>> the ocean safety advisory committee hosted representatives several investigations into the oil spill. this portion is an hour. >> we are a couple of minutes behind on the proposed schedule. if we get as the speakers to bring the microphones close to them and make sure you are speaking to -- into it. please identify yourself for the public record. let's get started. >> we will begin with the next panel. >> we will go into our second panel focused on the investigations into the deepwater horizon blowout. we are happy to have mr.

grimsley andand mr. winter. he is professor of engineering practices and the department of marine practices. he served as secretary of the navy, and lead america's navy and marine corps teams. previously he served as president of north from grumman's. he is also a graduate of the university of southern california management policy institute, and harvard university program for senior executives if in national and international security. in 2002 he was elected a member

of the national academy of engineering. sean grimsley was chief counsel on the bp the deepwater controlling panel. he was a graduate of the university of texas, and the university of michigan law term. it was a judicial law clerk to harry edwards here in the d.c. circuit as well as sandra day o'connor in the united states supreme court from 2003-2004. it is our great pleasure that have dr. winter and mr. grimsley here. >> please to be here this morning. i will be presenting the results of the national academy investigation into the causes of the deepwater horizon. i will know that that i will be presenting what had been our interim findings which were first released back in

november, and because of the process than -- that the national academy goes through with a formal peer review one of our findings, the next phase of our report which hopefully will be available around june has yet to be released. i will be giving you the report that we gave to the secretary and the staff back in november. in fact, i will be using the same charts for the most part during the presentation. on our activities in the reason for it, the national academy of engineering does such study as a matter of course. this one was in particular a request from secretary salazar. our focus is very specifically on the causes for the blowout explosion and subsequent fire. with recommendations to come as to hopefully how to prevent such events from reoccurring in

the future. the interim report was specifically intended to provide the secretary and the staff with a preliminary assessment of our findings, but also to inform but the oil spill commission and the marine board of inquiry in terms of some of the aspects of our findings. and as i stated earlier, if we will be having our final report in the june time period. a few notes on the committee make up. the committee includes a number of individuals, 15 in total, on the committee. many of whom are national academy members, some are not. the individuals have been chosen to span a spectrum of expertise that runs the gamut of everything from geophysics to petroleum engineering, marine engineering, but also organizational behavior, human factors, accident forensics, and

safety systems. a very broad spectrum of expertise, and also reflecting both industry, current and retired, as well as academia. all selected with specific consideration to avoid any conflicts of interests. a few notes on the context in terms of establishing expectations here, if you will. we have noted on several occasions and i want to note again this morning that it may not be possible in the opinion of the committee to definitively established all aspects of the causation for this particular accident. that is in part due to the loss of some of the critical witnesses come out the sinking of the raid, obviously, but most importantly the difficulty of conducting reliable forensics on the deck of the macondo well. we do believe that we have

developed a good understanding of many aspects of this particular in this event and believe it is worth while sharing those with the administration as well as this particular committee. we have identified in particular the decision to proceed to temporary abandonment in spite of the failed and negative pressure tests as precipitating elements of the blowout and the subsequent release of hydrocarbons. we view this is particularly important because up until that point in time, there wasn't that control over the well, and there were many options available to the crew to be able to proceed in various ways. however, once the decision was made to proceed to temporary abandonment, those options for the most part were taken away, and of course, the subsequent events were set in place.

we have noted in particular that that decision -- the impact of that decision was compounded by a number of factors, one having to do with the delays in recognizing that flow was starting in the well. and then when that flow was in fact observed, the actions that was taken were very limited, they were not what one would characterize as aggressive well control action, and that further compounded the events. furthermore, we note that the b.o.p. was unable to control the blowout, and we are still in the process of evaluating the forensic evaluation that has been submitted to understand in the titular the extent to which that inability to control well

blowout was due to failure mechanism in the b.o.p. and/or limitations inherent in that particular b.o.p. and its questionable suitability perhaps for this particular well. would we look at the overall implications -- when we look at the overall implications, we've identified several ways of characterizing this. one of which is that we believe that it suggests an insufficient discipline, in particular, and insufficient consideration of risk. that calls into question the adequacy of operating knowledge and training of the key personnel that were involved in that decision. and we note also, and i was a consistent with dr. murray's previous comments, that this was

one of a series of actions that reduce the margins of safety associated with the well and well controlled. in particular, it is very important to note not just this one particular decision but also a number of other decisions all made in the course of construction of this particular well, which we believe potentially contributed to the blowout. and which all had a questionable considerations associated with them. i will note the wide range of considerations in here, everything from a very specific technical the citizens associated with the well design and the design of the cementing, for example, to more organizational, managerial decisions such as changeups of key personnel on the rig, just

prior to this particular incident. we see here a situation where multiple decisions apparently contributed in various ways to the situation on the rig, one of which the decision to proceed to temporary abandonment precipitated the specific loss of well control, all of which has caused us to focus on behavioral considerations as a root cause of this particular incident. we note in that regard that there were insufficient checks and balances for these decisions. the question of schedule as a relates to schedule costs versus the consideration for well safety we note an absence of formal mechanisms for properly

comparing and weighing those considerations and making an appropriate determination as to what is a viable balance between those considerations. we note that none of these various decisions that we have identified were identified as flawed or corrected, either by the operating management of the various companies involved, and while i have be pat -- bp identified here come the other contractors were involved, and we know that those decisions were not identified in a timely manner by mms, the coast guard, or any of the various organizations responsible for regulation in this particular domain. much has been said about the questions of cementing, and it does appear there was a failure

of cement to create an effective barrier to hydrocarbon flow. that said, we are still looking at the specifics of the failure mechanisms associated with that, and we are looking at a wide range of potential sources. it is our approach and methodology to consider any and all considering factors. we may or may not come up with a definitive determination as to the cause of the failure of the cement. we may identify a number of potential contributing factors. that is part of our process, and also we think it is most appropriate in this particular case, because there are a number of considerations of associated with the cementing operation that appears to be wanting in terms of the technical decision making process. similarly with the well control

actions and the b.o.p. in particular, we notice that this obviously did not recapture control of the well. the extent to which that is due to the timing of the well control actions and to the design, and the extent that is due to the maintenance and particular failure mechanisms on the b.o.p., all is still under evaluation and we hope to be able to be informed by the current evaluation performed under a contract here recently. we also note the failure of emergency disconnect systems to properly separate out and permit the rig to move away from the macondo well. the impact that that had on the subsequent loss of the rig. these aspects are both under current evaluation.

one other aspect that has been discussed extensively at the marine board of inquiry in particular has to do with the potential mechanisms for igniting the gas. we will note that the committee as assess that given the large quantities of gas is released on the raid, coupled with the very low wind that was observed at the time of the accident, the belief is that ignition was likely to occur one way or another. while we may be able to determine what all more likely source of ignition was, this was something that probably was going to occur in respective of that unique source. one other aspect we are looking at here has to do with the alarm systems and the concern about of the failure to provide timely general alarm and the potential

impact that that may have had in terms of the extent of injuries and loss of life that occurred on the rig. obviously, none of this was actually going to avoid the actual blowout, but may have, if corrected in the future, the potential for minimizing the loss of life associated with such events. when we look at the event of in a total integrated fashion, we note first of all that this is an inherently risky business. as i said on a number of occasions, these are complex wells, drills using complex drilling rigs, and uncertain geology, in an environment at sea that is always changing. and they have a certain degree of inherent danger associated with them.

that needs to be recognized and factor again and it needs to be considered on an ongoing basis to assess what the appropriate margins of safety should be. furthermore, there is a significant need to ensure that we learned from previous near misses. much has been made, for example, of the proceeding event in australia. all of australia, the blowout, and whether or not that event and others both in the gulf of mexico and elsewhere around the world worked properly considered and factored in to the training and to the operations used for the macondo well. we believe that a systems approach, sometimes referred to as process safety approach, in

the chemical industry needs to be able to be integrated in evaluating all the various factors that could impact the safety of the well, and in particular, well control. assess those coming integrate those, monitor them, understand what is happening to those margins of safety as changes are made in this well as there are in many cases, there were many significant changes made during the course of construction here. and ensure that those changes come of whether they are in the design or in the response to various geologic discoveries, understand whether or not they are materially impact in the margins of safety and take those considerations into effect when one is deciding how to proceed on various aspects of the well construction.

and we are right now on the process of completing our investigations. we do have the data that we need at this point, we believe. we are also in the process of having a number of discussions with other regulatory organizations, in particular, those in both norway and the u.k., to understand those perspectives on similar matters. and we are in the process of putting together a final report which we will consider our overall assessment of the causes and our recommendations for future, particularly focused on future regulatory regimes. and with that, i would be more than pleased to take any questions that you may have this question. and what i think we will do is have mr. grimsley to his presentation and then open it up. mr. grimsley. >> thank you very much for inviting me here to speak today. i know time is short so i will

try to get right to it. there is not too much that i would disagree with that was just presented by don. don has looked over our ports and policies a lot of similarities to the presentation he just gave. the chief counsel report, i do not know how many of you have had a chance to read it. 373 pages, you have probably not read the whole thing. in 20 minutes here, i will not go through all of those findings. i will try to limit that to findings that i think will be interest to you, and recommendations as you go forward with your mandates. >> could this be more closely to the microphone? >> yes. just one caveat before i began. i was the deputy chief counsel to the commission. you notice there are some recommendations in this presentation. those are my recommendations based on the investigation we perform. these have not been imbedded with the commission.

these are much more modest recommendations based on observations we made during the investigation. just a star with a little background. -- just to start with a little background. the root causes of the deepwater horizon oil disaster, and submit a final report to the president with his findings, often for considerations come within six months from the date of the commission's first meeting. the first meeting was in july. we had 2 inches -- we had to submit a report in january. there was a more lengthy report, but we had a very short amount of time in which to do a detailed investigation. the task of the chief counsel's investigative team was not the task of the commission. the commission had a much broader task. we're asked to identify the root

causes of the blowout. there were other staff members and individuals who investigated containment and response. as you know and as we made clear in our report, we did not investigate the b.o.p. fell your post-explosion or blow up. there was an ongoing forensic investigation at the time. it was not going to be finished in time for our deadline. that is simply not in these reports. we had a number of specific tasks and presented preliminary findings and prepared the commission's final report and we prepared and submitted a chief counsel's report with more detailed findings. the two reports at what point you to in terms of root cause of the commission's report, chapter for which we are involved in sets out the findings regarding rig causes, and then the chief counsel's report, all more detailed explanation of the findings of chapter 4. it contains additional information that we obtained

after the commission's report was published but before we actually issued the chief counsel's report. all the additional information we received confirmed the findings that were already in chapter 4. what happened at a very high level -- i will not get into all these technical failures. they are and our report. here is a schematic of the macondo well, how was supposed to look during the temporary abandonment process. what we have here is mud displaced down to 3000 below the sea floor, and then mud in the riser is that have been displaced as well. there is a thousand feet of mud that has been displaced. the key thing to keep in mind is that during the temporary abandonment procedure, the only real barrier in place between the rig and the hydrocarbon bearing zone was the job -- the cement job at the bottom. if it fails, and hydrocarbons

got into the center casing, there was a straight shot up, and that is the key thing to keep in mind on the recommendations. the b.o.p. was there, but the b.o.p. was open. we will talk more about this in a minute. the b.o.p. is a contingent barrier there. let's go through what happened at a very high level. the bottom cement job was the only active barrier when the blowout occurred. the mud was removed, 8000 of it, and the bp -- the b.o.p. was opened th. bp did not choose to put more my in. that is something that could have done but chose not to do. the bottom hole cement job failed. like don said, we may not be able to identify the specific failure mode for the bottom hole cement job, but we do know that it did not isolate the hydrocarbon bearing zone, and

there are many possible reasons for why the cement job may have failed. this was an unusually tricky cement job. and this cherry noted, the cement path by halliburton was likely unstable. once that bottom wholesome and had failed, there were no barriers, and no one detected the failure -- the failure until was too late. there was a misinterpreted negative pressure test. once they'd be at -- proceeded beyond that to this place mud for the riser, the rig crew failed to detect the influx of hydrocarbons during the test. that negative pressure test and the failure to detect the hydrocarbons depended on human judgment. we had one active barrier, the cement, tested by the negative pressure test and that was it. everything else depended on

human judgment. when human judgment failed here, there was no additional line of defense. that is critical and understand what the root causes are here. i will not going all the technical failures. this is a slide from bp's accident investigation report. it basically illustrates their view of the world that is all these events had to line up almost coincidentally for this event to occur. and it is true -- all of these things did have to happen, all these mistakes. but it does not coincidental that these things happen. there was something in the background that caused that single failure mechanism, and we have identified a failure of management. a failure to manage risk, to manage personnel, to train adequately, a failure to ensure good decision making. as a result of those failures of management, these eight mistakes

lined up. keep in mind, each of these were not just a mistake, it was an opportunity to stop this blowout from happening. it was a failure of management that resulted in nobody's stopping it at any of those points. and i want to go over briefly what the management failures are that we identified in our report. i will not talk through it like all of them, but the first is an absence of a sense of real responsibility. one of the problems that terry murray identified is that there are upwards of -- cherry murray identified is that there are upwards of many contractors on these rigs. you have a team out on the rig. there are a lot of different low side decision making. what we saw here was a different contractors making

critical decisions often times without communicating information they had learned while making those decisions to other decision makers. for instance, bp onshore made the decision on the well- designed and on some of the cementing issues but did not communicate the risks that might be associated to those cementing issues and well-design decisions to the rig crew. they had to do that. we found that there was an effective communications, not only between contractors of bp, but between the individuals on shore at bp and those out on the rig. you got the sense that there was say, we give you an informational on the need to know basis and the proper context was not always provided for the individuals making real time decisions. we that -- that comes down to a real lack of leadership and

safety culture. it will take leadership among the companies in this industry and we only look to bp, but it will take real leadership within bp to change that safety culture and address some of these problems. i have some thoughts on how this committee might address some of these things. but it is simply a safety culture issue. number two, setting people up for failure. this comes back to what i had said earlier. there was an overreliance on human judgment. the folks at bp trusted this rig crew, the folks at the peak trusted their well site leaders. this was a very experienced crew. their executives from bp. that day to give this crew an award for safety. but with that trust came too much reliance on human judgment. we know that people make mistakes.

he will end up in a situation where people make mistakes and you have a disaster. we also saw that there was inadequate construction and on timely procedures. i'll give you an example of that in a minute. the rest to little detail given to the rig crew that had execute procedures by the folks on shore from bp. and it went off -- and they were often given to the individuals on the rig late in the day in and untimely fashion so they cannot digest those procedures. something that is, already this morning. we saw an inadequate training in emergency situations and i will talk more about that. and then poor management and staffing. there was a sense that all personnel were fungible. for instance, the well site leader was -- the normal one was taken off of the deepwater

horizon. he was replaced by todd who had experience as a well site later but not on the deepwater horizon. he did not have the context that the normal one would have had. bp treated its personnel basically as fungible. stick anyone out on the rig and everything will be fine. the needs to be a better consideration of staffing and personnel issues. and finally, an adequate risk assessment. what we saw was a lot of ad hoc and tunnel vision decision making, particularly in the last two weeks leading up to the blowout. that is because there were serious gaps, we think, in bp's risk regime and risk assessment regime. we also identified problems with safety metrics and process safety. cost is easy to measure. people understand that. if some decision will increase costs, people appreciate it will be a costly decision.

process safety is much harder to measure. up front and even after the fact. so there will be a tendency for decisions, unless there is a real robust risk assessment regime, fort decisions to be biased toward costs safety. that leads into the last point, focused on efficiency by institutions toward cost savings. >> you have about five minutes. >> this is just an example of how many companies are out there. the charge can get very complicated. this is an example of the cement job, and numerous examples of the problems with diffuse decision making. little to no communication of those risks to the individuals responsible for executing. a result of looking at risks one at a time rather than collectively as a group.

one recommendation here is making clear who is responsible. there is a tremendous amount of finger-pointing after the fat. bp says it is halliburton's responsibility to pump the cement. halliburton says it is bp's responsibility to design the cement job. we need to make clear what entities are responsible for what the citizens and probably even more so identify one specific entity who was responsible for the overall operation. i would think that that would be the operator, but we need to make a clear. so that some of these decisions are not falling through the cracks and someone is in fact taking was possibility. poor communication, an example of that is the december 23, 20009 event in the north sea with near identical near miss on a transocean rig. transocean identified the problem there, very similar to those that led to the blowout in

the gulf. but transocean did not adequately communicate those findings to its own personnel. it limited the distribution to the north sea, because that was where it occurred. but the lessons would have been useful for everyone, and rather than distributed broadly, tell everybody, you need to look at this, they simply put it in a data base. it is accessible to people but there is no indication that anybody on the deepwater horizon ever saw that. another recommendation -- create a centralized industry-wide system to alert all concern for lessons learned and near misses. is not just within transocean. the industry could do a better job of collecting the information itself and keep better track the procedures used by different companies in order to facilitate study and identification of best practices.

we've talked about overreliance on human judgment. i will not go back over that period -- over that peri. the industry is advanced in drilling technology, but it did focus on safety, and it was one of the biggest surprises to us as individuals coming from the outside. the centers, many of them are antiquated. data presentation is antiquated. there are very few automated safety systems and checks, like on an airline or an airplane which could very easily have systems of automated warnings. the drillers in the drill site, so that they are not relying on themselves and their own judgments solid, and having to be looking at the exact right data at the exact right time and in making the right decision. it appears that this decision has lagged behind others, particularly where there is no

drilling efficiency pay off. this gives you a sense of just what the driller is seeing. we were quite surprised at the level of technology there. the recommendation -- eliminate human judgment as much as possible for mistakes that have huge consequences. required redundant barriers were incidents must have two active barriers when the well is under balance. so that one fails, even though it has been tested, you have the back of another barrier. in incentivize development of technology to eliminate reliance and human judgment were possible. i will move quickly to a couple of these. we showed the slide at our hearing but this was one of the more surprising things. in the last seven days before the blowout, the temporary abandonment procedures were changed no fewer than five times by bp. this is significant because we will see on april 14, there was going to be a second barrier prior to displacement. by april 16, the permit

submitted to him as has the effective barrier being put place only after displacement durin. what this shows is that ad hoc decision making, none of these changes go into any formal risk analysis. they simply were not subject to any sort of formal risk analysis requirement within bp. here is a recommendation. bp did not cement temporary abandonment plans with the original permit request. they did not develop until the last 10 days before the blowout. this was on purpose. they had submitted well plans. they did not want to tie themselves into a particular plan and then have to go back to mms to get a different permit if they wanted to change.

that led and hot and decision making. i would require earlier submission that would require greater agency review. they also require strict adherence to ams approval procedures. bp did change the procedures that was approved by mms. i am not suggesting that particular change had a call relationship to the blowout, but it was a change made in an hot fashion. people looked at it and thought the procedures were safer. that would have ended differently. requiring strict adherence to approved procedures will prevent that type of ad hoc decision making and force companies to do real risk analysis. as for training for emergency events, there is a lot of training and a lot of well control manuals on what to do during typical well controlled events. we'll have a small cake, which

can be identified, said again, circulated out. we found an amazing lack of procedures and training for a real emergency events. for resistance -- for instance, when gas is in the riser, you have very little time to react. that gas expands as it had suffered, and expands rapidly. once it hits the rig, you are real -- you're in real trouble. ignition was almost inevitable in this case. you go through the sections and steps to figure what the step is. but the ninth step, you need to be prepared to send the gas overboard. in a situation like this, the individuals need to be trained that gas needed to go overboard basically right away. i am not saying that over bordering the hydrocarbons would stop the disaster, particularly

given the wind conditions, but they should have been willing and ready to send it over board immediately given the situation. require the company's training drill for emergency scenario such as blowouts and require companies to submit emergency procedures and training plans. and then finally, on risk assessment, the major process safety gap, and this will be the last thing. bp like most of these companies have very robust process safety risk assessment plans in place, but only for certain stages of a well-designed -- the well design. many of the critical decisions on design and procedure were made during the execution phase. we need to make sure there is a

good formal risk evaluation system in place during all phases of the well. and lastly, and most critically important, you have to have real post-execution audits for evaluating decisions that increase low probabilities for high consequence events. those things did have aligned. if anyone had stopped it at any one of those points, there would not have been the blowout. but that does not mean that there were not good decisions made along the way. if someone had recognize the kick, we might not now know they had only one barrier during displacement. and that that is a bad decision and increases risk. unless you have meaningful audits were something does not go wrong, you will not be able to ferret out bad process safety decisions. and i will in with this.

it is somewhat indicative of the ad hoc decision making. this is an e-mail from brian morel, about on the rig on april 15, when they were developing the to very abandonment procedure. he said, recommendation out here is to displace the sea water and then set the cement plug. this is the change in the order of when the plug would be set. does anyone have issues with this? response from an engineer on short -- seems ok to me. this was a critical decision that was made and the level of risk assessment being done on that type of decision. so ensure that companies have regimes that do not have gaps in critical areas and perhaps even think about making failure to it. the ones on risk assessment freezers some sort of regulatory violation. >> thank you very much.

what we start with questions. i'll turn it over to tom. >> would take about 15 minutes of questions. with necklace or scheduler taking a lunch break. >> a couple of quick ones. thank you very much for that presentation. don, someone made the comments about the failure. are you far enough along that you think you have the most likely flow path into the central casing, and can you tell us for the benefit of the committee how likely you would get to what was a central flow path of hydrocarbons? >> i do not want to suggest that we have a definitive answer right now or that we're going to have one. our approach here is to identify both potential failure endpaths,s, and p

separate what we do not know in what we think, and provide that data. in addition to that being far process, i would note we find many aspects of the cementing to be wanting, if you will. we would prefer not to make a determination that we know exactly what happened unless we truly know that that is what happened and that none of the other factors contributed to this failure. and so that is where we are right now. we will hold to our standards. >> vechey. i notice in your assessment it was focused on the logic of decisions in the order of the decisions that were made. sean, you mentioned more formality in the injection of third parties are other ideas. did your study with the general

nature of the environment and the timeframe for decisions, and conclude with those could be done speculatively? >> we did. it will depend entirely on what the decision was. for instance, the design of the temporary abandonment procedures would change dramatically over the last week before the blowout. they did not to wait that long before they came up with this design, and if they had, there was certainly still time to engage in a real formal risk assessment process. the negative pressure test is different because it occurs in real time. what is interesting here is that the negative pressure test took three hours. the well was shut again. these guys noticed something odd going on and they did take the time to try to figure it out and get it right. the call back to shore in that situation to engage engineers familiar with negative pressure

test probably would avoided the entire catastrophe. there was a situation where you would have time. things were not happening in real time they were creating immediate risks. and then there is fine with the failure to detect the influx once they were in displacement. and that really was more real time. it is hard to know what resources you could bring to bear on that. but when the regrow began to notice anomalies, there could of been a "we're going is headed in and figure things out," rather than leave the well, this place it, while it tried to dig knows -- i guess the problem. -- while we try to diagnose the problem. >> thank you both for these great presentations. putting a lot of information about your work before this committee, to give us some real context, i think is great. don, have a question not asking for the answer, but you

anticipate -- you could sit in your presentation on the failures of limitation of the b.o.p. to stem the flow. do you expect that you will be able to look at the failures of the b.o.p. with respect to its design and specifications as well as what s which is what actually happened on that day? >> that is one of the areas we are looking into. we note that b.o.p.'s are specified designed and tested to static conditions. we also note that they are used often under dynamic conditions. as it was attempted in this particular case, and i think we will be noting some of those issues and making suggestions, recommendations if you will, of relative to what may be

appropriate in the future to provide a more robust capability. what also like to note of this surprise to us, the extent to which some of the limitations or shall we say uncertainties associated with b.o.p.'s seemed not to be well understood. within at least the senior management levels. the question of whether or not the history, if you will, as reflected in the data bases as well as other sources of the information relative to failures of b.o.p.'s are well understood, communicated, and in fact part of the training and education of key decision makers in these processes. not clear. we will be addressing those

aspects, i believe, and our final report. >> thank you. >> i have a clarification question for don. on your multiple decisions, there was a bullet point on the casing. as i understand, there were flow valves there. >> a number of issues associated with the design of that. and whether or not the design would have permitted a complete cementing bottom lot to have been run. it could have at least determine top of cement in this particular situation but would not have been able to fully explore, and that has to do the way in which it was designed. >> the cement log will allow 12 times this -- 12 hours to set

the cement. >> yes. [inaudible] , sean.estion for you come the high pressure used to convert the flow valve. was it clearly a complicated procedure and not proceeding according to plan? there was a comment that someone on the rig thought that maybe the casing had been damaged by the high pressures that were reached in attempt to convert the flow so that they could start proceeding with the procedures and something may have been damaged in the casing. is there some component in the casing that could have actually ruptured at those kind of pressures? or was the real time conjecture? >> from what we could tell, it was real time conjecture. i don't think he had any specific notion as to what might have ruptured.

we cannot. -- which can point to that has call, having any sort of causal connection. but it did try that shine a spotlight on the poor decision making and poor management of situations as they come up on the rig. they had difficulty controlling -- converting the floats. an individual thought something had blown out of the bald. they ran a few tests, were not able to figure out what was going on, and decided to put off until later that concerned, because they knew at some point later, there would be performing a positive drug test and that would indicate any problems with casing integrity. it seems that once they had gotten that passed the low conversion and thought they had gotten to where they needed to be, there was no memory of their having been a problem with low conversion.

and it got down to the negative pressure test, when there were kick detections after the negative tests, no one had in their mind that there was a weird stuff with a cement job, we better be particularly careful about what we're seeing in the data and the pressure reading. anything out of the ordinary should be treated as a problem with the cement job. >> one additional question on that. it was not clear that the field this place which could allow the cement to go back up into the casing, you note that that did not happen? >> we cannot rule that out. >> a simple question with a complicated answer. if you go through redundancy, much debate on discussion on that, how you define redundancy in this case? and we have a recommendation, had to look at other industries? there's a lot of debate about

having a back up in the same system line. you have an independent system to have redundancy. is there also recommendation of redundancy given the disbursed to safety and redundant management to address the high safety risk? the both of you identified? >> we did not look at whether it would help to have redundant management. one of the problems we identified is that they were too many cooks in the kitchen and decisions were being made by one entity and another that made it critical decision did not know what was going on. i would be careful to further decentralize that process. as far as looking at other industries and how they would -- to find redundancy, we did not do that. this is a simple point we were trying to make that these barriers do sometimes fail. people sometimes do not identify that failure. so at least having one more

active barrier in place that does not depend on human judgment, pressing a button that someplace on the rig, would be an easy recommendation. >> let me add one other thought to that. one of the issues were identified in our in our report that i expect will be further amplifying on in our final report has to do with the concept of in detective -- independent technical parties. -- authority bop. -- authorities. the separate operational control and technical authority. the individuals making a determination on the adequacy of the technical decision making on at the same individuals that are responsible for cost schedule and operations. that is, if you will, a check and balance, whether you want to

call that a redundant management system or not, i've had just note it is a system that has been used in a number of other areas that i am familiar with, and it does still permit clear- cut management of party -- authority. >> as terrible as this incident was, it could have been worse had there been an underground blowout. there was an indication of that earlier in mid drilling process, that that right to the formation. and that led to many decisions to not only when they were drilling but also during the attempts to stop the flow. in the national academy and the nrc studies, are you expecting to reach any insights on those types of risks and perhaps another case that we might need to be concerned about as we look

at regulations going forward? >> one of the areas we're looking at specifically has to do with the unique aspects of this particular reservoir structure. the five different zones, the various floor pressures, but try to radiance, and the challenges, if you will, associated with attempting to cement and close out all five zones with one single application. we're going to be looking at that, in particular, the specific issue here, and hopefully we can generalize that to provide a better perspective on how one may want to manage such risks in the future. >> as we close, just one comment and i will turn it back over to michael. these are terrific insights into something that occurred. this will be a four-looking committee tried to gain information on what has happened hanna. put that into a framework or we

can make recommendations on what alternatives we have in the future. it is very important that we gain enough insight into that. but it is not in my judgment not afford to get all the details of all the deepwater macondo experience behind this, but we will spend some time into the lessons learned. the two of you have really set us up nicely for that. >> thanks, tom. i wanted to thank both don a andsean for their eliminating and helpful presentations. you read mine. -- you read my mind. this lays down a factual background looking backwards, and now we can look at the lessons learned which will in turn informed the deliberations so central to the work of this committee. thank you both for a very helpful presentation. let me turn it over the brad. >> we will take our break for lunch. we will start promptly at 1:00. remarks from secretary salazar. at this point, we are on break

until 1:00 p.m. we will be starting promptly. members of the committee, you have a list of local restaurants. for all the folks would join this in the audience, pick one up. they are available at the tables. thank you very much and we will see what accurate 1:00. >> was actually get in place by 1:00, which means assembled by five or 10 minutes before. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the committee also heard from ken salazar and the head of the ocean energy management committee. this is about 20 minutes. >> it is a great pleasure for us to have the secretary with us

this afternoon. i'll turn this over to michael. >> the secretary does not like long introductions. it is my pleasure to welcome him to join us at the meeting. we're telling the we're delighted to have his support and his presence here today. and with that, i'll turn it over to secretary salazar. >> thank you very much, director bromwich, and chairman hunter, and brad, for your leadership of this committee and i am looking for to the results. the men make several points. the first is, last night i read each and every one of your bios in your resonates. -- and your resumes. i have to say it is one of the most outstanding groups of scientists and experts that have ever been assembled in the united states to deal with the

issues of oil and gas drilling. for every one of you, i know what your responsibilities are within your companies in the ngo community is within government, and i want to say thank you for being very much a part of this effort. to dr. tom hunter, he and i and some of you in this room lived through the deepwater horizon natural crisis -- national crisis for our country. he reminded us the other day at the international containment forum, for 140 days, we're on the phone almost every single days. i remember on a plane trip, flying down to houston in those early days, for the deepwater horizon explosion, and he was drawing different diagrams for me on the plan on how he and his staff could bring the macondo well under control at the time. in the ensuing days and weeks and many months that we went to

that national crisis, he was the president's right-hand man, secretary to pause right hand man, and mine as we get to the nation -- guided the nation for the crisis. we work closely with jane, who is very much part of that, as well as other people involved with us. fink you for being chairman of this organization. a quick word about michael. we recruited him >> to come and help us perform about how we do of oil and gas drilling with the department of the interior. he has had a very busy last year. we have a lot more work to do. he and i often talk and have meetings where we recognize that many of our reform efforts have been very good over the last year. we are very proud of the efforts that we have underway.

wilson know that this is a dynamic situation. we will continue to learn and to implement things. we brought together the 12 countries from throughout the world including places like india and brazil, mexico and canada to talk about the future of ocean dwelling -- drilling. it reminded me once again about how global this industry is. it is not just what we do on the united states side of the gulf of mexico, but it very much involved in the future of the border. we have been working hard on that effort to make sure that we move forward with the gulf of mexico and a common set of oil and gas drilling.

for several weeks, [unintelligible] and also recognize that in terms of deep water, they are the no. 1 deepwater producer in the world. with other countries around the world, it gives us an opportunity because of the fact that we went through to develop the gold standard as we move forward with oil and gas production. our policy has been cleared. it is important for economic

security. the oceans of america, including deep water. when we say deep water, we say, yes, even though we went [unintelligible] those lessons that we have learned and are continuing to learn will help us move forward in a way that will develop the resources in a safe way. you have a major assignment as a committee to help our nation and really to help our world in terms of how we develop oil and gas. the points have been laid out to you in terms of the possibility of encapsulating things, recognizing that there is additional work to do.

on the investigations and assessments that have been done, drilling and workplace safety is a key point to focus on. if we never have another deepwater horizon, that would be great. the prevention side of what we do is really important. in the second area of what happens when you do have the very low probability of than, it will be likely did. we want to make sure that we are prepared and able to go into the containment program that while it allowed the kind of skills for the 87 days that we have them actively still here. what are the best containment strategies?

dealing with oil spill response, making sure we have the most effective oil spill response, having the united states coastguard being here with us today and members of this committee as well in dealing with that. i was very impressed. >> thank you for joining us this afternoon. i was to join the secretary in thanking you for joining us.

we are reminded how critically important it is for us to bring about the broad experience and the best minds. as he suggested, we are in a much better place than we were a year ago. as we push forward, a year in the future. in the aftermath, people have begun to realize the importance of bringing together, we'll look at the issues from an academic perspective and various other perspectives as well.

we feel very good about the concept of this committee and the composition of this committee. they reviewed their resonate as last night and did not see the incredibly distinguished applicants for membership on this committee. one of the toughest things i have done is sifting through an incredible number of qualified people to distill it down to the people or the groups that we have today. it is a tribute to the number of people that we have serving. frankly, it is a tribute to you that you were the selections that we made. the presentations we heard this morning have already highlighted a number of areas that are in need of further research. i was gratified by the number

and the incisiveness of the questions that many of you have asked this morning. it shows you are up on the issues and that you're looking to help push those foreword as we move forward. three activities are of particular interest for the entire department. i would like to lay those of very briefly. what we need is a thorough assessment of the existing procedures and technologies. for drilling and workplace safety, source containment, and clean out. as well as recommendations for additional search in those fields. we have made a comprehensive list of government in drilling and workplace safety containment and responsive to identify gaps in the current knowledge base.

and last but not least, we're very interested now and in the future, the best mechanisms for long-term cooperation. i think that is what has been missing in the past. i think this committee can help begin to fill the gap. as the secretary suggested, it is a continuous and dynamic process. you'll want to figure out what the appropriate institutions are to make sure that this kind of collaboration continues. let me say thank you to your service for the country. we look forward to your recommendations to make sure and that it can be conducted in a more environmentally responsible way.

>> i like to make a comment about the leadership of this agency. you wonder if, in fact, the leadership of the country is interested in what you have to say. you wonder if the leadership also cares about the details of what you're doing. they are deeply embedded in this important topic. there is an enormous amount of time understanding the ramifications of what might come out of this committee. i can only a test to the beginning of every day with telephone calls to the secretary. and pointing out that this is an engaged leadership, and it will listen to us earnestly.

thank you to you both. >> if i can reflect on a personal level, i remember it will always be blazoned in my mind. a lot of things have happened including the fact that they have in the having to have a root canal. it is probably set for the hours of the dentist's chair. the question relative to the risks that we are assessing in terms of replacing the ceiling had. and whether or not it would remain in place and what some of the factors were relative to integrity.

in a very interesting way, looking back at the difficulty and the pain of the hundred and 40 days that we went through. my great hope is that the legacy is a good legacy. it is a legacy that we will be able to do something moving forward with oil and gas production. thank you to all of you. >> and you would rather have a root canal? [laughter] >> will star with in the third panel's presentations in two minutes. >> in a few moments, a look at

the deficit and federal spending. our guest was the former head of the congressional budget office. in 40 minutes, a discussion on the future of labor unions. after that, the first public hearing, ocean energy safety advisory committee looking into ways to improve offshore drilling. on washington journal tomorrow morning, we will be joined by: test -- columnist john fund. the executive director deepak bhargava will focus on president obama's support from the democratic base. into the fiscal and economic responsibility and reform continues with a look at health care savings. our guest is a special correspondent with kaiser health news.

"washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 am eastern. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow. president obama holds a town hall style meeting at the northern virginia community college at 10:15 a.m. eastern. at 1:00 p.m. eastern, a national press club debate between cnn founder ted turner and the founder of bp capital. turner is expected to discuss his solar projects in new mexico and atlanta. pickens will outline his plan for alternate energy sources such as wind, solar power, and natural gas. valid discussion of the deficit and federal and in from "washington journal." span2. host: douglas holz-eakini is

president of the american action forum. a former director of the congressional budget office under president george w. bush. tell us about your role there. help us to lay the foundation of what kind of role do you work you did. guest: action appointed by the speaker of the house and present a protest of the senate. a non-partisan position. your job is to organize the cbo the best economic and budgetary advice. evaluate what happened and did not make recommendations. the host: you are with the american actress -- american action form. the website says you have center to right leaning policies. you also an adviser to presidential candidate john mccain. where you are coming from politically. you recently came out in a piece in "national review" online talking about budget committee chairman paul ryan's

plan and you called it commendable and highlight the fact it would half the national debt by 2015. why is that important? guest: right now we are borrowing 58,000 baht -- we are burning up a family's income every second and it is simply not sustainable and opposes three great threats. the first threat is to the economy itself, where we run the risk of a greece or portugal- style financial crisis. the second threat is we will leave an enormous burden to our children that is simply unfair and for the first time not leave it to the next iteration standard of living better than one we inherited. and one of the reasons why i believe the paul ryan plan deserves credit, is our big social safety net program -- social security, medicare, medicaid, affordable care act, are all unsustainable and running deficits and will not last the next generation and we are putting at risk the future -- and poor and it seems

terribly unfair. host: any concerns about the approach about medicare and medicaid? you talk about the critics of the left will quickly attack premium support for medicare and block grants for medicaid as a cheap attempt to shift costs to the seniors and poor who are not equipped to handle the burden. guest: these are different approaches, no question. but the current approaches are not working. we have red ink as far as the eye can see and we also did not have great care. in medicaid, many beneficiaries cannot see a primary care physician -- the end up in emergency rooms four times the normal rate. some can't see specialists. that is simply a broken program veered we have to try another approach. medicare, many seniors still -- in many ways the way it is structured produces a lot of ways. fee-for-service, doctors get paid for doing things but not make sure they are well. the ryan approach arts have the alternative strategies that both make the dollars and up and

gives us an opportunity to provide better care. it is something we have to consider seriously. host: what was your reaction to president obama's speech last week? guest: i was disappointed really for three reasons. the first is, it is not really much of a plan. if you look inside, he says go for another commission out of members of congress. we have seen a lot of commissions. he said use the affordable care act more extent -- but extensively and even his own activists say it makes it more expensive and not less. when that does not work, we will just do across-the-board cuts but we would exempt social security, medicare, medicaid, affordable care act, which means you and sent all the spending and that would not add up, either. it was disappointing and was not much of a plan, it will not really work. and most and portly, i thought the tone, harsh partisan attacks, personal attacks on paul ryan was the wrong direction. we need both parties coming together and of being driven apart.

host: alan greenspan wasm greenspaneet the press." -- alan greenspan was on "meet the press." >> i think this crisis is so imminent and difficult that i think we ought to allow the bush tax cut all to expire. that is a very big number. but having put the rights back to where they were under the clinton administration, i would argue that everything else should be either cutting spending or taking out the subsidies which are in the tax expenditures. host: you would say let it expire for everybody -- the clinton error rate. >> i think what we have to come aware of is if we allow the tax is to fill in the holes, we are going to find that we are getting every -- ever closer to the types of economies that exist in europe, which are very heavily laden and not rapidly growing the way ours can.

i must say, i am feeling far more optimistic about resolving this issue now than i was several months ago. and the fact that people are saying -- putting on the table that this issue requires a major cut in entitlement spending in order to resolve this issue is of the issue that has got to be confronted. we are going to do it realistically, i hope sooner rather than later. host: alan greenspan on "meet the press." what is your response to mr. greenspan possibly that the bush era tax cuts of to be allowed to expire. guest: in one sense i agree, in another, i disagree. if you go back to the fiscal condition led by erskine bowles and allison said. they had real findings. in national would approve, they called it. the problem is largely spending -- all spending.

and number four, the route -- road to higher revenues as tax reform. greenspan saying we need more revenue. many people would agree with that. i would disagree that you want to look backward with the tax code. the tax code is broken. you want to look forward and reform in a more comprehensive way if you want to raise revenue. broaden the base, low with the rates. also one of the hardest things in the world to accomplish. we have had an income tax for over 100 years and major reforms you can count on less than one hand. host: the president of the american action forum, the website is americanactionforum.org. you can join the conversation -- talking about ryan plan, president obama's plan and we can also talk about what happened last week with the deal that was struck in the house and senate and also between

president obama, for this fiscal spending year. did you feel like that was a reasonable compromise, looking at the plant that was brokered about a week and a half ago? guest: i think it was a reasonable compromise. i at least i disappointed we are in this position. it is really terrible governments to put the government on stopgap funding bills have with through the fiscal year. there is no way to run an agency of that kind of budget. i read the congressional budget office under that situation -- it does terrible things to plan and execute effectively. glad it is done. we can move to next year and a bigger problems we face. the terms of nuts and bolts, it seemed reasonable. host: the story in "the washington post" says that before the vote, it turned out that republicans actually gave you a call -- republican leaders in the house -- to get input from you. why did they give you a call?

guest: at the last minute a couple of stories for appeared that this was only cutting $300 million -- host: rather than 30 billion. guest: they were both correct and not news. like anything else, the government spends money and saves money very slowly. if you appropriate dollar you have to go through another five or six before you see the check go out -- it takes a long time. if you cut the budget by $30 billion, not all of them happen instantaneously. 300 million up front and remainder will come in years in the future. i did not view this for a big deal. if you do budgets for a living it was not news. members were surprised so we had to do a to do101 for members before the vote -- i had to do a little but it101 for the members. host: clearance. caller: i have a question for your guest. his support of the republican

tax proposal -- a kind of lies in the face of what the measure -- you know, the whole tax problem. you have two opposing ideologies in our country. one is supported by people who believe that tax and spend -- which is a conservative idea, i think, you never go into debt. and the other that burroughs and spends and they are supposedly the conservatives -- borrows and spends, and they are supposedly the conservatives. the two do not match. can you explain how he figures that his support of one or the other -- i guess i lost my train of thought. thank you. guest: thank you. i think the key decision is how much you spend. once you spend the money of the

federal level, you are going to pay for one way or the other -- bahr would come attacks later, were tax now. and washington spent during my time here, all the energy on taxes -- finally turning attention to the real issue, how much you are going to spend on on what. once you make those decisions the rest is paying the bills. host: matthew, a republican from rochester, new york. caller: my question to you is how can the republican party be so irresponsible as to sit there and tell us that we are in this big huge deficit and they did not want to raise taxes. even it doesn't make sense to me how you can fund two wars by borrowing money from china. then saying it is obama's fault and we're near the ceiling with our borrowing.

believe the irresponsibility starts back then. guest: i think the answer is simple. if you look forward at the present cost budget, he does raise taxes. budget.he president's about $900 billion is the interest on borrowing. the taxes are not a solution. it is a political tax bill issue. republicans feel when large budget deals were struck, there were promises in exchange for tax increases. they feel they did not get the spending cuts. they are not going to agree to more revenue until they see spending cuts on the books. host: we have a question on twitter.

guest: i should know the answer to this. top brackets you hear about is about $60 billion a year right now. the mill class will get over $100 billion -- the middle class. we have a deficit of $1.6 trillion. we could collect $20 million and not dent the current problem -- we could collect $200 million. caller: i am listening to all of this. as far as the health care goes, even the working middle class will not be able to survive with the expense of what the republicans are talking about. as far as the people on social security, we would die off, all

of us. and if obama has a plan, which it sounds sensible to me, i'm sorry about the rich people not wanting to give up any of their money. they are the reason why we are in this situation, all of them in that house up there. they are filthy rich. they took it from us. let them see what is like to have no insurance and let their people die off. they would not die off. they have millions of dollars. they can make sure their mothers and fathers survive through this. guest: the hope is to strengthen the safety net. typically you get a medicaid benefit that is much richer at the bottom.

there are basic changes in the way that medicare runs. more for those at the bottom. more testing that the current problems. adjustments for those who are less well. the same is true with social security plans you'll see. including an increase in the minimum benefits. this is not an attempt to shift the burden on to the poor. host: clearwater, florida. welcome, louis. caller: a president was set when obama gave amnesty to the illegals -- a precedent was set. all these spanish people called their friends and family and said, come to america and you will have amnestied. now we have all of these people

who are illegals from all over the world. host: what does this have to do with the budget? ♪ caller: -- caller: they are now working on these no-tax jobs. they don't have a social security number. all the production lines went overseas. all the children graduating from high schools are not college-bound kids. all -- the country was thriving. now the rich want to get richer. they are sent overseas. money does not come back here to pay taxes. it goes to all the other countries -- switzerland and the other banks. these people are getting all this money. guest: a lot there.

there has been no particular amnesty to illegals. most studies conclude that they pay taxes and cannot collect benefits. the broader issue of the u.s. competitiveness and manufacturing jobs in the united states, but we know that we have a long term trend that shows less employment and manufacturing. queasy think it is a good thing -- more productive workers and they get -- we usually think that is a good thing -- more productive workers and they get paid more. which tried to make sure we are competitive international -- we try to make sure we are competitive international. it will be an enormous debate. it is about -- it is old news.

you have spent more than you took in in the past. we have done that on an enormous scale. it is inevitable will have to raise the debt limit. you will hear voices saying, we're not going to do it. it is not true. the treasury does not have the option of saying no. all you do is do for that spending. we will get to the debt limit increase. ebt inll we control the dat the future? be anon't think it should either/or situation.

we send the message to the president through legislation that says, pay the interest on our debt. do not default. there is there reason to default ever. anon't want to keep giving irresponsible government more money. it will be gone by november. someone needs to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes. i don't think we can sustain this borrowing. host: rand paul. guest: we are not going to raise the debt ceiling. we will not lose our international credit rating. there will not be enough money to fulfill everything.

some spending will have to be cut off. that means you start cutting into the pentagon, troops, social security. once the money comes in, you're obligated to put it back to those uses. change the future. you hear that sentiment quite clearly. we cannot continue to do what we're doing. don't use the debt limit as the vehicle. host: secretary geithner said that not raising the debt ceiling would be financially catastrophic. it would be really bad for the american perception abroad. do you see this as a political game of chicken? senator paul was saying --

guest: i concur that i think it would be unwise not to raise the debt ceiling. financial markets would view this as a repudiation of our debt. that is extremely unwise. this has to be played carefully. conservatives need to raise the debt ceiling and attached future deficit reduction and do it quickly so international markets know and that the onus would be on the democrats. host: douglas holtz-eakin with the american action forum. gainesville, texas. good morning. hi, don.

caller: i was calling about this rand tax proposal. that is about the best idea anyone has come up with yet. he is telling it like it is. the president bashing him is on page roddick of him to do that. host: what do like about the -- what do you like about the ryan plan? caller: i have done business and they built -- those people are about the -- i will call their office -- we would be a contract and the whole family --

they watched their money. they did stuff. -- they bid stuff. i was impressed with that family. the brothers in that famine are just like that. host: he had no specifics. -- the brothers and that family are just like that. guest: broaden the base and raise more revenue. that is exactly what the president's commission outlined. this got him a lot of heat from the right in his own party. he undertakes the reforms fairly slowly. it does not close the deficit as rapidly as many would like. don thinks he is not a good

politician. he is a good politician. he managed to get the budget through. host: only four republicans in the house voted on the budget. guest: it is not going to get through the senate. they lay down the marker for how the house will do business. it is the belief that people sent a clear message. they wanted a focus on jobs and to control the spending and take the financial crisis off the horizon. they have focused on federal spending and they will continue to govern that way. host: a question on twitter. guest: 2050 with the ryan plan.

many people view that as far too aggressive. wouldt think anyone expected to happen before that. you want to make sure it doesn't keep exploding relative to the economy. it is about 60% of the economy. it will be 90% in a few years. you want to go the other way. caller: i have seen the chart. i have seen the comparisons of the crime plan -- ryan plan. he is not being truthful about his plan. he will not admit that medicare would change. he doesn't want to admit that private vouchers would be involved. his plan is breaking the backs of the senior citizens and the

poor. people are saying it is so great. republicans have raised the debt ceiling at least eight times. if they really cared about the debt and spending, why did they not want to discuss the oil subsidies? why did they not want to discuss anything that affects the rich? i am a democrats. they did not get reelected or resigned. they are looking out for the rich. it is plain and simple. when you look at the legislation they have planned, and think it seemed -- they want to get rid of. host: i want to give more information about concerns

about medicaid and medicare. this is from "the new york times." we can look at this now. guest: on the medicaid peace, the block grant is not a block grant. it would be indexed for inflation and for population. if you have more beneficiaries,

you will get more federal aid. it will provide -- medicaid and medicare, for and have sent out of every national dollar. they go from 4% to 20% of gdp. we have to go in another direction. increase the efficiency of this program. is a tremendously inefficient program. you want to manage the beneficiaries. pay for rendered services. rhode island ask for a waiver that would allow them to take a block grants. care improved.

there are a lot of models that suggests you could do better under this kind of a system and you could use the dollars more was a. douglas holtz-eakin is our guest. he served in the john mccain campaign back in 2007 and 2008. he was director of the congressional budget office under the administration of george w. bush. caller: good morning. the organization and also the fact that the american action network and they are network coke -- they are a giant

commercial and it is bad for them. they are not realizing -- the people are not realizing exactly what is going on because they're being sold this down the road. guest: we are a tax-exempt, not- for-profit think tank. we have our ideas on our website. we welcome a diversity of views. i have my own views. i'm a fiscal conservative. i think that would be the best for our country. host: 8 republican caller -- a republican caller. caller: i have a couple of questions. i see that mr. holtz-eakin is also a former congressional office director.

his expertise led him to a number of think tank positions after that. i am looking at is bio. it is kind of pointed me to the fact he was involved with a lot of the economic policies that put us in this position. i am hearing some much from people like him and some of the conservative economists about repeal of the health care law and that strikes me as very expensive proposition. my position is that if there is no public option, forget repeal. if you want repeal, add public option. this whole argument is skewed to support. the insurance companies and

medical product providers -- i am sorry that a lot of the ryan's ers of paul budget and the president was critical of his analysis. i agree with the president. this is all about privileges. some republicans think trickle- down economics is going to work and it doesn't seem to me that it has worked. we will try something different. guest: i have never been a supporter of public option because we have two different issues in health care. one is the cost of the health care bill itself. the second is insurance, which is a financial product. sometimes you don't pay the full

cost and someone else picks up that tab. the underlying health care bill and that we don't get high enough quality. the public option does not do anything to solve that. that has been my reservation. the ryan plan deserves attention and not everyone is going to agree. for those who do not like entitlement reforms, they have an obligation to present their own forms. they are falling apart before our own eyes. you can say, sure, it's fine. and to take a cut. -- anad take nd take a cut. host: a comment on twitter.

is that a fair statement? guest: it changes the incentives. it is not as large part is not as if there is a fixed pie. you are trying to shrink the health care pie and it is too big. caller: good morning. i'm a social conservative. i am a strong christian and a fiscal conservative. i don't think you should spend money you do not have. i watched c-span last week. steve had a guest from pennsylvania. he was not himself that day. he was very political that date. i felt it was a contest between the republicans and the democrats and that was very

unattractive. i think -- i hope the republicans when they come on the radio would stop talking about the children and grandchildren. wars are very expensive. that is hypocritical and something our children and grandchildren. they come on television and say care. ccare, obama is that a code word for something? your guest is from may corporation that does not pay taxes. i live in maryland. i wish that when you go to the hospitals, they would ask you to prove your citizenship. that is part of the problem we have. i took a neighbor who was having

a baby to a e.r., and there were so many illegals. that is the problem. host: you made a lot of points. let's go to our guest. she brought many concerns. illegal immigrants are getting health care. guest: the supreme court has ruled that hospitals may not deny them care. host: she was concerned about some of the plants on the table. she does not like the use of the word "obamacare." guest: i think that is fair. political discourse has become heated. people of different names for it. i think it was the wrong reform.

if we roll the clock back to 2009, there was wide agreement that we need health care reform. we recognized we have a health care bill that was too big and that too few americans have access to affordable coverage. we need to reform to take bets on -- to take that on. this is a step in a much larger process. host: frank in pennsylvania, republican caller. caller: good morning. it is great to be a republican. i am a capitalist. i think health care is killing industry. we need industrial policy. why the republicans don't have

industrial policy that denies company's costly health care. g.e. employed to under thousand people in this country and 200 that -- g.e. employed 200,000 people in this country and 200,000 people overseas. without those jobs, there are no small companies. we lost to companies in bradford -- we lost two companies in bradford. these companies should come back to the united states. don't think they don't worry about that. we need an environment that encourages companies to relocate here. guest: i agree.

i did not grow up wanting to be health care economist. if you have 1/5 of your economy running in officially, you don't have the luxury to afford that in the united states. it is a central issue. it is not the only one. we have deep issues in education. we need to worry about our tax and trade arrangement so that we have a level playing field. i would say it drives the headquarters of large corporations overseas. i don't think we can afford that. host: you were the director of the congressional budget office into thousands to 2010 -- in

2003 to 2005. we hear so much about one side that the plant will do this and we hear from the opposing -- that the plan will do this and we hear from the opposing side. guest: i am an enormous fan of the cbo. its job is to provide non-portis and advice -- non-partisan advice. it looks at the budgetary implications of nearly every bill. weapons systems, the navy ship- building plans, or health care reform -- you name it, they studied it for the congress.

>> this year's studentcam competition as do this across the country to consider washington, d.c. through their lenses. they took up an issue that help them better understand our role of the federal government. how the bill skelton. >> of one of be a football player. >> i want to be an artist when i grow up. >> they are few things more fundamental to the american dream and a good education. this has never been more true than it is today. at time when our children are competing with kids, china,

india, the best jobs of all that you can have is a job do -- a college degree or job training. but the very moment it is never been more important, the cost of that kind of education has never been higher. for the past few decades, the cost of tuition at private colleges is more than doubled. while the cost of public institutions is nearly tripled. compounding the problem, tuition has grown 10 times faster than the typical family's income, putting new pressures on families already strained that pricing. >> he can be a burden to society to go to college. i come from a middle-class family, and then he i could go the college, have to dig into retirement savings and will still gradually with $10,000 in debt. you have to get a job and pay at all. it is a big bird.

it would be nice if college was freed. if you have a lot more federal aid, but i do not know where it would come from. >> the role of the federal government is to provide a ladder of opportunity. not a free ride, but all latter -- a ladder to climb up. but the wrongs need to be there in is the federal government's responsibility that the rungs be there. ♪ >> for college to be affordable [inaudible] we are a public institution, there funded by taxpayer dollars. we rely heavily on appropriations from the state.

it is beyond just paying for the classrooms and materials that many. you pay for the fact of the, the cost of the overhead, operating the building, everything. the only other revenue source is tuition. if appropriations from the state go down, and their many reasons for that, some of it is just due to the economy -- if it goes down, the only course is tuition. >> for private institutions, escalating to his senses -- escalating tuition costs of that standards of excellence within program and colleges. where the federal government had a limited role, some feel it addresses the issue because it is a national concern. it is absolutely critical for the nation if we continue to be

one of the primary economic powerhouses of the world, for us to have first-class, best in the world educations in higher education. one thing that is essential that the government insurance that we continue to have a top-notch education at both the undergraduate and graduate level. >> however some feel we can combated by having price caps. it would deviate from the government's limited role in higher education. >> it is promoting the of this sense function of the marketplace. -- the efficient function of the marketplace. we did not involve the government to that extent. setting supply practices and if

we had the same percentage, it would pay for entirely for government money. we would have to massively increase taxes. we would then have to shift toward the decision of shrinking the percentage of high-school graduates to go to college. those are two really bad choices. >> right now, we are involved mostly through programs and through guaranteed student loans. -- through pell grants and through guaranteed student loans. i am involved as a member of the senate finance committee through making tuition affordable by making it tax deductible.

>> the program must always go to the student. then the student has a choice of going to whatever college he or she wants to. >> the federal government has taken a number of actions to address this issue. they have changed the way student loans are issued under the direct loan program. they are investing in community colleges and investing in tax credits. the have worked to simplify the financial aid application and modify the income-based repayment program. the issue remains. but washington does not have the sole responsibility in addressing it. >> government is a misused term, at times. we are the government. there is no separate entity. it makes people feel like education is not getting the type of support funding-wise. that is our band-aid, for the people to take action.

>> i want to be a journalist for the new york times. >> although we are headed down different paths -- >> there is no doubt that higher education will pay a role in all of our futures. >> rising tuition costs affect each of us. as well as high school and families are rep -- how schools and families of around the nation. >> it is not the role of the federal government to provide a free ride. >> it is not their job to provide us with a free education. it is, however, the role of the federal government to provide us with the resources necessary to have access. >> this freedom allows us to be what ever we aspire to be. >> in other words, to realize -- >> the -- >> american -- >> dream. >> go to a studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos.

>> in a few moments, a forum on the future of labor unions. in an hour and a half, the first public meeting of the interior department of ocean energy safety advisor recommitted, looking at ways to improve offshore drilling. the committee heard reports on the gulf oil spill and reports from the interior secretary ken salazar. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we will be joined for a discussion of standard and poor's lowering its long-term outlook for the u.s. debt because of the growing deficit. the executive director of the center for community change will focus on president obama's support from his democratic base. and 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 health news. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> a couple of live events tomorrow. president obama hold a town hall-style meeting on his budget and deficit reduction plans. he will be at the northern virginia community college at 10:15 a.m. eastern. at 1:00 p.m., it is the national debate on energy policy. turner is expected to discuss his solar projects in new mexico and atlanta. pickens will outline his plan to promote alternate energy sources such as wind, solar power, and natural gas. now, a discussion on the future of labor unions in america, in

detroit. panelists include officials from the afl-cio, the united autoworkers, and the communication workers of america. this is an hour and a half. >> 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. minutes max, and identify one dimension which is impacti it the movement today. we want to understand where the movement is today before talking about the future. about one item that is impacting the labor movement. it could be something impacting it positively, - 3, and would u 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 isctually an attack on democracy itself, because going after collective bargaining, they are going after the right to work, buthey'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 heas 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 h union it -- seth is going to talk abo 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 ink 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 movemen 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, theres 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 togeth, and if u 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 thatorker 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 athe 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 peopleave 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 rnergize the federal work force which does become disenfranchised and demoralized. yoavulsing 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 tha 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 thinkhere 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 situaon 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, a he gives major cuts to which america. he createdhat 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 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 ia 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 tt 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 prlem 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. an 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 syst 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 outge 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 a

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 labomovement. >> 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 caot 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 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 blion 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 theeachers 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? 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 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. weere 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, a this is the final part. president obama in my opinions the best present we have elected. he is more worker friendly, but here is a mistake i believe we made. we fell into this tp 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 frankurphy, 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 pson, 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 educati, 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 uni 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 constuency, not only within our own membership but within t communities where we live and work, and social networng, like facebook, like twitter -- i am not an pert 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 ofhat, 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 definitel something we need to take advantage of. >> with all of the socially and the things talked about, the percentage of theork 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. theres 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 byt&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 so 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 thatiscussion? >> -- 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 onef 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'

ves. 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. ouallies 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 o 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-ft. 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, derstanding the process of what collective bargaining can do for you, whether you are a professional, whether you are a blue collaworker 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 dr to do that. i think it is really important.

a really good examp 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 doars, 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 >> speaking for federal sector labor unions,