughter] >> i am a retiree from the uaw.

i have been to madison, columbus for rallies. i went to beat john stuart rally for sanity. there was no political statement. it was a huge majority of progressives. is there any national rally plans in washington, d.c., in the near future? if not, why not? >> we have a national table right now put together that talks about this and we are doing a follow-up on what happened on april 4. maybe i should give you -- what happened on april 4 because we

had people come together from all different walks of life. teachers, firefighters, autoworkers, everybody came together. over 1500 events across the country to talk about the need for collective bargaining. we went as far east as paris, france, and and as far west as afghanistan, where they had events. everybody came together for a common message. you have gone too far, let's get back to creating jobs. we are now talking about the very things that you say. where do we go with this? bringing people into washington, d.c., is sometimes very exciting. bring people into columbus, is sometimes very, very exciting. we're working on the various states and having everybody come together. we are one. for the first time, in recent

history, the labor union surely is one with the law of our allies. nothing is specifically plant. but i can promise you that they are being fought about and work towards. -- thought about and worked towards. >> i would like to direct this question to my combat tree its from michigan first grade when we look at the north american company -- to my compatriots from michigan first. it is not just the united states problem. what should be our approach to our workers across the river into canada, workers in mexico? what should be our relation to the international labor organization, which has programs

for the worker, a defense of the worker, for women? what should the relationship be to the international labor organization be? >> it should be one of solidarity and we are working with our brothers and sisters in canada, in mexico, and columbia -- colombia, in russia, all run the world. -- all are around the world. we are behind the curve. we are not anywhere near as far as we should be in understanding the global economy. but we're moving up very quickly. we're working together and we will not rest until we have a

global middle-class where everybody can make a decent living and by everybody else's products. we do not see that right now. >> i want to give the steel workers credit because they were doing it really aggressively, working with -- supporting strikes in mexico for workers to return to get decent wages. the greatest strain in the middle class in the u.s. is wages and benefits of states in law or mexico. it is because there is not a free trade movement in mexico. there is a movement to date to help build free independent unions in a mexico. we have joined with the steelworkers and we have worked during closely with the solidarity center, a very active in mexico right now. we are finding that -- workers are trying to build a trade

union movement in mexico. there is progress being made. will join the steelworkers and by our joint pressure, those workers throughout the protectionist union and got an independent union, is a good contract, the right to representation. there is progress being made, but your question is a very important question. >> i want to thank you for putting this all together. [applause] >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the first public meeting of the interior department's auction energy safety advisory committee. looking into ways to improve offshore drilling.

the committee reports on the gulf oil spill and remarks from ken salazar and michael broad ridge. on "washington journal tomorrow morning, we will be joined by john fund. the executive director of the center for community change will focus on president obama's support from his democratic days. our series on the recommendation of the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform continues with a look at health care savings. our guest is a special correspondent with pfizer help news. "washington journal is live on c-span every day at 7:00 eastern. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow.

president obama hold a town hall meeting on his budget. he will be at the northern virginia community college at 10:15 eastern. at 1:00, it is a national press club debate on energy policy. between ted turner and t. boone pickens. turner is expected to discuss this solar projects in new mexico and adaptec. pickens will i'll outline his plan to promote alternate energy sources, such as wind, solar power, and natural gas. >> i think we are already, both democrats and republicans, to get the country on the right track. >> the debate ahead of us is about more and spending levels, it is about the role of government itself. >> lawmakers now all said their attention to the 2012 budget and the nation debt limits.

watch the debate from capitol hill and iran washington online anytime with the c-span video library. it is what you want, when you want. >> the interior department advisory committee created to recommend improvements in offshore drilling held its first public meeting today. members about the investigation into last year's drilling rig explosion and golf -- oil spill in the gulf of best ago. this opening portion is an hour and a half. >> good morning, everyone. i am the designated federal officer for this committee. i want to make some brief housekeeping announcements. i want to welcome you all for being here. we will call to order. if you have the cell phones,

please put them on silent or vibrate. before our committee members and catalyst, -- for at our committee members and palace, please make sure you were speaking in to the freestanding microphone and is flashing green. you signed and this morning and there should have been some comment, -- comment cards. please feel free to give us back -- give them back to us before you leave. if you do not have a chance to make a comment during the public comment portion, it begins at 4:30. i'll turn it over to dr. tom hunter, the chairperson of the

committee. >> thank you. i am going to begin by introducing the deputy secretary of the interior and he will give us [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you to all the views serving on this very important new committee. i want to thank you for your agreement to serve on this committee and to serve the department and the country. it is very appropriate, i think, that our first meeting of the committee comes just short of the first-year anniversary of the deepwater horizon blow all disaster -- blowout disaster. there has been an enormous amount of attention on the safety of offshore drilling practices and appropriately so. we have had a searing experience with people out itself and its

aftermath. i was the first administration official down in the gulf the morning after the blowout t, flying down that morning, on the phone with the command center. watching that night and the next day as a remotely operated vehicles -- new terms for america that we have become very acquainted with. since then, as you know, we engaged in a vigorous and disciplined reforma agenda, and new safety rules have been put into place, new requirements for cementing inspections for certification, new management system requirements, a major reorganization and enforcement

for a deepwater, new containment requirements. it is apparent throughout to that we need more and we need your help. help us define how to do more. the idea of this committee grew out of conversations that we had throughout the summer of 2010 with tom hunter, your chair, thad allen, and others. it became apparent as the struggle to get a deep water horizon situation under control and as we dealt of the -- with the aftermath of this bill that offshore drilling, research and development had lagged in all phases from the drilling safety requirements themselves to a containment.

and to oil spill response, where we watched skimmers and effectively dealing with the spill and scrambled to deal with a 21st century problem with the technology of the 20th, or a scene, the 19th century. the question that we talked about during many late nights was how we could we gather in one place the expertise needed to have this country lead when it comes to offshore drilling safety? we should have a center of excellence where industry, as it moves forward with expertise, does not leave behind the academic community, the ngo community, our government. that is your basic charge, this

advisory committee. how can you help us put together a center of excellence, something like the ocean energy safety institute, that will enable collaboration in real- time in these three important areas of drilling safety, containment, and of oil spill response? we need this, we have the opportunity to do this, and all of you have given your service to this effort to. i will warn you, having served alongside tom hunter in a number of capacities, you'll be working hard. tom hunter does not lead moscow under his face -- maas grow under his feet. that is why we are also excited that this public process is now underway in. while we are proud of the

reforms we have put in place, we note that more needs to be done and we look forward to your guidance as we move forward and the secretary will be here shortly after lunch to reinforce these messages. in the meantime, i look forward to the morning session and to his leadership. let me make one final comment. i want to thank some of the key folks who have helped put this together. including brad, whom you just heard from, it has been a huge organizer of this entire effort to. with the full support of mike, tommy, melissa, and the entire team. i would also like to thank ray, who has been a leader for my in this effort. it was a tremendous effort to

sift through the enormous numbers of nominations we received before the seeds around this table. congratulations to all of you are in d.c. it's because there was significant competition at. it was brad, brian, in particular, a porch with time to put this thing together. a special thanks to them. >> thank you, david. let me welcome everyone on the panel. [inaudible] those panelists who will be with us and will have a chance to talk to us. i want to echo some of david's remarks. they worked very hard. i could not help but notice today that we're within a couple of days of the anniversary of the deepwater horizon. there is no question about the

impact on the nation, an industry. it had a great impact on my life and my view of things. it really demonstrated something which i pondered about for a long time. the incredible and balance we have between -- imbalance between a secure energy and protecting the earth on which we live. i really think that is where a lot of the future may rest and i believe that it is important for us -- and might not coming through, brad? ok, sorry. the impact that it had on all of us, the great reality, this question of balancing we did to preserve the environment.

the world needs a lot of energy and somehow that seems to be unchangeable. the environment has taken a significant insults', one more insult -- income by this incident. we may not be able to survive once the get their. -- there. something about this event, it was an unthinkable and events. it seemed to be unstoppable and some days. and it was unacceptable. i do not spend a lot of time on my introduction to. it was my privilege to serve the country as director of the national laboratories for the bulk of my career. this is the opportunity -- it left me with a lot of deep appreciation for the expertise in the industry and the government about this business

of a deepwater drilling. it was a role that i needed to gain a deeper understanding and allowed me to meet some people and have an impact on where it does not coat it was a tragedy, catastrophe. it could have been avoided, it could have been contained earlier, and the gulf ecosystem could have been reduced. the role of this committee is to bring ideas and actions to gather from industry, government, non-government organizations, and universities to make those could have been the reality. to make it so we really do avoid such incidents in the future and lessen the impact in any way that we possibly can. i am pleased that you have agreed to serve on this committee. it is a distinguished group. there was a lot of competition.

it is one that has a diversity of views and perspectives and experiences that will allow us to accomplish a lot. there will be a lot of rules to follow and rabble keep a straight on all those rules at all times. we will come to know each other and our role and that will be a large part of what today's meeting is about. we will then try to seek a better understanding of where the upgrades in technology for deep water drilling really are today. we will look for ways in which we can make recommendations about how to improve and enhance those. this morning, we have a series of speakers who will be bringing us up to speed on perspectives on what has occurred in the last year or so. we will have some questions to get to a common level of understanding on those events. it will be about scope and

charter and where we will move the committee and we will also address what we just heard from david. we will address what is the most effective way in which government, industry, and universities can work together to pull the nation for? of late, but we would have to save the world come together, and how we can develop a much safer environment for energy production and the waters of the world. we will begin gathering such information and i would encourage you to ask questions and to bring your experience and insight into those questions and try to participate in the discussion. it will be moderated, and it is my honor to introduce each of view, which i will do with the following method. i will ask you to introduce yourself. mike, we will make the last.

we will start with a joke. we look -- we will start with joe. we would ask you to state something about your role, your current role professionally, and also to state something about your hopes and desires for the future of this committee. joe, we will begin with you. >> thank you. i have been in the oil and gas industry for 17 years. i joined the oil and gas industry after finishing princeton university. my role currently is the manager of spluttered delivery. my role is in the fabrication of floaters that argues for production in the gulf of mexico. -- that are used for production in the gulf of mexico. my hope is that we work together

to be able to achieve a safer and environmentally sensitive way of producing oil and gas from the u.s. waters. with that, i will pass it onto ted. >> i am the chairman of the university of texas in austin, texas. i worked as a civil engineer for about 30 years now. i started my career from shell in houston. for the last 2.5 years, i've been teaching and traveling. my background is in applied mathematics and physics more than anything else. iowa work also on the intersection of energy supply

systems and ecosystems and dynamics of sustainability of the human race. the results are not positive. my hope is that not only will we achieve progress here, but we will also manage to keep public interest in this extremely important area of intersection of the highest energy supply for humanity and also impact on the environmental systems. >> good morning. i am the assistant minister of the u.s. epa. i spent many months with david dealing with the response, including many weeks and the gulf. -- in the gulf. we recognize that are prepared this was not as good as it should have done.

a spill with significant impact on the livelihoods' of people. i met with many community members and i saw the consequences to date lives, both the direct -- the daily consequent on the long term consequent on the psychological consequences. my hope is that we remember the lesson learned. that we put into place a system that ethnologist and recognizes the severity -- acknowledges and recognizes the severity of not being prepared as we should have been. so we can enable the state development of energy and consider the potential consequences if we do not have the systems in place. >> my name as paul, president of energy company.

my hope is that this committee works to regain the public's trust, which is a license to operate and a straight in the deepwater. we have learned a lot from the incident. much work has already been done. the opportunity for this committee is -- for this committee is to build on that body of work. establish safe work procedures and cleanup response for the years to come. i thank you for the opportunity to serve, and i look forward to serving. >> good morning. my name is richard sears. most recently, i served as the chief scientist to the national commission on the deep water rise in blowout and spill. prior to that, i had a 33-year career with a shell as a physicist and senior executive. i was responsible for shell's global exploration in deepwater

and development activities. i brought that experience to the commission's work and hope to bring back this -- that experience also to the work of this committee. i look forward to extending the work that we did on the commission to understand the roots of this accident and also pulled into that the board that is going on with the investigations better still on going. >> good morning. my name is patrick reynolds. in commanding officer of the coast guard marine safety center. it provides technical services to the post -- to the coast guard. i am obviously career coast guard. i am looking forward -- michael would be to improve the status quo with respect to drilling safety and environmental protection at. thank you. >> my name is walter and then

the deputy director -- i have been with the bureau since 1988. what i am hoping for from this committee is that we have taken a lot of substantial steps to improve the safety of offshore operations. i think there is more to do and rather than just thinking of what we can do right now, i am looking forward to working with this committee to understand how we can organize ourselves strategically for the long term to stay out in front of the next wave of new technologies and types of operations we will see in the future. >> my name is nancy and i am the director at mit in aerospace engineering at. my specialty is really more general system safety engineering. i've been doing this for about 30 years and i've worked in nearly every industry. at some point in my career.

although there are differences in the problems in each industry and in the culture, my hope for the committee is that we will be able to implement some of the lessons learned from successes at in other industries in preventing accidents. >> i am charlie williams, i have been with a shell 39 years. i'm a chief scientist for while engineering and production technology. well engineering is what we call drilling in shelby's days. -- in shell these days. i was vice president of hurricane recovery. i am also on the chair of the industry task group of four

energy safety and containment. i am on the governing board of the marina will contain the company and the operating committee for the project. what i really look forward to and hope for is that we make a significant technical contribution to prevention in the industry, but also that we make a significant contribution to management systems and safety management systems and their contribution to prevention. thank you. >> my name is stephen genzyme senior research scientist for the u.s. geological survey, wherever to over 20 years. of anabolic from research in the academic side. -- i am involved with research from the academic side. i was heavily involved in the response over the summer with thomas and others as part of the well integrity team.

it was a very sobering experience and i hope we have to never lived through it again it. my hope is that we will identify what we do know and what we don't know about ideological barriers to containment of oil. identified a passport to answer those questions and we gained -- identify a path forward to answer those questions. >> good morning. i have about 30 years in the industry. i was -- i was a civil engineer with shall. i work to do a number of assignments or iran did global engineering business that charlie talked about for the last couple of years. prior to taking the head of a global agency and sustainable

development for shell, or i did that for a couple of years. i left and went to another company for a year. now i am with a global drilling contractor. in that role, i am responsible for the operations of those units around the world, and the construction of new units that were built in a number of places around the world. i will express my expectations for the committee, that we improve the safety and effectiveness of our industry. i think we have the wherewithal around a table to help do that. my hope would be that it translates into greater access of offshore drilling around this country because it is a great energy supply for the country. thank you. >> my name is christopher smith and then the deputy assistant secretary for oil and natural

gas at the u.s. department of energy. in that role, i am responsible for the oil and gas programs for -- programs. prior to this role, i started my career as an army officer and i spent about 11 years after that working for chevron in various roles. that was a combination of experience is that has given me a real appreciation for the work, the difficult and dangerous work of producing our oil and gas resources offshore. in addition to the other cintas that a been expressed here, i hope we are able to provide that conclusion to help in short that the folks to do this important work are able to work safely and return to their families every day. thank you for the opportunity to serve.

>> this group has enormous diversity of experience and insight to, but also shares a common purpose, as i listen to your comments going around the table. the nation calls on us to render the type of service -- someone may have asked why we are on tv and why we have the public from mark that we do. -- a framework that we do. the public of this country and people all around the world are looking to this industry, to this government, to this committee to give confidence that we can proceed with the exploration are around the world. the record should note that we have this challenge, but we have a shared common intent. it is very important to think about the different sectors

represented here. i am going to introduce michael, and i want to comment on that. for me, there was enormous experience about the first week in may and went into the entire summer and into september. you get to know people and you get to know how people think. when you talk to people at midnight and wonder what will happen at 6:00 in the morning, you reach conclusions about what people intend to do and what -- what their intent r. mike represents an organization this people were dedicated at that time, and we will hear from some today. they are dedicated now, and in the aftermath is that they

believe deeply their role the federal government has here can be fulfilled, one that allows for a responsible approach. also one that allows for proper oversight. this means we will spend time trying to encourage and support them, and i wanted to comment by way of introducing -- it is a good thing we do to provide support to all the people we represent. >> thank you, very much, and i want to thank you all for being here today. people who are attending or watching know what we picked this group. we picked hunter because we are already 120 minutes ahead of schedule. that is extraordinarily unusual. right to our first session. we are fortunate have professor

cherry murray from harvard university with here -- with us here today, who brings a background in a variety of fields. professor murray got her bachelor's and ph.d. from mit. she has spent a number of years working at the bell labs. she moved on to another one of our national labs where she rose to the deputy director and then principal assistant director for science and technology. in july of 2009, she was named dean of the harvard school of engineering and applied science, as well as a professor of engineering and applied science and professor of physics. in addition to all those qualifications, she is a member of the national academy of

sciences, national academy of engineering. she is a fellow of the american association for the advancement of science. with that background, why she is here is she served as one of the commissioners on the president's commission on the bp oil spill. she will share with us her observations and share the findings and recommendations of the national commission. we are extremely fortunate to have professor murray hre. >> thank you, and good morning. i would like to express the appreciation of both of that commission co-chairs. the commission is now over.

we have produced our report, which i will review with you. i am sure you have all read it. you also have two people on your committee who are intimately familiar with the commission and its report. we had seven members of the presidential commission that began in june. the report was finished in record time after six months. we could only do that because we had such an incredible staff. we had 60 people on the staff, of which the chief scientist was rich. what the president asked the commission to do was to determine the root cause of the deepwater horizon disaster, to evaluate the cleanup responses, and this was being done in real

time as tom and his group were trying to manage this, along with bp and some national lab folks. advise the president and the nation about future oil and gas exploration and production can take place responsibly, particularly in the more challenging deep water areas. we were not asked to assess legal, -- legal culpability, reform energy policy, or duplicate other investigations. as you are aware, there were at least 10 and out 12 other investigations of this disaster. it was truly a disaster, not only did 11 people lose their lives, 17 badly injured, but the gulf has suffered a

considerable ecological disaster as well as the loss of fisheries, tourism, and other economic impact. one of the first things we did as a commission is go to the gulf and spanned out and talk to the people compacted, and it was pretty sobering to see this in real time. we conducted a thorough investigation of the engineering failures. we had a chief counsel -- we will hear from the deputy chief counsel, and there is a report of the chief counsel on the web site, as well as 21 staff papers. what you see on the screen behind most of the committee is the cover of the report, and

this is also just a recommendation, which is also on the web site. i will not go through this entire thing, which would take way too long. but our major finding was that the deepwater horizon disaster was foreseeable and preventable. errors and misjudgments by three companies, beebe, halliburton, an transocean, played key roles in this tragedy, and government regulation was not effected in preventing the disaster. offshore drilling is on to become even more complex and riskier. no one on the commission expects offshore drilling will cease at all. we need a u.s. source of oil and gas.

we need to do this in a more safe and responsible manner. when we do not know that much about the geological and other conditions, it becomes very risky. we believe that it can be done safely. the commission recognizes that significant steps have been taken thus far by both governments, including michael bromwich, in reorganizing his organization, the mms, into i will call it -- more needs to be done. we need more research in all areas related to explanation, the containment, and i hope this committee will oversee this research and suggest what needs to be done. the industry needs to develop a

far better culture of safety. these recommendations are contained in the report. first off, there is a compelling need for a culture of safety. business as usual is not good enough. the north sea, norway and u.k., have better safety regimes, australia and canada are revamping their safety regimes. industry, it is our belief that it is industry wide that this need for a culture of safety exists and that they should establish a private organization, which is not a

lobbying organization, to develop, i doubt, and enforce standards of the lexus, to ensure continuous improvements in safety. as michael bromwich noted, i spent some years in the nuclear weapons regime, lawrence livermore national lab. the industry associations for the nuclear power industry formed after three mile island a separate safety-oriented organization called npo, the institute for nuclear power operated is, that only the safety and -- that only the

safety and safety inspections of nuclear power plants, which is quite effective peer review. peer pressure, the industry is at the cutting edge of technology, and the industry needs to focus a lot more on safety. one of the things i was quite if you look at, the r and d that the industry has put into deepwater drilling , it is incredibly impressive. it is not that much different from going into space. however, if you look at the r and d that the industry has actually put into either safety or cleanup, it is less than 1% of the r and d that they have

put into drilling. this needs to change. we do need to drill safely for both the people on the rigs, the people who are affected by ecological disasters, in our environment. we also need to cooperate internationally to ensure safety and prepared this around the world and to learn from international data. we do not currently collect the data that would be useful for management of these spills. this is not a black-swan event. it is bigger than usual, but there were 79 other blowout and well-control issues in the gulf of mexico. it was not a loan company -- a

lone company that has this problem, although some companies have a better safety culture than others. bell whole industry has to have a far better -- the whole industry has to have a far better process safety culture. so what we looked at his, as i was talking about improving the safety of offshore operations, safeguarding the environment, strengthening spill response planning and capacity, advancing while containment capability, which is obviously, after this event, kind of important, and it was very clear that nobody knew how to do this and we had to invent things in real time. restoring the gulf of mexico. this has had enormous ecological impact for the last 50 years due

to dredging and to oil and gas production, as well as this major event. ensuring financial responsibility of the companies who were drilling, and also looking at frontier areas in the arctic. so changing government -- we should be the most advanced in the world in drilling regulations and enforcement. we currently are not. as i said earlier, the commission is quite impressed with the department of interior moving as quickly as possible to reorganize. they definitely need to develop a proactive risc-based

proformance approach, similar to what what we call the safety case approach in the north sea. the international regulators forum is a good forum to express these new standards and revisions. and we suggested that the congress and the department of interior create an independent agency within the department of interior which enforcement authority, to make that severna -- separate from the revenue generating agency. that has happened through the executive order. we also proposed that the council on environmental quality in the department of interior should revise and strengthen the nepa policies, practices, and

procedures. we need to strengthen science and injured-agency consultations with noaa and usgs. we also suggested one thing that has not happened, witches -- which is if you look at the stable resources for regulatory oversight, they have not been there from the u.s. government. we suggest that similar to other countries that industry fees support the regulatory agency and that environmental science is also supported by industry fees. it will be interesting to see what this committee says about that.

the department of interior -- what we suggested is that some rulemaking is quite important and some prescriptive detailed plans and risk analysis be done as well as a safety case. as you can see by the graph, there are more and more deepwater wells being drilled and altered-deep water drwells being drilled. it is not just the water that the issue here, but it is the geology of the deposits that are becoming quite challenging, and the risks are actually quite high.

one of the things that we suggested is that the liability cap from the oil pollution act, which is $75 million, be lifted. that is way too low a cap. it is not incentivize the industry to prevent these kinds of things and to do the research and development. also, there is currently $1 billion limit to the oil spill fund. clearly, as a result of this incident, $1 billion is not going to be sufficient, and we suggested that that be lifted as well. there is a considerable discussion going on about the six majors versus independent companies, and should

independent companies be allowed -- be allowed to get insurance to do drilling in the gulf. we did not address what the liability cap should be, but that clearly $75 million is too little. containment and response. we had to invent the containment in real-time. this is not good enough. as a result of this spill, the industry has come up with two different containment -- i will call them services -- that is certainly better, and the bureau of ocean and energy management has required that leases be

given out. you cannot drill without having containment capability, which is a good first step. we were quite disappointed that spill response technology had not advanced since the exxon valdez. this is not sufficient. way more research and development needs to be done by the industry and supported by government on spill response, and the spill response was really pretty minimal when you look at the oil that was actually collected. containment is critically important, and we -- and more research and development needs to be done on containment as well. government needs to have in- house containment expertise.

one of the things we suggested is that, as was pretty apparent, the department of energy and the national labs does have expertise and should be brought to bear in the containment and risk response to such spills. in looking at restoration -- excuse me -- we suggested, as have several members of congress, using 80% of clean water act penalties to restore the gulf, that is some money that is going to be there and it

is quite important. in the restoration of the gulf, science and the coastal marine -- excuse me -- planning is quite important. and finally, that we ought to be extremely careful about the arctic, because we know that spill response and the coast guard cannot get to the arctic farewell, that is a thousand miles away from the beaufort sea, and cleanup is going to be

considerably more difficult, and we do not know that much about the ecosystem and the life of the arctic, so we suggested that the arctic be developed, but more slowly, so that some research can go on. one of our commissioners is now named head of the arctic council. i think what i will do, since i am coughing, is to stop there and allow you to ask questions. >> thank you, very much. we appreciate your presentation. we have time for questions. then be turned over to tom hunter to begin the questioning process, which will be limited to the members of this committee. >> thank you very much.

i was struck by your comment about the nuclear industry, and if we think about the nuclear industry and you will note the government has the involvement has been extensive. there is npo, also another committee which is a bit of an analog to this committee. we will see how that develops. commissioners, the have any insight into why -- let me comment that three mile island was the initiating event. do you see a parallel as rsx deepwater horizon being an initiator, and did you spend time on the understanding of

what one industry is so heavily engaged by the federal government and the other one is not? >> we had a number of discussions about this. the oil and gas industry is a little bit more complex than the nuclear power industry in that they are on each of the deepwater raids -- let me say 20 contractors. it is always more difficult to have a safety regime with contractors who work for different companies. nevertheless, that is also true in the north sea, and in the itself is, there r rig required to have this a case, not the operating company. this committee may want to look at that as a model. the people who live on the rig actually want to be safe. it is really important to have a

safety regime that allows for things like whistle-blowers, and there was one argument that each well is completely different. they are not like nuclear power plants, about which there are about six technologies, and they're all pretty much the same. i would argue that it is true, each well is completely different. it depends on geology, the design. there are best practices in well containment and shared best practices are really quite important. one of the things that happened with imho, as you are aware, is that about nine years into their

for me, 100% of nuclear operators were members of this committee. each of them had to have insurance in order to operate, which is slightly different from the oil and gas industry. ors are the operati self-insured. the rate of insurance premium was dependent on the mpo rating. there was quite a bit of -- n po had a few metaphors in the industry, because a different reading of good and excellent meant a huge amount of insurance

premium that had to be paid. also, if npo does very serious inspections. they are nuclear needy people. they're pretty serious about it. it is an inspection that is about two weeks. i will say it is non-binding and it is not open. it is actually proprietary, and it is industry -- these people go on inspections. it is industries learning from each other. there could be an analog for this for well controlled. npo does coordinate with the nuclear regulatory commission. npo does not set standards. nrc sets standards.

if npo finds that a power company is not operating with the safety regime that it believes is important, it basically operates this confront of the entire industry -- it basically parades this in front of the entire industry. if the analog is the operators of drilling platforms, there is some analogy that could be. >> thank you. >> that may encourage all the panel members to take this opportunity to learn more about the commission's results as low insight.'s own

this may be one of our opportunities to engage the commission so directly. >> i am not quite as familiar asnpo, would you comment on the role you see going forward with the api which has set standards. he made a comment about the need to set a safety commission separate from the lobbying effort, which is directed at api. could you compare and contrast the role that api has. >> the nuclear industry also has the nuclear industry industry association, which is an api- like body. it is a lobbying organization. it gets the industry together. it does actually look at safety standards and things, but it does not set the standards.

the nuclear regulatory commission does. . api and a lot is nei, and that the oil and gas industry really does need something like npo. npo is nothing but safety. it does not lobby, it does not set standards. it just does industry to industry peer review of the safety regime of the power plants. >> the audience is having trouble hearing. please make sure you have your microphone on. when you see the green flashing light, that is when you speak. identify yourself before you speak for the court reporter. >> nuclear industry is 20% of

one-third of primary energy. the oil industry is 70%, roughly. nuclear industry has not built a new reactor since the late 1970's, while srigs being operated by -- while i am speaking to the. you have an order of difference of the size, and you have another order of magnitude of difference up the complexity. i would submit that controlling and improving the oil industry is more difficult than the nuclear industry. having said that, in my mind, failure of human organizations was probably the biggest contributing factor to the accident. do you have suggestions to the oil industry that the beyond the

npo-type activities? >> you are right that there is way more of our energy coming from oil and gas, not from the u. s, but imported. there are about 105 nuclear power plants now in the u.s. they were being built when npo was around. i am not suggesting that all of the shallow water and relatively -- let me say -- less complex rigs also be part of this regime, but the more complex rigs be. when you look at that, there are

hundreds of as opposed to thousands or tens of thousands, so it is not that much different in scope, but you are absolutely right -- and it is also true for nuclear power -- it is the human organization that was the root cause of this. it was human lack of judgment and also the fact that people who are contractors to the operator could have felt a little bit anxious about bringing up safety. in fact, we know from the testimony that a number of people did not bring up the their issues with safety on the rig, and certainly, from my

interaction in the national labs, our biggest safety issues were with contractors. i think that needs to be seriously thought about. how do you ensure that the team, which includes up to 20 different contractors on the rig, acts like a team? i think that this is doable. it may need training as a team. this is actually what is done in the north sea. we have some examples. >> may i follow up on that, because you made a comment earlier and you were talking about the u.k. safety regime, and made a comment that the workers there want to be safe.

that is the inference that the workers elsewhere to not want to be safe. the point is in cct case regime there is a identifying the hazards and identifying roles and responsibilities, make for a safer work environment. >> i certainly did not mean that people in the gulf of mexico did not want to be saved. in fact, they do. workers on the rig do indeed want to be safe, which is why there is an opportunity for doing a better case for all the people on the rickeg, no matter which company they belong to. there is one difference that may or may not play a role in the north sea, and that is certainly in norwegian case, the

workers are unionized, and the union has a big part of play in safety. i believe you can do training, roles and responsibilities, as an entity that is gone to be operating together for the next three months and that you can do a safety case. one of the things that we've learned, which i was quite surprised about, it kind of shocked me, is that bp and transocean did not have a agreement on how they would do well control. this is not acceptable. well control is one of the most critical things. if you managed the well, then you do not have to worry about containment or spill cleanup or anything else.

>> thank you for your comments. one question i have, the question i had is more related to the safety case in the u.k., norway, are backed up by guidancewhich are similar to the api standards. in your discussion, i value the api standards. they have a lot of experience that they have built on, i have served onhahahahahahahahahave developed those standards. in your view from the commission, what is the way forward in that regard, because i do not think as an industry we cannot go down without having those standards as a -- in the form or another? >> i agree with those standards, and how those standards are

determined -- just in the new clear case, the nuclear regulatory commission's defines what standards are. where it gets that from is obviously the operator. and some judgment. and someapi definitely -- i think api can propose standards and it is up to the bureau of ocean energy management to accept them and amend them and make them even stronger. they should be the owner of the standards. >> thank you for the clarification. >> doctor murray, i was impressed by your comments, including the documentation. one thing that struck me, the people within the various subcontractors, had concerns that were not passed out to the decision makers. there were far rawls built between subcurrent -- between subcontractors. that would mean the rapid

unfolding of events. people did not have time to react. if they had time, they may not have reacted differently. have you thought about other ways of training people on the rig floor react more rapidly to these sorts of incidents, maybe using simulators, something that gives people real experience in reacting to the signals they see. there is a human tendency to not believe a disaster is unfolding below your feet, and there's something people might be able to recognize faster what was going on in terms of training for people actually working at the rig itself. >> that is a good point. one of the things that usually happens in a disaster like this is that it was right at the

shift change between shifts. everyone was in a hurry. when that happens, you have ability to not make the right judgment calls. also, i actually think that training that team together is really important, not just individuals with a simulator. i do not know exactly -- and this is something that api may be this committee can think about -- is there a better training exercise which has, here is what happened, what do you do? that would be extremely helpful to train the team on the rigs. the other thing i will put out his the-pressure test, which was

obviously misinterpreted on the rig that night. it did not really -- there was no agreement as to how that negative protest would be done. this is something that obviously needs to get fixed. >> i have not read all the report, and i was surprised to not see any mention of any kind of a real-time operational safety group or even a person that was consulted when these decisions were made. most industries have such a thing. when you have accidents, after challenger, after colombia, one of the things they found is

those organizations had become silent and were never not consulted in the decision making. did i just missed something? was there something there? and it just was not mentioned? >> as far as i know, there was re were there accept their wor the people on shore who were in a situation where people did not know what to do should have been contacted, but as far as we can tell, there was no contact of people on shore. whether the people on shore could have done anything, i do not know. but that is one possibility, when training whole crew on the rig, including all of the contractors, is that there is a 60 -- a safety committee that

stands back and thinks about these decisions going forward. >> doctor murray, he made a comment that this was not a black-swan event, and referred to the number of events that the commission had observed when they were going through their investigation. in your discussion with industry brisbane's throughout the process and the investigation, and looking at statements that are being made as we move to the one-year anniversary, do you have an opinion about the degree to which industry is dealing with this as a black-swan event

or something that companies can take a close second look at do you have an opinion based on your experiences on how that is going? >> i certainly have an opinion, but i will not state it. the reason that the commission came down on the side of it is industry-wide, it is not just say one rogue company, is because it is quite clear from our investigation, and you can hear this from sean grimsley later on this morning, that there were at least three companies who made really seriously bad calls in judgment. halliburton, who is the largest cementing company, and does this

for everyone, went ahead and, despite the fact that there were three tests, went ahead and pumped the cement. quote bill riley when he asked the ceo of halliburton whether or not a burden on the pumps that cement for bp. i doubt it. they were doing their job, but somehow the fact that the cement, the slurry, was known not to be good, and they did it anyway, was indicative of something that is not right about the industry. also, transocean and b.p. did

not have as i said an agreement for how they did well control, which is, i will say, the most important thing to do while you are drilling a well. so, whose fault was that? i would say both of them. some companies do have a far better safety regime, but they still operate on rigs that are leased and owned by other companies, and with a number of contractors, and do we know that they have a good safety case? i really don't think so. >> thank you. one of your comments, you said

you did not feel like water that was driving curling risk, but you felt like killing risks right to increase in the future. could you say a few words around the commission's findings in that regard. >> what i meant by that is death means higher pressure, colder temperatures, -- depth means higher pressure, call whatever, and that makes it more complex. what makes it complex is the geology. it should not be water depth that is relevant, but how complex is the geology of this well. there were serious worries of lost returns, and part of the judgments that were made were to mitigate those worries about the fracture of the formation, which

is,mud was circulated very slowly, and things like that, which, if there was to appoint a safety organization that look at all of the decisions and the big picture, they might have said that is ok for not fracturing the formation, but the cement leaky probably full of -- the segment will probably be full of mud, and you should take that into consideration. each decision was taken one after the other and not a big picture of, ok, we have a serious issue here with all these different issues in this well what is the best decision

to take, not just of, we fix that one, let's go ahead and see if that worked. >> thank you very much. >> you mentioned that there are a number of less disastrous things that have occurred and the need to do some risk analysis to understand the nature of the risk of drilling cherry i was wondering if you expand on that. >> i was -- one of the things that was noted was that in the gulf there is well control incidents that are not reported by country -- by companies unless there is a spill of oil and gas. if there is a well control incident, instead of saying we could learn from this, it is not brought forward as part of the database.

all people who are actually, all industries who are actually seriously worried about safety, look at what is actually -- look at what has actually happened and what are the precursor to a possible safety condition and not just looking at the incidents that were of a certain severity. that is one thing that if there npo- let's just say, and like entity, they could look at the precursors way better than the agency can. >> i completely agree with you,

and there has been a thorough analysis done of the last couple years, and found out that many of the accidents were not reported, and he had to rely on oral communications of people who may not have remembered. swans were mentioned a couple of times. ofre talking about talkees extreme value and contributions. would you suggest that perhaps a more formalized process of reporting, and i hate to say that perhaps to api some other organizations, but also a more thorough actuarial analysis of

extreme distributions is in order because we do not know when we make assumptions that are completely arbitrary? >> yes. i do agree. i think reporting of any loss of well control, even if it is only for a minute and it is weekend, can help the industry learned how to deal with these events, and also, of course, it would be helpful to have the statistics to know, are we doing better? >> thank you. >> they had to derive their real-time monitoring with respect to a response. the most significant was dispersants and how to do real- time monitoring. do you have a view as to how to take those lessons learned and where we institutionalize it,

and who owns the execution of a more rigorous monitoring regime? >> you reminded me what i was going to say, but i did not in my earlier talks, which was the u.s. government needs to measure the amount of oil spilled. just period. finally, after some amount of time, say, a month, noaa and usgs did a very good measurement of the oil was spilling out. i think it is really important if there is such a spill that some organization in the u.s. government -- it could be the doe national labs, together with noaa, need to be deployed

immediately to measure the amount of spillage. why is that? there is a conflict of interest with b.p. measuring how much oil things bill because they will pay penalties for the amount of oil that is being spilled. assuming that the responsible party is responsible for doing the measurement i think is a bad assumption. they will measure it, of course, and they are also doing the -- assessment, and there will be probably in the courts dispute about how much oil was there. but if the u.s. government was prepared quickly to measure the oil spill, we would not have these disputes. for real-time monitoring, one of the things that steve chu and

the panel noted was that there really was no pressure gauge that was accurate on the blowout for vendor. so, you could not measure the pressure down hole, i will say, or down at the sea floor, and that would be awfully important, and until the capping device was put on with pressure gauges, nobody could tell whether the well was gone to blow out into the formation or not. that is kind of important. having better real-time monitoring his probably -- probably should be a better regulation that he should have real-time monitoring for this kind of situation. >> any more questions from the panel? just a couple things. we had two panel members not

with us. am i not coming through? we had two panel members not with us. david is. noaa -- the is -- david is from noaa. i wanted to have a final comment from dr. murray. [unintelligible] dr. murray, in the end, the american public wants to understand whether moving forward with deepwater drilling, particularly with the broadwater and deeper wells, is a need to pull -- is it doable? , my personal sense is it is

still -- >> my personal sense is it is the will. the industry needs to make it more self. it is perfectly doable. i am impressed with the technology in order to do the drilling. or technology needs to be developed, and some has in just responding to this spill, in things like containment and skimming, and something needs to be done about or just needs to be understood about our dispersants could under sea? did they work? i don't think we know the answer to that. unfortunately, we had this as an experiment to figure out whether that helped or not. >> thank you.

let me thank you again, professor murray, for coming here and taking the time ensuring the recommendations of the president's commissions, but also assuring us your own views on this in response to questions that a committee has. thank you very, very much for being here. we will take a 10-minute break, and we will start back up at 10:35, if my watch is accurate. thanks very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]