why weren't these cases investigated and is m. shaw c conducting those investigations now? >> i think there are three answers to why weren't they. in addition to ventilation and staff, staff that was cut and i think if you look at our testimony there is another problem that was raised in the internal review which is around 2006, i believe it was, they were only able to carry out about 83% of its responsibilities. they were shifting people over just to do targeted inspections at mines they couldn't get to. they were pulling off ventilation specialists, special investigators, and others to try to keep the mandatory inspection program up because they were so short staffed and couldn't keep up. >> with that in mind, do you agree with niosh, their independent panel recommendation, to conduct four complete inspections each year at underground mines as a way to reprioritize resources? would that help? >> all of those cases were shifted off to the u.s. attorney's office that were identified. so those were processed. i went to work back in the 1960s and the first time the federal in

what is clear, that m. shaw was no match for mass see or any other mining operation where corporate greed comes before the health and safety of the workers. today we recognize the entire system suffered the miners at upper big branch. congress shouldn't have slashed miners for mine inspectors. and the weak enss were exploded in the law and hurt their workers. the law should have been much stronger because that is what it takes when an operator has little or no regard for their workers. we are prepared to work with our colleagues because the blood spilled by the miners must not be in vain and not forgotten and we must prevent all errors that led to the ubd disaster. in closing, i want to welcome our witnesses that will be here today. as well as representing ray hall who have a lot invested in us getting this right. i yield back. >> thank you, gentle lady. pursuant to 7c, all committee members are permitted to submit hearing records that will remain open for 14 days. any material referenced during the hearing, let

own description discussion of the famous bernard shaw questionn iff3 kittyydukakis had beenn3 you want to see the pprssn3 who raped her seet to deeth. mh what to do aa the timm that we idnnt see, bbt nnw hey are wwllinn to to share. >> lehrer: thhy are willing3 to talk about it, yeeh. -> lehrer: dukakis toll me that he -- his explanation for, forr that eople don't emotional uestiin• >> smith: sure. >> lehrer::and he gave kind of wonky annwer. not onlyykind of wonky a wonky, wonky, wonky answerrú right, yeah. >> lehrer: he gave a• >> smiit: seemingly unemotiooal answer. &->> leerer: seemingly um,,3 very, very, veryymuch unemotional. ú& >>>smmth: yeah. >> lehrer: and he said that the eason he did that,3 trying, he did explaan himself. hh said, looo i was governor& of massachusetts, i have beee involled n, iinpublicú& aafairs and publiccpolicy for years and years ad years, i've had a stroog -osition, and opposition to3 capital puniihment. i just saw ttattquestion as a policc question. >> mith: right..33 >> lehrer: and did not see it ii emotional terms. and he said, yes looking back n tti prooablyyshould ú& have, have ssen it mooe -ut he