tv C-SPAN Weekend CSPAN July 25, 2010 2:00am-6:00am EDT
>> and general mcchrystal, mrs. mcchrystal, members of the u.s. armed forces, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for allowing me to be part of this memorable ceremony. i am honored to be here to congratulate general mcchrystal for his immense accomplishments wearing the uniform of the united states armed forces to combat terrorism, preserve security here in the united states and fight for peace in my country, afghanistan. it is my pleasure to deliver the highest state mental awarded to him -- state medal awarded to him by our minister of national defence. general mcchrystal, the men and women of my country value your leadership. we deeply appreciate your commitment. we will never forget the
sacrifices you and those under your command have made to make afghanistan, the united states and the world a safer place for children. you have made a profound impact on our struggle. it from ordinary villager to teachers, army generals, women activists, government officials, numerous afghans are proudly calling you a trusted and reliable friend. the minister is one of them. allow me to read part of his message which clearly speaks for all of your friends in afghanistan. from an afghan perspective, you became a beacon of hope for peace and prosperity of our nation. you served with distinction and dedication, above and beyond the call of duty, in the
interest of the united states, and specifically us afghans. you have laid the foundation for our final triumph. we will spare no sacrifice to achieve it. you have presented the u.s. military -- you have represented the u.s. military with the highest degree of leadership curt, -- addition, courage. we will remember you for generations. we will remain forever in our hearts your memories. please except the highest medal as a token of appreciation and everlasting gratitude for the services that you have rendered
to our nation. our prayers and best wishes will always accompany you, your wife and your son. to conclude, general, i am honored, as your friend, to convey my sincere appreciation for your commitment and contribution to read these exceptional a town with this would have not been possible -- these exceptional accomplishment would not have been possible otherwise. thank you very much. good luck with your retirement. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, at this time, we will present the
general mcchrystal with the highest state of medal from the afghan people. he is a citizen of the united states and has a comprehensive efforts and shown distinct leadership to prevent civilian deaths, prevent unlawful home searches and improve the quality and quantity of the national security forces and enhance close coordination in order to fight terrorism and achieve stability in afghanistan. therefore, i hereby approved the awarding of the highest state medal to general stanley a. mcchrystal. in accordance with article 64, paragraph 19 of the constitution of the this mod republic of afghanistan -- the islamic republic of afghanistan. [applause]
>> ladies and gentleman, the chief of staff of the united states army, general george casey. >> good evening everyone, now you know what everyone leaves washington in august. it is great to have you with us. how about a big hand for these magnificent soldiers out there in the field. [applause] as the distinguished guest having already been recognized, i am just going to say to the ambassador and his secretary and distinguished guests, thank you for joining us here curvet some of you -- a tank -- thank us for joining us here. general mcchrystal is the son
of mr. and mrs. mcchrystal. he is the fourth of six siblings, all of whom served in the military or married someone in the military. i would like to recognize the immediate family that is here. first of all, the brothers, peter, david, scott in bill, where are you? -- scott in that bill, where are you? -- scott and bill. where are you? [applause] stacy? wave your hand. and of course, the generals best friend, any. -- annie.
today, we honor and magnificent soldier and leader. one of the army's most experienced and successful officers. he has had a truly remarkable career in both peace and war. i must admit that i found it interesting when i looked at his officers' records brief. something was cleared that he had not looked at. the officer records brief is the army is documented record of a soldier's career. it has a box on it where it tracks the officers time that he spends at home between deployments. according to his most recent brief, he has accumulated 415
months and 11 days. even using my math, that is over 34 years at home. either stands deployments have been so secret that he could not share them with us or we could not quite get him into the fight, but i think it is the former and not the latter. he has done more to carry the fight to al qaeda since 2001 than any other person in his department and in the country. his vision, his innovative genius, his ability to bring organizations together, and his unrelenting drive and commitment to defeating the extremists that threaten our way of life have kept al qaeda out of balance of around the world and kept this country safe. stan, we are in your debt. usually, i would talk about how many divisions they have served in stands career has been unique. -- they have served in. general mcchrystal's career has been unit. his first battalion was the red devils.
jumping out of planes did not seem to be exciting enough for him. he volunteered for special forces, qualified, and commanded an attachment at fort bragg before he headed off for the advanced course. after a tour of the united nations command, he returned to georgia for company command. it was following this company command in 1985 that he chose the path that he would follow for the rest of his career. he was accepted into the 70 bit rangers and he has been a leader in our special operations community ever since. along the way, he mixed challenging assignments, joint special operations command and the 82nd airborne division with broadening experiences at the naval war college, the jfk center of government, the council on foreign relations and the joint staff.
he left lasting contributions at every level. he led special operations into iraq. as the commander of the second battalion 7 the fifth rangers, he started the beginning of the modern army commanders program. in the early days of afghanistan, he established the headquarters that came to direct operation enduring freedom. while serving at the pentagon at the beginning of operation iraqi freedom, he was selected to handle the briefings on the war. he did not have to put up much of a fight for that, but he took the job and did it magnificently. it was as the commander of the joint special operations command of that he made his greatest and most lasting contributions to our army in this country. he personally oversaw the successful hunt for some who
say in -- for saddam hussein and brought operations together by sheer force of will and unrelenting commitment to the mission. thinking back to 2003, nobody had really done the kinds of things that his folks were required to do, so he wrote the book and pulled the agency together. not satisfied, he gave the skills to our general purpose of forces. that is something that he did over time in something that has exponentially increase the effectiveness of our forces -- especially increased the effectiveness of our forces. the work that his team did against al qaeda may our success possible. they apply a continuous and progressive pressure against a
constantly evolving networks by building an organization for routine work, innovation and risk-taking. i watched stan through the lows and highs. throughout it all, he remained calm, focused and committed. although i do remember the night that we thought we had gotten our target, but we were not sure, he had the body brought to our compound for identification. we decided not to tell anyone until we were sure, so he went down to check out the body and called the. he said, general, we have been tracking this guy for 2.5 years and i think that it is in. i asked him how sure he was and he responded, "i am sure." that was the first and only time that i heard his voice cracked with emotion. following his time, he was given a break as the director of
the joint staff. he would head the assistance force. i believe that in his time, stay and began to establish conditions for our long term success. when you ask soldiers about stan mcchrystal, here is what they say. they say he is a great leader. they say that in fact, his people in trust and respect him in a way that is truly remarkable. they say that he is a new man with integrity and great courage. they say he is always ready to laugh, even in the most trying circumstances. they say that he is absolutely selfless. these are the traits of a leader that we value in our army. in over 34 years, stanley mcchrystal has applied them as he selflessly protected his country.
i can't think of no officer who has had more impact on this country's battle against extremism. he leaves a legacy of service that will be remembered for decades. [applause] you know that stan and any -- and annnie have been sweethearts treated this is a testament to her strength. >> she has needed that strength to navigate the last decade, especially since i've been told that stan has developed a few idiosyncrasies along the way. he changed all the clocks in the house to zulu time.
i am sure if that is true, but if it were, annie would figure it out. she has been at stan's side and there for the families and communities across the united states. she visited wounded warriors, she has been present -- and with her volunteer work, including raising an army family. her contributions make it especially hard to say goodbye to mcchrystals. thank you for your courage and for your commitment to the soldiers and families of our army. [applause] for 34 years, stan mcchrystal has been the man in the arena. his face has been marred by the
sweat in combat and in defense of this nation. he has demonstrated infectious personal courage that inspires anyone who serves with him. he is a soldier to his court. our army and this country will miss him deeply. -- he is a soldier to his core. there is a monument in burma that says, when you go home, tell them about us and say, because we have given our tomorrows, you can have your todays. stan and annie, thank you fear service in your friendship and the entire army family wishes -- thank you for your service and your friendship, and the entire family wishes you good luck. [applause]
>> ceremonial. right face. >> ladies and gentlemen, the secretary of defense, the hon. robert gates. >> first off, i would tell you that the weather today is worse than in jakarta. we gather today to say farewell to a treasured friend and colleague and to pay tribute to one of the finest men at arms of this country has ever produced.
there are many distinguished guests and vip's here today but none so important than general mcchrystal and his wife and his sons. like many army families since 9/11 and especially families in the special operations community, they have endured long separations from the husband and dad. our nation is deeply in your debt. we bid farewell to stan mcchrystal with pride and sadness. pride for his unique record as a man and a soldier, sadness that our comrade and his prodigious talents are leading us. looking back at the totality of
stan mcchrystal's life and career, it seems appropriate that he ended up in the special operations world, as virtually nothing about this man could be considered ordinary. even as he rose to the highest ranks of the service, he retained his trademark humility and remarkably low requirements in his tastes and what we at the pentagon call personal maintenance. he had little use for amenities that grew up around the rear echelon, much to the chagrin of his isaf colleagues. to stan, fast food was fine dining. fine dining nor beer gardens had any place in his war zone. because of his no nonsense approach, he enjoyed a special bond with his troops. the respected his devotion to them as well as to the mission. it is evidenced by all the uniforms here this evening. they remain just as devoted to him. that is because he never forgot about the troops that are most
often in harm's way. always keeping in mind the front line, world war ii soldier quoted by stephen ambrose, "any son of a bitch behind me is rear echelon." his routines are legendary. i get tired and hungry reading about them. he possessed one of the sharpest minds in the army. a scholar, who earned scholarships to harvard and the council on foreign relations court, are voracious readers who is prone to spending his free time wandering around the bookstores and reading about what he calls a weird things, stuff like shakespeare. the attacks of september 11 and the wars that followed would call on every ounce of general mcchrystal's intellect, skill,
and determination. over the past decade, no single american has inflicted more fear and more loss of life on our country's most vicious and violent enemies than stan mcchrystal. commanding special operations forces in afghanistan and iraq, he was a pioneer in creating a revolution in warfare that used intelligence and operations -- fused intelligence and operations. he used high-tech and low tech tools in collaborative ways. as lieutenant general, he went on night missions with his team, subjecting himself to their dangers. after going on one operation that resulted in a firefight, some of his british comrades awarded him the distinction of being the highest-paid rifleman in the u.s. army. night after night, intercept by intercept, cell by cell, stan and his forces first confronted and then crushed al qaeda in iraq. it was a campaign that was well underway before the surge, when
the violence seemed unstoppable and when so many had given up hope and our mission there. stan mcchrystal never lost faith with his troopers, never relented, never gave up. his efforts played a decisive part in a dramatic security gains that now allow iraq to move forward as a democracy and us to draw down u.s. forces there. last year when it became clear to me that our mission in afghanistan needed new thinking, energy, and leadership, there was no doubt in my mind who that new leader should be. i wanted the very best warrior general in our armed forces for this fight. i needed to be able to tell myself, the president, and the
troops that we had the very best possible person in charge in afghanistan. i owed that to the troops there and to the american people. and when president obama and his national security team deliberated on the way ford, general mcchrystal provided his expert and best unvarnished military advice. once we all agreed on a new strategy, general mcchrystal embraced it and carried out the president's orders with the devotion and brilliance that characterize every difficult mission he has taken on and accomplished throughout his career. all of last year, general mcchrystal laid the groundwork for success in the achievement of our national security objectives in that part of the world. i know the afghan government and people are grateful for what he
accomplished in one year as the commander. in the lives of innocent afghans saved, the territory freed from the grip of the taliban, in a new sense of purpose he brought to the international effort there. as the now complete the journey that began at a west point parade field four decades ago, stan mcchrystal enters this next phase of his life to a respite were to be earned. he does so with the gratitude -- respite richly earned. he does so with the gratitude and reverence of the troops he led at every level, with his place secure as one of america's greatest warriors. [applause] >> ladies and gentleman, general stanley mcchrystal. [applause] >> this is frustrating. i spent a career waiting to get a retirement speech.
it proves what doug brown taught me long ago, nothing ruins a good war story like an eye witness. to show you how bad it is, i cannot even tell you i was the best player in my little league because the kid who was the best player is here tonight. to those tonight who feel the need to contradict my memories, remember i was there, too. i have the stories on all of you. photos on many, and i know of a "rolling stone" reporter. this is the potential to be an awkward or sad occasion, with my resignation, i left the mission-strongly about. i ended the career i love that began over 38 years ago. and i left unfulfilled commitments i made to many
comrades in the fight. commitments on hold sacred. -- i hold sacred. there are misperceptions about the loyalty and service of some dedicated professionals that will likely take some time, but i believe will be corrected. still, annie and i are not approaching the future with sadness but with hope, and iphones, and my feelings from more than 34 years i spent as an army officer are a combination of surprise that any experience could have been as fulfilling as mine was in gratitude for the comrades and friends we were blessed with. that is what i feel. and if i fail to communicate that effectively tonight, i will simply remind you that secretary gates once told me i was a modern paton of strategic communications -- a modern patton of strategic communications. every day and every friend were
gifts i treasured and i need to celebrate. i need to address two questions. the first is what are you going to do? i am thinking i would be a good fashion consultant for gucci, but they have not called. the other question is -- how are you and annie doing? we spent years apart, but we are doing well and i am carrying some of what i learned into retirement.
first, we are reconnecting. now we are up on skype with each other. we never did that all the years i was 10,000 miles away, but now we can connect by video link when we are 15 feet apart. i think she likes that. i was so enthused i tried using skype for a daily family vtc's. there was some resistance. the same was true for the tactical directive i issued after return. one meal a day, early morning pt, the basics of a family life. annie is stocking up on ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which is strange because our yard is smaller than this podium. although the insurgency is small, one woman, she is uninterested in reintegration. the situation is serious and in many ways deteriorating. mr. secretary, look at her. i am thinking at least 40,000 troops.
[applause] [laughter] let me thank everyone for being here. this turned out is truly humbling. here tonight are my wife and son, my four brothers, and two nephews, mentors, comrades from my career, and some special guests whose service and sacrifice are impossible to describe with words. but because this crowd is pretty big, and for good order and discipline, i have divided into four groups. please remember your group number. group one are all the people who accepted responsibility for making this ceremony work. from the planners to the soldiers on the field. my apologies for all the time he spent in the heat. you are special people. in my mind, the also represent -- you also represent the soldiers around the world. you have my appreciation. [applause] the second group is a
distinguished service servants of all nations who have taken time from your often crushing schedules to be here. thanks four years of support and friendship. i got you out of the office early on friday. group the arkansas war years of all ranks, and that includes many -- group three our warriors of all ranks, and that includes those who i of shared frustrations, triumphs, laughs, and a common cause for many years. you are not all here. some of you are deployed and in
the fight. others rest across the river in arlington. most of the credit i have received actually belongs to you. it has been your comradeship that i have considered the greatest honor of my career. finally, group four is all those who have heard were having two kegs of beer tonight after the ceremony. this group includes a number of my classmates, old friends, most of the warriors from group 3, and some others who defy accurate description. anyone already carrying a plastic cup might be considered the vanguard of group four. everyone here today is invited to join. to secretary gates, i want to express my personal thanks. certainly for your generous remarks, but more for your wisdom and leadership which i experienced firsthand in each of my last three jobs. your contribution to the nation and to the force is nothing short of historic. i want to thank the many leaders, civilian and military, of our nation, beginning with president obama for whom and with whom i was honored to serve.
whether elected, appointed, or commissioned, the common denominator of service has been inspiring. as com isaf i was provided a unique opportunity to serve alongside professionals of 46 nations under the leadership of nato. we were stronger for the diversity of our forests and i am better for the experience. -- for the diversity of our
force and i am better for the experience. our thanks to the people of afghanistan for their hospitality and friendship. for those who have attempted to simplify their view of afghanistan and focus on the challenges ahead, i would counter with my belief that afghans have courage, strength, and resiliency that will prove equal to the task. my career included some amazing moments and memories. but it is the people i will remember. it was always about the people. it was about the soldiers who were well trained, but at the end of the day, it was their face in their leaders and each other. about the young sergeants who emerged from the ranks with strength, discipline,
commitment, and courage. as i grow older, the soldiers and sergeants of my youth grew older as well. they became the old sergeants, long service professionals whose wisdom and incredible sense of responsibility for the mission and for our soldiers is extraordinary. and the sergeant major. they are a national treasure. they mauled and maintain the force and the rest -- they mold and maintain the force and leaders like me. they are confidantes, critics, mentors, and best friends. a little more than a year ago, on a single e-mail, mike hall came out of retirement, leaving a job, his son, and his amazing wife, brenda, to join me in afghanistan. to mike, i can never express my thanks. to brenda, i know after all these years i owe you. i also love you. to true professionals like sgt rudy valentine, c.w. thompson, chris cravin, jeff melinger, and chris -- when something is truly important, like this ceremony, you are on hand to make sure i do not screw it up. i served with many of you that are here tonight. not all of our heroes or comrades are in uniform. in the back of a darkened helicopter over afghanistan in 2004, a comrade in blue jeans whose friendship i cherish to
this day passed me a note. scribbled on a page torn from a pocket notebook, the note said, "i do not know the ranger creed, but you can count on me to always be there." he lived up to his promise many times over. to have shared some much with an been so dependent upon the people of such courage, physical and moral, integrity, and selflessness, taught me to believe. annie's here tonight. she walked to 50 feet from our front door in italian shoes, of which we have an extensive collection. they once suggested using her
shoe collection as an argument for more italian troops. i've no control over that part of the mcchrystal economy. she is here, like she has always been there when it mattered. always gorgeous. for 3.5 years she was my girlfriend and fiancee, and for over 33 years she has been my wife. for many years i have joked, sometimes publicly, about her lousy cooking, terrifying closets, demolition derby driving, and addiction to m&m candy. which is true. as we conclude a career together, it is important for you to know that she was there. she was there when my father commissioned me as second lieutenant of infantry and was waiting months later when i
emerged from ranger school. we moved all we owned in my used chevrolet to our first apartment at fort bragg. the move and our first days was the only honeymoon i was able to give her. a fact she has mentioned a few times since. annie always knew what to do. she was gracious when she answered the door at midnight to find a mortarman carrying a grocery bag for a platoon party, following a friday night jump. i came home to find her making food for the paratroopers. she knew what was right and quietly did it. with 9/11, she saw us off to war. she patiently supported the families of our fallen with stoic grace. as the year past and the fight crude difficult and deadly, her quiet courage gave me strength i would never otherwise have
found. it is an axiom in the army this soldiers write the checks but families pay the bills. war increases both the accuracy of that statement and the pay. in a novel based on history, it was captured just how important families are and i believe are today. facing the persian army, a coalition of greek states sent a small force to buy time, and were led by 300 spartans. the mission was desperate and death for the 300 certain. before he left to lead them, the spartan king explained to one of the spartan wives how we as elected the 300 from an entire army famed for its professionalism, courage, and dedication to duty.
"i chose them not for their valor, lady, but for that of the women. greece stands upon her most perilous hour. if she saves herself, it would not be at the gates. death alone awaits us there. but later in battles yet to come, by land and sea. then greece, if gods will, will preserve herself. do you understand? when the battle is over, when the 300 have gone to death, then all of greece will look to the spartans to see how they bear it. but who will us spartans look to? to you and the other wives and mothers, sisters and daughters of the fallen. if they behold your hearts riven and broken with grief, they, too, will break, and
greece will with. if you bear up, dry-eyed, not alone enduring your loss but seizing it and embracing it as the honor is in truth, then spared will stand, and -- sparta will stand. why have i nominated you to bear up underneath this terrible trial, you and the sisters of the 300? because you can." to all who wear no uniform but who give so much, sacrifice willingly, and serve as an example of our nation to each other, my thanks. as i leave the army, to those with responsibility to carry on, i say, service in this business is tough. and often dangerous. it extracts a price for participation, and that price
can be high. it is attempting to protect yourself from the personal or professional costs of lost it by limiting how much you commit, how much you believe and trust in people, and how deeply you care. caution and cynicism are safe, but soldiers do not want to follow cautious cynics. they follow leaders who believe enough to risk failure or disappointment for a worthy cause. if i had it to do over again, i would do some things in my career differently, but not many. i believed in people, and i still believe in them. i trusted, and i still trust. i cared, and i still care. i would not have had it any other way. winston churchill said we make a living by what we get, but we
after the speech concludes, i will ask as many audience questions as time permits. i would like to introduce our head table guests. from your right, rodgers robert benjamin sunlansarlan, morkiver, dana wolbank, thomas cook, andrew schneider, maryland to >> -- marilyn, del loveless, jim offstra, and a labor
reporter for bloomberg news. [applause] don blankenship is one of the country's most talked-about co's because of his extensive involvement in local and state politics. but in recent months, he has been at the center of news stories and congressional investigations related to a disaster at his company's other big french mine in moscow, was virginia -- montcoal, west virginia. before the mine explosion, he was the subject of a book, "cold river."
as a child in deaf west virginia, he had no indoor plumbing. as a young man, you work in a coal mine to put himlf through college. he became an accountant and which is way up to head the country's fourthargest coal company. with current legislation making its way through congress and investigations continuing, mr. blankenship continue to be a figure in the news this year. he is here to discuss his views on the need for more surface mining. please welcome don blankenship.
>> i want to thank everyone for being here. i want to give some protection -- perspective on three things. i want to give you my background and how of the world works in terms of energy and then i will speak a little bit about surface mining and hopefully leave most of airtime to questions and answers. it is true that my at bringing was in southern west virginia. i managed to get through college in three years by working in the coal mines. was i got my accounting degree, i was forced to leave the area for 10 years because of lack of employment the opportunities. ieturn in 1982 only to find out that massey had decided to withdraw from the co operators association, a national group of coal companies. withdraw from the organization did not sit too well with the unions. we ended up on a very ballast
track. at that time, richard trumka was president of the united mine workers. cecil roberts is now the president. 91 people were parked in the hospital. one was shot. -- three people were shot. one person was killed by had bodyguards for about three months. before that, i had been involved with stories of the union as a kid. i have a background of working with them. my brother-in-law is a lifetime umw a member. i have been a member. my brother was a call minor. my it boggles local miners. -- my brother was a coal miner. miners -- mycoal
uncles are coal miners. when i returned into -- when i returned in 1986, the unemployment was about 26%. that gives you a little bit about my background. before i go on, i do not normally give at the talks. i ually give factual talks. if you have problems, you have to first recognize them and then deal with them. we live in a country that has $13 trillion of debt. it gets worse every day. the number is far worse than people generally and a stand because the municipalities, the cities, the states, all the pension fanfunds are bankrupt.
the country is physically falling far behind our asian competitors. americans are losing their jobs to not americans at an alarming rate. just to show you that i will try to be fair in my criticisms and my thoughts, when you look at three things, you look at the 18th century or 19th century sleighs and do look at the trade policy. businesses have always looked to have low-cost labor. thats one of the things that we'll have to be aware of. sometimes the thingshat they thirst for is a competitive advantage to making money. but the fact is, if you do not know numbers, and then you cannot talk meaningfully about anything. membs have to be the
foundation for our thoughts. -- numbers have to be the foundation for our thoughts. people will say that the banks are too big to fail. they are not too big to fail. no matter how big you are, you will fail. this entire government in this country can fail if it continues to bleed cash at that rate. the other thing that we have to understand is that, however you get there, you have to have affordable energy or electricity to move mankind forward. we can be for or against a different types of energy or certain types of environmental regulations or a lot of things. but fundamentally, it you do not have affordable electricity in your country or in your household, you will not have a very environmentally friendly life. you will be hot. you wl be called. you will be underfed. -- you will be cold. you will be underfed.
almost 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day. for those of us who are privileged and live in nice homes or arrive on private forget those people because they're not in front of us every day. we know that other people in the world, their health has to be in the foremost of their objectives. many of people die of preventable disease every day. the fact of the matter is that cold prevented that from being ale case in america -- col prevented that from being the case in america. coal is now feeling the chinese industrial revolution.
physics and science and math and not determined by the majority or by political views or by surveys. the physics and math ofining, the physics and math of the economy, the physics and math of the unemployed and so forth is what is regardless of what spin is put on it. it is unfortunate that, over the last 35 years or 40 years, green jobs have trumped american jobs. have not had a surplus trade in this country in 35 years. we're not likely to have one for another 35 years. when our trade deficit is a billion dollars a day, if you have to figure that there is a neighborhood of 2000 jobs a day you do not have, 7.3 million or so jobs i not too far on how many jobs we have lost.
we have lost more jobs in the manufacture of computers a electronic equipment than we have in any other business, except textiles. you would not think that. guess that?et other facts that you have to consider when you take the depositions -- morgan massey said to me when i first became president that one of the things i would learn is that everyone has an opinion without the discomfort of many thought. [laughter] i would tell you that there's a lot of that in th world. but 53% of theercury emissions in the world come from asia, not the united states. only 1% of the mercury emissions in the world come from the united states. 18% come from africa, even though it lives in abject poverty. if you believe that mercury emissions should be reduced, would you spend billions of dollars chasing 1% or tens of
millions chasing 53%? over 100% of the increase in co2 emissions in the world since 1990 have been outside of the united states. the u.s. industry since 1990 has actually complied with the ku treaty, but not in a manner that would be -- the kyoto treaty, but not in a manner that would be optimal. facts should matter on the hill. it should also matter that every 3.6 seconds, a person in the world dies of starvation. when we hold ourselves up as being saviors of mankind by trying to reduce co2, we need to worry about the 3.6 seconds that a person nnot be said because they have died. in west virginia, the epa is
constantly after things like conductivity when0% of the sewage goes directly in the stream. there are no sanitation systems in many of the small rural towns. about 1.5 million people die each year from just indoor pollution in their own home. in many cases, they are burning menorah to fry their food. manure to forthe newe their food. with prosperity comes life expectancy. in the united states, healthcare, coal, electrici, and they have increased the life span by about 31 yrs. it is fundamentally important
living 31 years longer. china and india are experiencing the same type of increase in life expectancy despite various emissions. they have heating and cooling and food and economy. that is very important. one thing we need to be asking american business -- we need to understand, when we cannot figure out by wall street and the stock exchanges not attracting, why that is? you have to wonder how much of the profit that is on the new york stock exchange is made in america versus outside america. what is the payroll inside
america versus outside america? what is the wage benefit vers cost per hour? how many american jobs have been created by these corporations in the last several years vs. non american jobs? those types of questions, how much u.s. tax dollars are paid vs. foreign tax dollars, how much subsidy these companies receive to produce jobs overseas -- i have not read the bill, but i ended stand that the energy bill -- but i've understand that the eney bill provides tax credits for creating renewable energy sources in parts of asia. i know that subsidies are paid for in pakistan to develop coal mines. there are things out there that you have to wonder whether the american worker is getting a fair deal or not. as far as surface mining, central the pollution has been surface mining for about 80
years. in the last 40 years, the industry has probably moved 60 billioyards of rock. despite all that activity and mining and a lot of it being done before the 19707 surface mining act, the environmental extremists still consider that area to be pristine environment that meets their protection. so we have moved billions and billions of yards of rock. there is not a lot lt to mine the coal. it is amazing how track -- have protected it needs to be today. it used to be that it was real. it meant putting dirt back in a way that allowed it to be revegetated. it is about sitting trees and so forth. now it is about things like conductivity. if you're in a room, you need to be careful. it may not meet the epa standards for water. we have a situation where there
is no longer any low hanging fruit in many of the u.s. industry efforts, whether it is mercury, water quality, or whatever. we discharge water back into the streams that is cleaner than the stress we took it out of only to get violations. there is enough surface mine coal produced in the abolition to provide enough energy to fuel 80 million peoe's house calls. those 80 million people need their $60 power bills. they do not need their windmill $4 power bills. they deny needed their taxes to subsidize a windmill to be less. whenever the -- however the energy is produced, there will be others that stand in the way of it. you already see resistance to solar panels and windmills. i was debating robert kennedy few months ago. he was making a big deal about how his solar panel investment
should displace coal only to find out that a total is endangered by a solar panels. in summary, i am from central appalachia. i was born in west -- yet. -- west virginia. i always look forward to going home. we're proud of what we do. i have been going into coal mines in five different decades. we do like everything perfectly right, but we do feel very much that coal and electricity and this country's economy and national security and a request -- and our qwest to wean ourselves from other countries and the extremism that we are subjected to on a routine basis, that should stirrups some questions. thank you ry much. [laughter] [applause]
>> we already have numerous questions. i am sure there will be more. the first question, appellation is very tough to mind, given that we have been doing this for almost two centuries. the matter how sick companies operate, has the risk -- no matter how safe companies operate, has the risk increases? >> you can mine coal by a deep- mining method, but there are some energy reserves that cannot be mined in that manner. if you want low-cost energy, you need low-cost coal production. >> excuse me, if we could
continue with their program, please. thank you. >> thank you. >> as you can see, there are people that have their opinions without e discomfort of thought. they sometimes tie themselves to ourrees and tie themselves to our equipment. it is destructive. having civil disobedience is fine, but we do need to be respectful. as to the question on safety and so forth in the coal mines, the fact that we had the tragedy that resulted in 29 deaths, which is the largest tragedy in the last 40 years, it certainly would bring into question whether that is the right question to ask me. on the other hand, i should
report to you that we reduced the number of accidents over the last 20 years by 90%. the things we have tons in the area of safety are second to none in the industry. we have 120 rules at massey that exceed the requirements of federal law. we're vy frustrated that many times the technical competence of the government inspectors are far less than the technical competence of our engineers. many times, our engineers are overruled by the engineers of other places. we have had a policy for the last 30 years of recovery in the top engineers credit rating from top sena -- top universities. many times, these people are local. coal mining does not rank at the top 12 of the most dangerous occupations in america. it is more dangeus to drive a cab in new york or to work at 7- 11.
if youaid you want to create a factory and make it safe, you wanted to be well lit, the floor to be nonskid, the roof to be good. all of those tngs you want existing in a coal mine from the start. the industry unless he has done a good job at doing that over the last several decades. >> reporters have interviewed more than a dozen former and current messy employees and the state fear you. they're afraid of criticizing massey safety for fear of their jobs. >> it would not surprise me that you can find two dozen that would say that or feel that. however, we did uphold - 9 of
>> what is called scrubbers that remove the dust from the air and the methane from the face, only to be effective to turn half of them off. we have situation that is we believe that the air that has been used in the mining process needs to be taken outside of the mine as quick as possible. but they often disagree with that. what we need is independent, pragmatic, scientific determinatio to put in place
of laws to improve the safety of mini mining as opposed to others. the idea of having self rescue every 500 feet, as opposed to removing the oxygen in times of an explosion, that's a misplaced priority. there are hundreds of examples of trying to improve mine safety, and many times we feel we are going backwards. >> part of the act will strengthen top violators and for violations that lead to deaths. do you think that top management should be held accountable to the law? >> i think that anyone that actually causes someone death or serious injury needs to be
business and jobs. and we do entertainment like other companies, much less expensively than new york. certainly if you wanted to pay up to to $1,000 and i live in same house that i lived in, as i raised, reared my children, to use the proper word. and i have had all the experiences of life there, including divorce and then the death of ex-wife and the death of my mother, it's home. and i live in the middle of t it's a house that is worth $250,000, we live modestly. i live four-wheelers on the property, and picked raspberries
from the hills. and we are comfortable and no shame of how we interact with the people. and most my massey managers are community members or member of appalachia. >> why you are no longer on the board of the chamberommerce? >> you probably have to ask them, they rote people off and i have talked with tom donahue about america and the jobs. thomas jefferson said in 1776 th merchants only pay loyalty to the countries that they make their money in. i do think that american
fundamentally important. the greatest thing you with do in a charitable way is to produce something. at the end of the day, the production of the population is providing quality of life. and we are helping the world to have a prosperous life. >> many in the environmental community would say that along with the dollar cost of the productivity, there are other costs not reflected in dollars and cents but do take a toll. the price of the environment and air that is not clean. is that a factor that is easily factored or a myth? >> i think it's overfactored and we all know about al gore's
extrainality cost, that's a good word. and we have a budget to partially keep the seas open for oil. we have a situation where we subsidize winds with taxpayers expense for people thatan hardly afford to pay. and we have people losing their jobs because of extrainality extremism. should it be considered? yes, it should be considered. the question is not to be good stewards of the vironment or oductive, and it's how you find that balance. what i suggest to you when you eliminate so much of the mercury emissions and sulfur emissions in this country, it makes no sense to tnsfer those jobs offshore where you don't have that same stewardship.
some studies show that for every job you transfer offshores you emit those emissions. and what extrainality costs do you address if you are worried about those in the ocean. i say form youopinion, there is a book out called "power hungry," it's an interesting book about the facts of these energy issues. >> if you would follow your assumption that there is an extraility extremism, why would it exist? if acid rain is not a big deal as you say, why wasn't it a big
deal if harmful consequences? >> the big issue is co 2, you have annvironmental movement that is a business competing against other businesses. again, i don't know whether the world is warming or cooling. but i know that you can eliminate the industry and eliminate all the people and all that, it wouldn't make that much difference. there is 7.8 billions of tons of coal burned in the world. that number will increase. every 36 months the increase burning of coal will increase by the production. that's a fact of life. and that's how the people will get out of poverty and how we stop the child dying every three 3.7 seconds. you have to look at things
pragmacally. environmentalism should be no fferent than business, a cost difference ratio. >> speaking on facts and metric, one clear metric in the mining industry is the number of deaths. even before the tragedy massey had the highest fatality number and you said that they averaged in fatalities, and how can you say that when other companies have less over that period? >> the thing that coal mining in appalachia is more difficult. i don't know if those statistics are right, one thing about massey, it's been around for years and it's still massey. and other companies are made up of properties, and how that would look, i don't know.
but we are the largest producer in central appalachia and one of the most difficult areas. i know that we spend tens of millions of dollars on safety improvements. i know that i personally look at every accident and attempt to figure out what would avoid it. again the tragedy is something we have our views about, what caused it and so forth. but when you have mining in central appalachia, you have a riskybusiness. we know that we do it better than others have done in the last 10-20 years, fatalities are way down. but let me give you a comparable statistic, there are 42,000 people killed on the highways in the united states. and the safety aspects that could be introduced into indury and life, if they tried
as hard as the coal industry, they would clearly save thousands of lives. >> this spring 29 people who worked for youied on the job, how did that experience affect you? and what you are doing now to prevent is from others dying? >> the biggest thing is you are heart broken, i was perturbed by the press, i was with the families and i was there when they were told that their loved ones perished. i met individually with the 25 of the 29 and spent time explaini how their loved one perish. where he was at. explained any question i could of what they wanted to know. didn't sleep for two or three days dealing with the issue
surrounding the aftermath. again the tragedy occurred is something i am not sure yet h to avoid. but the thing that is most disruptive in the press is the idea that we as appalachians or coal miners or executives or business people don't value life. because we would never put profits above safety, never will. and no one would want to experience the feeling of informing 29 families they had lost their loved es. >> on a personal level, do you feel guilty about the 29 deaths at upper big branch? >> i think that the word guilty is not the right word. i feel that i don't want to experience it again. i feel sorry for the families. i feel concern for our current workers. i feel motivated to figure out
what happened and prevent it again. as i noted in my commentary at the front, i am a realist. the politicians say we will do is so it won't happen again. yo won't hear me say that, because i think that the physics of natural law and god trump what man tries to do. whether you get earthquakes or broken floors or roof falls, often are unavoidable as accidents in society. so to say that we won't have it happen again, i am cautious about that but there is no one more intent to prevent it from happening again. >> the mind safety department has gone back and forth, is the department effective in preventing accidents?
should the.s. create a new arm? >> i don't like to say what they say about us, we said that massey had more fateals this year. but the bottom line is that the physics have to be the focus. you can't focus on surviving an explosion. because a human body can't survive an explosion. and that's what i speak out about being focused on problems. and when they had the creek about the problem of mapping. the government could do more about mapping, the state has better rules. there are things we can do with gas wells, and the mapping of the gas wells is what cooperation between the gas companies and the coal
companies. it's n something that is gps gas wells. sometimes they are in there because of gps. there are a lot of things that can be done and we are dedicated to doing that. as far as how i feel about it is not as important as what would do as an industry and government going forward. >> w the ventilation at upper branch proper? >> the ventilation was that there be public air before the explosion and 60,000 cubic feet of air. and we run our long walls at 100,000 if we can, because of the safety factor. on a normal day, years and years, and 30,000 or 60,000 is
enough. but when you have somethingab normal happen, you want more. and the things that the scrubbers or others are doing we think are counterproductive. but it's hard to get true alogue about that, and we hope as we speak out we will get some attention to ventilation. >> when you were seeing the readin and the ventilation was less than ideal. why did you not shut the mine? >> again we didn't see the adings and know that the ventilation was less than ideal. what we had was a two-day shut down as we argued and discussed that we didn't like the ventilation plan. we ultimately decided that the ventilatio plan would be safe, even thoh we didn't think it was the safest. and didn't like the gas that appeared that we had. we thought that the mine was
safebut liked more protection and higher areas of air. we like to rub our scrapers and get out of the mine once they are used in the face of the miners. we like to use bleeders and don't believe in checking air when you can check in and out. there is a long list of things that you couldn't follow nothing else you were a coal miner. but the thing is that law of physics pay no attention to that of politicians. only to the science and math. >> with the benefit of hindsight what could you have done and have done to minimize the explosion of the one that claimed 29 lives? >> what i could have done is do what i normally am is sue them than to wait for them to st
off a scrubber. it's a situation where we live in a situation with the rules and laws. and we believe in the rule of law and the constitution and so forth. so it's a big step for a big corporation to resist what a government is requiring them to do. you know when you sue e.p.a. or take those kinds off actions, they are extremely bold and get you a terrible reputation. but actually that is anybodyibe more and more necessary, the more that the country goes in that direction, i think youill see the cl companies and many who resist the epa and impede
their business and careers and happiness, i guess. >> since the explosion in the spring, there is recent news report that is massey had a monitor shut down on a machine, is that what happened? >> there is two methane monitors on the long wall. massey experts have had access to that long wall now for a couple of months. if someone believed that the methane monitors were bridged up, they suld take the lid off and check. but we aren't allowed them. and a large number of people get discharged at massey over safety violations. my check was that the bridge out for the methane monitors was not
disabled. we don't believe in bridging out methane monitors and i personally are confident that bridging out methane monitors is not a method at massey. and i am equally confident that people do things they are not supposed to do. >> there are safety violations at areas of a union. for example, there was one killed at a union location and none killed this year are union. given the fact of those killed, and how do you account for this. and how do you oppose union
miners? >> there are not a lot of union miners around, but a lot of union mines in play in the past had major explosions. i am noture but i suspect that farmington was union. and it's dangerous for the mine workers to suggest that union mines are safer than non-union mines, because you don't know what will happen next. how i explain that most mines are non-union, i don't know any other explation than these things tend to run in cycles. like at massey we went a year-and-a-half without a single fatality. and then had a rash of fatalities and hope to go on a streak and not have one for years. >> a research factor found that
if you come to appalachia in 25 years, i doubt you can find the sight of the surface mines active toy. >>ow big of a customer is china for your coal? >> not big, asia is big, and india is big. and not a lot of people realize that china and india are greater differt in respect to coal. the chinese have tremendous coal reserves to meet their need. india has little to no coal by high quality standards and have
to import. china is pretty well self-contained and india is the primary customer in asia. >> this questioner writes, i am concerned that we may be running out of coal, in virginia, the largest producer in the state. >> you have to divide virginia in the southern and northern part, but in central appalachia we estimate there is six to seven tons and you could go for 40 years. that number will probably grow as technology improves. but u.s. has 250 billion tons of
coal. it's our greatest resource for having a strong economy and homeland security, and it's one that we should cherish than vulify. >> how importants the energy and (inaudible) and clean coal? >> clean coal can be called to describe a lot of things, it's important to remember that coal is 70% cleaner than it was 20-30 years ago. all the sulfur removalals. the big difference between co 2 and other pollutants, there is no known technology to remove co 2. ccs is not a proven technology. and pumping co 2 takes tremendous effort to pump in.
and you go fwook pragmatism and i think that's what has to drive every effort of our political thought, or environmental thought or national security thought. is just common sense and thinking through the issues and looking at the facts. >> are efforts to regulate co 2 in the united states completely misguided? >> i think that we are misguided if you regulate them in the united states. you can't solve the co 2 in the atmosphere or cap it at parts per million. so it's misguided to regulate. people think that regulation means green. regulation doesn't mean green if all you do is transfer six times the pollution outside the country. so you shouldn't think of yourself as an environmentalist if you want to cause the u.s. economy to get weaker and weaker
because you are actually a polluter. >> if one is an envonmentalist of the type you speak, and one can only affect the environment in the united states and not china. what is the most effective approach to limit co 2 emissions worldwide? >> first of all you can impact chinese and anywhere in the world, co 2 emissions. it depends on what sacrifice you want to make. i don't want get into influencing your buying habits. but the bottom line is that it all comes back to the facts. these questns and words, what would you do if you want to reduce mercury in numbers, would you go to where there is 5,000 tons or 50 tons? would you continue to loan money to countrys to put in coal while
you drive out coal miners in this country. would you transfer your industry to other countries that don't have the environmental internship we have. i don't know what you do, i consider myself a competitionist. i believe if you support free trade, you have to be a competitionist. you have to let the american worker going on thelaying field. you can't put him on the playing field and put regulations and employment standards and litigation and expect him to keep his job in competition with countries that don't have that. we need to consider and ask ourselves what environmental impact
ago, was less regulation. you have to get somewhere between the chinese approach and the american approach. in china they built a high hi dro electric dam, and if they close the gates, you better move. and here it's nonsensical as well. we need reasonable regulation and understand the cost benefit of what regulation we have. and need to have businesses function as businesses. the government can't run all the businesses and private business and corporate business is what built america, in my opinion. we need to let it thrive, in a sense by leaving it alone. >> we are almost out of time, but before we ask the last question, first to remind our guests of future speakers, next week secretary arne duncan of
the u.s. department of education will address the national press club. and on september 13th, mr. beckman will speak on eliminating hung, people and congress. second i would like to present our guests with the traditional gifts we give all, the treasured national press club mug. thank you for coming today. we have one final question for you. this is not been the best year in newseadlines for energy extraction. the massey coal company explosion in april was dominating headlines. but even then was another story getting headlines was the bp oil spill. and that's still underway and as you watched that and what
lessons does this spill hold for your industry? >> that's a tough question, i have been a little busy in the bp oilpill as well. i think that the lesson that we need to remember is to rely on truth and fact. if it's more dangerous and safety wise tdrill in 500 feet of water and can drill in 200 water, you should push back on drilling in 500 feet of water. if you are working in a manner that is not safety,ou need to push back. we need to operate in free pre and approximate -- speech, and those are the things that we have to learn to do.
we are allowing a small group of people to dictate what we do in the field of energy. and many times the industry is falling in line to avoid the criticism and press and to avoid being called something more than green. we need not to do that. we need to be compelled to speak out, and the knowledge and vantage point we have is we owe it to our workers and the company. >> thank you to the c.e.o. of massey, don blankenship. [applause] >> and thank you to the staff for organizing today's event. for more and how to acquire today's program, go to our
cosponsoring the seaside with the arms control association, which was represented here very appropriately by daryl kimball. the arms control association and brookings share a commitment to finding as many ways as we possibly can to inform the public national and sometimes international debate on the issue is having to do with the arms control and non-proliferation. and here in this building at brookings, that effort is able the speared by steve pifer, who is part of the panel. we on the brookings and want to also thank the fund and
macarthur foundation for the generous work that they've given for work in this area. and i would add it's also good to have more to and angelo with us today. both have long and very close ties to brookings as well as a very deep knowledge of the issues that we are going to be talking about and principally that means the debate over the ratification of the new s.t.a.r.t. tre as i think it to be in this room knows it's been 18 years since the old s.t.a.r.t. the treaty was ratified. that was during the administration of george herbert walker bush. nuclear diplomacy was one of several areas president bush skillfully managed u.s. soviet relations during a tumultuous and it seemed sometimes dangerous period when the in u.s.s.r.as disintegrating.
while president bush often is associated with the conduct of the first goal for mack, he deserves equal praise for an even more consequential achievement which was the way that he used his extraordinary personal and political relationship with mikhail gorbachev to help end the cold war in a way that preserved the nuclear peace but helped strengthen it and also in a way that laid the ground for a europe whole and free. in that accomplishment has and many others, president bush had at his side our keynote speaker. brent scowcroft was involved in every strategic arms agreement going back to salt one in the nixon administration. he was with gerald ford in 1974 working with brezhnev to keep the salt process alive after
president nixon's resignation. brandt served both presidents ford and bush 41 as national security adviser. aside from his distinguished public career, i believe that he has a private citizen has a knd of lifetime appointment as a national security adviser to the entire nation. for decades, he has been a strong, clear, and independent, as well as sagacious foynes on issues of war and peace. and, i might add, he has been a friend, counselor, mentor to many of us here today. myself certainly included. we are fortunate and grateful to have him establish the framfor our discussion. general, over to you. [applause] >> thank you very much, stroke,
for that great introduction especially about the arm control process. my job as an unpaid position i want you to know at he described. i'm ry happy to be year to talk with you about what is in some ways a very important reading in some ways a very and significant treaty. it's impotant because it needs to be passed. let me go back and review the whole strategic arms control process with the soviet union to put this in a kind of perspective that it needs because much of the debate is not about this treaty and what it is designed to do but it is about other issues that people have that some of them seem to me only dimly related to the treaty which is before us.
the philosophy of strategic arms control, while it began in the latter part of the johnson administration thought it was formulated in the nixon administration and it's been foowed generally ever since and not everybody recognizes with the process was. but it was designed in three phases. the first team to be solved i was to stop the production o nuclear weapons. we had an arms race going on, and each one was pushing its favorite weapo to stay ahead or get ahead or whatever, and this was just cease in place, and that is what salt i date. it just froze the process. now, fatta is to as designed to
use the word equal the rate that forces. the structures are very different. th emphasized land-based icbm and we emphasized the heavy icbm, we emphasized more see based -- they were different forces. now, how do you -- how do you balance them? how do you make them equal seven you can say, which was to be phase number three, redos, and then reduce in heavies ways so that we don't disturb the balance and the was the general philosophy of this process. and salt i was successful. and nixoresigned as strobe said and ford pick up the process and there was useful progress made but it came on to
new weapons systems, the soviet backfire bomber and the u.s. cruise missiles, nuclear cruise missile, and we didn't know how to count those, and neither one wanted them to count because they were not strategic weapon so, anyway, the process sort of collapsed. president carter picked it up and bush, through a traty, salt ii. heort of combined phase is number two and three, and probably it was too ambitious for the process. anyway, salt for i did not pass. the process was picked up again by president bush, senior, and in the up in s.t.a.r.t. i which
was the fee is two. these are with the forces look like. these are how they are balanced. he went on and tried s.t.a.r.t. ii to want to phase three which was reduction some of which took place in the bush 43 administration. but importantly in s.t.a.r.t. ii which wasn't raified, there was an attempt to strengthen the stability of the balance because it was to be a ban on the icbm, because in a crisis he icbm is an incentive for the first strike to get an advantage. so that's the whole process. but unfortunately happened, there was a long pause after s.t.a.r.t. i which strobe talbott also said, and all of
the rules that are embodied in s.t.a.r.t. i, the verification, the other kind of measures that went into equal the breeding the rces were embodied in the s.t.a.r.t. i. they ran out of december last year. so we don't have those anymore. and the sides really cannot proceed substantively toward eithereduction or changing the balance of the forces, changing the nature of the forces so that the balance is more stable without those rules because they give both sides the confidence they were both talking the same game using the same rules, and that is what this treaty is designed to do. it's not designed to be phase phase iii fin de mentally to go
into reduction or change the character of forces. it's just designed to take the body of rules, which has been formulated since 1962,and keep them in place so then we can decide what we want to do on arms control. so the treaty is essential if we are to move ahead because if we don't have it, we really cannot proceed. we don't have to precede any way but we cannot proceed again because so much of the structure what we are doing will be ended. now it's true tat there are questions raised about some of the treaty language. are there ambiguities, are there omissions and so on? i think most of those are a tataris of the negotiations, and my sense is that thought treaty
negotiators can clean up most of those we talked about, some of those things. the treaty of course makes no provision for the maintenance of our deterrent capability, nor should it. of course tome it remains essential our strategic capability be safe, reliable and capable. but that is a unilateral on u.s. who require meant quite apart from the treaty, and though some say know they ought to be a part or precondition to our mixing apples and oranges. there are a number of criticisms which deal with what the treaty does not do. and as i aid, the treaty was not designed to move th process forward. yes it reduces the number of
forces on each side by a very modest amount. but what bill was designed to do is preserved the structure within which we have operated which gives both sides the confidence tt we are both talking the same way and then we can move on to either deeper reduction to cnging the character of the force to improve stability and so on. so this treaty is not substantively important. it is vital if we are to continue the process of strategic arms control with russia. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, general scowcroft for those excellent opening remarks that ss the stage for the dscussion about the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty and
why it matters for national security. my name is speed kimball, the director of the arms control association and we are glad to co-sponsor this event with the brookings institution. we are now going to turn to three expert panel and the gandy to let the issues concerning the reduction treaty and first we are going to hear from mort halperin who was a member of the congressional commission on the posture of the united states which finished its report in may of 2009. he served in the nixon johnson and kennedy administration and clinton administration working on the nuclear policy arms control. some even say he was working in the hoover administration but we have to confirm that to verify that rumor and he testified before the committee on the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. he will raise the questions raised about the new treaty by
some and explain why they should not delay the ratification of the treaty and then we will hear from steve pifer, senior fellow here at the brookings institution on the center for the united states and europe and the arms control initiative of brookingsinstitution, and he is going to delve into the verification issues relating to new s.t.a.r.t., why it's a verifiable and why the verification system is important for u.s. and international security. and last but not least we are going to hear from professor angelo who is going to address how the s.t.a.r.t. help to reset the relations and how this fits into our broad objective with russia on issues of common concern. she's in on resident senior fellow with foreign olicy here at brookings and also at the
center for east european studies at georgetown. with that introduction i'm going to turn over to mort d after each of the speakers, address the issues we will take your questions. >> thank you very much. it's always a pleasure to be back at brookings. my task is to try to talk and respond to some of the criticisms and leveled against the treaty. that is a little hard to do because the criticisms change every week as the lack of merit each criticism s revealed we move on to te new ones and the most recent has been we have to read the treaty more carefully because we are sure there is a problem buri in it that we haven't yet found. the fact is that negotiation of this treaty followed almost to the tv advice of the strategic commission that i had the privilege of serving on and
which for those of you that know about the range of views on the subject this commission went from the center to the far right, and it had a group of people none of whom can be called the vote to arms control advocates, and yet it agreed on a simple recommendation that the administration should as its first step negotiate a modest treaty with russia which is just as general scowcroft expected continue the procedures an context and structure of our arms control relations with russia that it shod involve modest additional limitations on the forces, and that advice was followed and the treaty is one that makes important strides in the way that is suggested so let me look at some of the criticisms briefly. the first one is that the treaty is susceptible if only we modernize our force, and we
cannot trust theongress to agree to the modernization proposals made by the president. those proposals need to vary substantially, they will lead to substantial increases over the planned modernization proposed by the bush administration. the person in charge of that modernization said he would have killed for the budget we now have from the obama administration and the congress is beginning to move to approve it. the first committee votes have been very successful. and i would argue that far from making sense to hold up the treaty to try to see whether the modernization takes place that we need to understand that the ccess of the modernization will depend on the ratification of this treaty and in my view them moving ahead with the ratification of the text ban treaty because the congress, previous congress on the
republican president and republican control of the congress turned down proposals for modernization because they saw them as an effort to build up on the nuclear forces to find new purpose for nuclear weapons, and the congress i thik clearly will not do that, will not improve the effort to introduc new purposes for the new nuclear weapons. but when you prevent them with this administration had in the context of this flawed treaty and the nucle posture review with a proposal to build down on the nuclear forces to exclude the nuclear testing and exclude the development of the new weapons for the new military purposes, then the argument that says we ought to have a modern effective safe, secure and reliable nuclear arsenal is a very strong oneand will get and continue to get overwhelming support from the congress and from the american public. so if you want the modernization of the force, if you ant a
safe, secure and reliable arnal you should be for a prompt ratification of the treaty. the next set of arguments raised has to do with ballistic missile defense, and this i find again deeply is a sappointing and surprising because in this area as well the administration followed precisely the recommendatis of the perry schlesinger commission. it is the treaty itself places no limits on effective deployment of ballistic missile defense. there is a statement in the preamble but says the connection between offense and defense. i was present when we tried hard to persuade the soviet union that there was a connction between offense and defense. it took many years. we finally persuaded them of something which is obvious to anybody that looks at the issue which is described in the commission report. namely if we were the russians make an effort to take aay the
offensive capability of the other by building of the large defense, the result will be a buildup of the offensive forces, no greater security for either country at the end of the day each of us will have same capability to destroy the other as we had before it the forces will simply be much larger and much more unstable. so there is that connection. it is one that we need to accept. second, there is a ban on placing missile defense and strategic offensive missile launchers. the hat, missile defense command has testified that while that looked like an attractive option a few years ago and we actually did deploy a few missile silos which are grandfathered in by the treaty that is no longer considered a sensible option. we know how to do this by the builng from scratch and the military is unanimous in its view that we can build
anti-missile launchers faster and more effectively and more efficiently by building them from scratch rather than trying to put them in missile silos so there is a limit that makes a clear separation between offense and defense but it has no real fect on our capability. finally there is theussian unilateral stement which says they reserve the right to withdraw from the treaty if we build up our missile defenses. the united states while it said it also reserves the right to withdraw from the treaty of the russians build up the missile defenses. and neither of us would withdraw if there was a verylarge buildup. but if we stick to the current plan to deploy a missile defense against iran and against north korea poses no threat to the russians anwill not lead to withdraw. moreover, the russians reat to withdraw will not have any impact on the u.s. program just as it had no impact on the negotiating position when the russians suggested that they wanted more limits on ballistic
missile defense the administration said properly in my view that we won't have the treaty. and i think it is clear to the russians that line has been drawn. finally at one point we were told and some people still say thetreaty doesn't ban mobile systems because it doesn't mention them. but in fact they are subsumed within the definition of misses and missile launchers which are prohibited or limited by the treaty and if the russians decided to go to a new mobile system, it would, i think, in every reasonable view of the treaty be covered by the treaty. those are the main objections that i am aware of if others of you out there have others i'm happy to try to address. thank you. >> thank you. we will now turn to steve pifer. steve? >> thank you, daryl. first, you gave me the task of delving into the deails of the verification of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty.
i'm not sure if i will make progress in five minutes. this is the text of the treaty, the protocol and the documents on and probably between 85 to 90% of the pages deal with the verification issues so let me just make three or four basic observations about the new s.t.a.r.t. and basic for ratification. first is some have criticized new s.t.a.r.t. for having listened we of verification than was the case with the s.t.a.r.t. once signed in 1971 and it's true july of las year when the president met in moscow they decided they would try to simplify and streamline the provisions and there were several reasons for this. first of all, the military's on both sides wanted to make verification less costly and less trusive on the day-to-day operational practices. second, the head 15 years of imementing the verification regime of the s.t.a.r.t. once they learned what made sense and ways to make it efficient and they played in the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty negotiation. some of the threats they worried
about the negotiation of the s.t.a.r.t. wentlate-1980s didn't really materialize. a lot of th s.t.a.r.t. one verification regime dealt with mobilized g. p.m.. when there was a concern that the soviets would deploy hundreds and hundreds of these, and in fact s.t.a.r.t. i have a limit of no more than 100 warheads on the icbm in fact now 20 years later we've seen the russians have a much more modest program. they've shut down the program for the real mobilized icbm and the number of the road globalized icbm they had as of a year ago was about 190. so the concern on that area has dropped down. finally, some s.t.a.r.t. one limits are not replicated in the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. so, you don't need the associated verification measures. an example here is the question of telemetry from the information at a ballistic miile broadcast during its test flight that allows the missile to report on its performance. s.t.a.r.t. i have limis that
require access to tell a metric. the new s.t.a.r.t. i doesn't have those limits. i think it would have been a good thing if we could have had the full s.t.a.r.t. i access to the telemetry in this new treaty but the russians refused to go that far so instead we have a more limited provision that's really not a verification measures and secretary gates has said he does not see the need for stila autrey to verify the treaty. this more limited provision serves in the additional transparency measure. so my second observation would be that whether the new s.t.a.r.t. has will lessen the way of the verification compared to s.t.a.r.t. i is not the right metric to judge the verifications' of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. e question really should be does the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty have monitoring and verification provisions that are appropriate for its limits and that will give high confence that we could etect a militarily
significant violation in a timely manner quicksand by in a timely manner what i'm referring to in time for the united states to take steps to respond before it is jeopardized. that leads to my third observation which is when you ok at the aggregate of measures in this document the answer to the question is yes. the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty we can have high confidence we could detectny militarily signifant violation. and to go through some of the verification measures. first of all, as with every arms control treaty going back to the 1960's, the basis for the verification is national technical means of verification. things like imaging satellites and bartsow accounts u.s. national are very, vry good. but the document has other provisions many of which are designed to help augment the national leads. for example it provides for 80 exchange which requires a huge exchange of data between the sides. in this document, the format,
just the format for the the other russians have to provide after the fre runs 34 pages. they have to give not only aggregate numbers but the location of every deployed icbm, every deployed as 0 p.m. athe number of warheads on each one of the missiles. we are going to know a lot about the russian strategic forces with thiagreement in place that we won't know without it. likewise, every intercontinental ballistic missile, every sub launch missile, every heavy bomber is going to for the first time have a unique identifier that will allow us to track systems from production to deployment to the elimination. and here are about 43 notification formats. 15 of those are related to the notifications that the sides have to make about changes to the strategic forces. when an icbm is produced at a production facility, when it goes to a test range, when it is eliminated all this information allows us to cure the national means and use them muchore
effectively. moreover there is an inspection regime that is simpler than the regime of s.t.a.r.t. i. it had between ten to 12 different inspections. the new s.t.a.r.t. has to the the inspections actively are going to give us more insight into what the russians are doing, in part becausee are going to have to inspect a smaller number of sites in russia. my final observation is with the verification measures in the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty we are going to have much more transparency that the russian strategic forces. we are going to have a much better understanding about how they operate, maintain and on the forces. that's going to be good for confidence building. it's going to be good for stability. and it's going to allow for better informed choices on the u.s. side about how we eclipse, operate and structure our own strategic forces and this seems to me to be a very significant reason to ratify. and here i would pck up on general scowcroft's plight the verification regime and the
s.t.a.r.t. i treaty expired in november when it expired. we are now dependent simply on the national means of verification, and closing the gap and beginning to get access to the kind of information that this treaty provides woud seem to be a reason for ratification sooner rather than later. >> thank you, steve. you shouldn't doubt yourself so much because you did an excellent job summarizing the details of the verification system. next we are when ou're from angela stent his went of the u.s.-russian relationship and the new s.t.a.r.t.. >> thank you very much, daryl. i was asked to talk about the meaning of s.t.a.r.t. for the russian relations and i too and brain to make three points. the first 1i think we'll need to rememb how important the relationship with russia is to the united states because sometimes we don't remember it enough. russia is critically important for a number of our global interests. the world's largest nuclear powers will hold the key to the
future of the nonproliferation regime and this is a regime that both republican and democratic administrations have supported. but beyond that, that plays a crucial role and can play a major role in enabling us to achieve the object of but we are pursuing in afghanistan, in iran and combating terrorism. at russia can also make it much more difficult for us to achieve those aims. so that is another reason for the importance of russia. the improvement of the u.s.-russian relations over the past year has led not only to the s.t.a.r.t. agreement on the military transportatin for afghanistan over the russian territory something that agreement is being implemented. the conditions are improving and to russia joining us for a vote on more robust sanctions against iran in the united nations security council. again, we can arg about that resolution but russia has now joined us on that. so how does s.t.a.r.t. fit into this picture and what impact could it have on other issues?
the u.s. commitment to negotiate s.t.a.r.t. i would argue is the pre-ruckus at for the reset. reset would have been difficult without it. you've heard from my colleagues of the substance of the treaty. i'm not we did talk about the substance but i'm been to see the process of negotiating s.t.a.r.t. was very important for improving our relationship with russia across a variety of fields. for many yes, the russians complain we did not take their interests into account. that we didn't afford them the international will that they deserve. again, we can talk about that, those concerns. but remember the speech in 2007 in the munich securi conference and the tone of the speech because i'm going to come back to medvedev speech because we know the russian concerns and complaints were and they did affect the way that russia dealt with the united states over the past decade. now the obama administration policy has been predicated on acknowledging the russian concerns and on changing both the rhetoric and the reality of
the.s.-russian relationship. now of course it remains a selective partnership just juxtaposed the summit between the two presidents last month followed very shortly by the exchange on the tarmac in vienna. yes it is a complicated relationship. but in the negotiations we signaled to the russians we treat them as an equal partner on this issue and we have a framework and established free-market general scowcroft and my other colleagues talked about, and this may be the last arms control treaty of its kind and it's been very important for re-establishing this relationship with russia and is a major accomplishment so far. last week president medvedev get a speech to the russian diplomatic corps and i've been following the speeches by the russian and soviet leaders more years than i would like to recall but i have never seen a speech i which the threat from nato has been so downplayed. medvedev talked about th united
states as one of russia's's key international partners ahead of, you know, china or everything else. he talked about a paradigm shift in relations between the united states and russia. so if you read that speech and go to the brookings website and see the speech president medvedev cade here it brookings in april, you see a very different tone and a very different discussion of substance. the day after president obama was elected, i don't know whether any of you remember that on november 50 believe in 2008 when medvedev made a speech threatening to deploy missiles if the united states went ahead with its own missile defense to plummet. so there really has been a change in the rhetoric. and i think the other reon for this is that russia has recognized that it cannot modernize its economy without a substantial input from advanced market economies. the united states, the west, and it needs a more coopeative relationship with the west in
order to achieve that. and my third point has to do with our relationship with nato allies and their view of russia and of s.t.a.r.t.. i would say the negotiation of s.t.a.r.t. and the signing has been an important element in narrowing the transatlantic gap over how we should deal with russia. our policy is now more aligned with that of our allies than it was previously. i think that is obvious. some of you might say yes but that applies to western europe but what about central europe and the balkan state's? and i would argue as a resultf a free evaluation both by a central give up and by russia in fact there's the difference between old and new europe how to deal with russia has narrowed and we have greater alignment now in the trans-atlantic community on how to deal with russia and that is beneficial for us. so today we face, and strategic challenges, combat and islamic extremists and the terrorism that i engenders, stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. the s.t.a.r.t. taty as i said represents the most concrete accomplishments of an american attempt to ensure that russia is part of the solution to these problems, very important. s.t.a.r.t. is ratified i think the next challenge will be the next phase of the recent policy which i believe is going to be more dificult and challenging than 51st. if it is not ratified, however, i think thatwould adversely affect the whole spectrum of the u.s.-russian relationship and i think it will impact negatively on a far broader set of critical american interests worldwide. >> thank you very much, all three of you, and we've heard each of the speakers talk about different aspects of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. we heard from chaparral scowcroft about how this is part of a continuum of u.s.-russian efforts to reduce strategic nuclear weapons and that puts us back on track to do that. we've heard about why the verification system is a file
you to the united states, about how the treaty will permit the united states to make a nuclear deterrent and how it's going to contribute to more positive u.s.-russian relationship. now we are going to begin with some gng into some questions from the audience, and i will ask those of you who want to ask questions to raise your hand. a microphone will come t you. please make your question a question and nota statement and as you get warmed up with your statements i just want to start us off with a question for general scowcroft falling on what you said at a hearing on the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty back in june before the senate foreign relations committee. and you said in by quote the principal result of the non-ratification would be to throw the whole nuclear negotiation into a state of chaos and the reason the treaty is important is over the decades we've built up all of these
rules, all of the verification procedures and so on so that each side feels yes we can take these steps. could you just elborate on that a little bit further about why you believe the u.s. national security would be negatively affected if the treaty were be rejected or indefinitely delayed? >> well, i think there are a couple of reasons. one is as i described and as is graphically presented here, this body of documentation represents countless hours of discussions, negotiations and so on. this is what gives the two sides the confidence to move ahead and say okay we can make cuts here if we eliminate this kind of weapon and so on and improve the stability of the balance and
reduce the chance of a crisis turning into a conflict, and if this is dropped how do you want in next step? you can't say you have to start all over again and go back and reconstruct this so that's the first part. the other is the whole issue of what makes a proliferation. the u.s. and the russians are still the custodians of the nuclear age. we own 95% of all the nuclear weapons. if we are unable, between the two of us, to make any progress in the stability, what does this do to the urging authors not to proliferate, not to go to nuclear weapons because of a danger to the world? well, we sit there and federal and it seems to me i'm not saying the country's proliferate
because f our position decomposition. the dewitt for a variety of reasons but if we are doing it to try to get a handle on what i think is a growing threat, of the nuclear proliferation, we've got to show the we are determined ourselves to halt the process, not just that we insist others to meet. >> thank you. do we have questions from the audience for the panelists? >> yes, sir. i'm sorry. please tell us who you are in your question. >> i'm bill coleman. i think long ago [inaudible] i was on the committee. the questions i want to ask you -- th questions i want to ask show my ignorance, but it also may be something you don't want to answer. my understanding is that the
united states was the one that developed the weapon. w, i would like to know how the russians got, how the north koreans got a, how i think they say the indians have it and have another country out there, and i know that we told therench and the british what we want to do. so that is one of them had the second problem is to say that you are drawing the treatie and the president says i have this number of weapons and you have a spot he stores each one of them. i think once he puts them someplace else how do you know he's done that? >> i think we have a question about the process of proliferation and how this relates to that and also how do we take into account the possibility of achieving on this
treaty? perhaps steve you can talk about that second question and the relevance of the potential cheating under this new strategic arms traction treaty. >> i will make a couple of points in response to the possibility of cheating. the first point would be that i think it is probably too much we can predict every little bit of cheating t the focus, therefore, is to focus on detecting cheating that is militarily significant that's going to cause you significant harm that would challenge the balance and i think that with this agreement and the national means we have very good ways to prevent that. the russians might be able to produce oneeclared missile. that wouldn't really have a big impact on the balance when each side is allowed 1,560 strategic warheads. would be harder for the ussians to produce a significant number of missiles without declaring them -- without subjecting them in the treaty simply because we have our national technical
means and we also have a lot of the the the would then show went there is one extra missile that doesn't jive with of the data so this gives a good handle on that. likewise another question would be how mght they put extra warheads on missiles? this reaty allows ten times a year to go to an neither missile submarine base or an intercontinental base and say we choose that submarine open up the missile number six. you say there are four more hits want to ee for warheads so we have mechanisms that are going to create much more confidence and disincentives to cheating. one last point is my country thinks about cheating they think about gains and cost, and it seems to me under the terms of the new treaty there's going to be a huge disincentive to the russians to cheat and that is because the united states will have a response. under the terms of the treaty and the pentagon already talked about how it plans to structure
its forces under the treaty, the united states will eliminate a small number of missiles and bombers but most of the reduction to get down below the ceiling of 1,550 warheads will go down by taking warhads off of missiles but keep th missiles so for the sample we have now 450 minuteman icbm in the force. the plan under the treaty is to go down to may be between 400 or 420 of the icbm. each of which will carry a single warhead. each can carry three so what they have to ask themselves if theycheat does that provoke the united states to go back and take the simple ssiles and put the other were head back on support hundred missiles instead of carrying 400 coul carry 1200 you have a similar situation with the ballistic missile submarines. so again if the russians are going to think about who we is
cheating they also have to ask themselves to they want to see the united states then go and read a playful side of warheads and the united states could in a matter of months at 16 or 1700 warheads to its arsenal so you have to be concerned about cheating but it seems to me with the treaty we have pretty high confidence that we can detect cheating that would be significant and we also have a structure that gives the russians strong disincentive to cheat. >> thank you. are there other questions? right here in the blue. let's make sure that microphone is working. >> [inaudible] broadcasting corporation. i have a question in regards to the timing of the ratification. so, in relationship to the november election when you think is likely timing of the attempt ratify the new treaty?
thank you. >> steve, do you want to take a shot and i can address that also if you like. >> i think the administration's hope is that before the senate goes to recess in august the foreign relations committee that has primary jurisdiction will be able to voted out of committee and i believe this committee has concluded the of the one or two more hearings so they should be on track for that. i think in a more optimistic scenario the administration would like before the senate goes on recess to have the opportunity to have a full vote although most i talk to think that is pretty optimistic. that then puts the vote to back sometime in the fall after the senate returns in september. >> do you want to address this? >> in the absence of senator kerry -- the nation's committee sold the jurisdiction over this and every other treaty. the armed services committee and
intelligence committee will hold hearings but those hearings are to inform samet terse that he is not part of the formal process and of course the senate consents the ratification. the president will then make the determination to ratify and exchange the ratification with russia. most people think it will happen before this congress adjourns and probably will happen before the reelection but if it doesn't happen before the congress will be back in after the election and i think unless the careful readers of the trety signed a new provision none of us found that the treaty will be ratified before the end of the year. this and i would agree with my colleagues about the outlook for the votes in the committee and on the floor. the senate armed services committee is holding to more hearings next week on intelligence has already held a
single hearing. there's been a total of almost 20 heings in the senate since the treaty was signed by president obama and medvedev on april 8th. so the reports the congress does on this issue have been delivered the senate has the information it needs to make a decision and while it is important in my view for the senate to look carefully at the treaty and all the details it's also important to move expeditiously because as steve pifer node we are in a world without any system of regulation of the world's largest nuclear arsenals. we no longer have a verification system to give a look into the russian strategic forces and the longer we do without the system the less information we have the less the deal, the less confidence about one another's parcels and in my view that isn't a safe condition to be in
for an indefinite period of time so i would hope that this dennett is going to work expeditiously with the information that it has. do we have other questions? i think there was a question in the middle. yes, sir. >> peace action [inaudible] thanks to the panel for a good briefing. can we talk more about the politics behind this? it seems this treaty isa slam dunk and the treaties in the past of gotten some 90 almost all senators voting for it but it seems there are some republicans who are playing politics. can you talk about that, please? >> the politics, who would like to wade into the politics? steve, general scowcroft. that's the way to go. all right. well, i think that as i said in answer to the previous question, this is a complex issue.
the senate needs to look very carefully at this. and it's clear that some senators particularly the minority whip john kyl are looking to get some commitments from the obama administration for issues he cares about before he is willing to allow the treaty to move forward, and as more to said and as general scowcroft suggested, it is important for the united states to make sure there are the necessary resources to maintain the u.s. nuclear arsenal into the future. what senator kyl is saying right now is she needs some assurances about what will happen in the years ahead beyond the next fiscal year budget five continues from now to make sure congress appropriates and authorizes the resources that the obama administration pledged to put forward $80 billion.
that is and ask that is next to impossible fo any administration to deliver on. so i think that the senator kyl and the republicans concerned about this issue have to be realistic about what the administration can deliver on and whether or not theyare holding this treaty up for consideration on the basis of substance or whether there are otr reasons they are holding this up. the administration has put forward a very robust modernization budget has more to allied. it's high year in the dollar amount than the bush administration before word. it's more than enough and the directors, the experts looking at this to maintain the stockpile and to the indefinite future and so i think it's possible on substantive ground to ove forward with
consideration of the treaty halving that in mind. that is onofthe ke issues the republicans are raising as something they want to see guaranteed before they allow the treaty to move forward. steve? >> the argument for ratification of the treaty are overwhelmingly compelling and i guess i would add one observation. in 2003 the senate vote slash 92-0 to consent to ratification of the strategic offensive reduction treaty siged by president bush and put him in 2002. that is a lot shorter than this document. was to pages. it limited each side to 1700 or 22 words about the same level as the street. had no limits on missiles or bombers, no accounting rules, no provisis for verification. and there would be this question senators who voted for that
treaty in a 20031 would wonder why they would have difficulty with this treaty. >> yes, sir over year if you could raise your hand again, please. thank you. >> jeff price one time at the defense department. i think that more has been a good job addressing the concerns raised about the treaty but in the interest of completeness, one concern that is also metimes mtioned is the effect on the ability of using conventional warheads on the strategic livery ystems and i wonder if the panel could address that. >> with the treaty does is permitted conventional global strike missiles to be placed in existing silos but it counts
against the limit and the administration indicated it was prepared to accept that because its current plan first of all there are no plans to deploy and the strategic fight but it's planning shows if it decided to do this it would be the pentagon calls eight the pitch capability meaning they would want no more than a dozen of these because the kind of things you would want to use them for that you suddenly no all the terrorists in the world have to accommodate come together in one place and stay there long enough to attack them or you see the north korean missile being put on the silo ready to be launched. if the number of targets that you can conceive of for doing this are very small and therefore a dozen of these would be enough and that it doesn't -- a dozen could be accommodated thin the limits we now have and there are no realisc
possibilities to have a larger number of these before the expiration date of this treaty because we are not even in the beginning research and development stage. if you look towards a larger capability. if you suddenly decide that you want 70 or 80 of these, then i think prudence suggests and the attitude othe congress suggests you want to put them somewhere in a ballistic missile other than the ballistic missile field because the last thing y want to do in a test the crisis is fire 50 objects up from the missile field in a way that the russians would have to fear was coming at them and might lead them to fire in retaliation. indeed you did that, then there would be enormous pressure on u not to use the capability in a crisis for fear it would provoke a nuclear war mix if you are going to go to a large cable the yowant t deploy and ways that would not be coming out of the ballistic missile field and
the treaty permits that and the administration is beginning to look at options of the kind and i think it is clear that if they move in that direction, which i doubt that they will, then they will do so by designing a system which is not covered by the treaty at all. general scowcroft? >> just a word. does, this is a sensitive issue and some of the proponents say global strike. this is the conventional weapons. why do we have to count the start? suppose this were a russian proposal and we want to use some of our icbm launchers for conventional weapons. we would react in horror at the notion. and i think that more to has got it exactly right. these are the fundamentals. do you really want to risk nuclear holocaust by seeing
something going up and it is a nuclear carrier but we should all know it only has a conventional warhead on eigh. that a very sensitive issue and i think we are working our way through in a satisfactory way. >> other questions. >> yes, sir right here. >> arms control association. thank you. one of the issues raised by certain sectors as the demand for access to the negotiating record of the treaty. i was wondering if you talk about the historical precedent for that and a way that you think it is a good idea going forward to share the new negotiating record. thanks. >> i think in the arms control will dustin twice with regard to the anti-ballistic missile treaty signed in 1972 and then
the record was provided for the treaty banning intermediate-range forces signed in 1987 but my recollection is one the samet received the record to th imf negotiations they also said, and i think this was a republican senate this should be not the standard. it should be a very rare event. now the negotiating record when you talk about it and i served on the intermediate nuclear forces negotiation in the early 1980's and this is hundreds and ndreds of cables. literally every conversation that this had gets reported back to washington and having to make sense of his and also because sometimes you see things taken out of context. i think it's difficult to see how that is going to add more to the understanding as opposed to the administration saying this is the agreement and this is what it means.
>> i think it ought to provide the record. i think the senate has a constitutional rule that is equal to the president deciding whether the united states ratifies the treaty. i think that yes it will provide opportunity for people to find one sentence and complain about it but it's a political matter that is was not to get and i think it is a costitutional matter we ought to set a precedent and provide it. >> why would amend the comments just made to say that e of the things i think will be important is for those republican senators who want to see the record is to explain what particular issue is the art concerned about in the case of the treaty portions of the record were made available in order to clarify certain issues that were considered to be on in the treaty itself.
this treaty is extraordinarily clear. it is a very simple treaty. the terms are very clear. to my best determination of the motivating reasons why some republican senators have said they want to see the record is because there is the suspicion that there is some sort of secret understanding between the obama administration and president medvedev and the russians regarding missile defense. as morton said in his opening of the treaty is very clear about how the missile defense are affected. they are not affected in any meaningful way. and i think if the record were to be provided or portions of the record were to be provided it would probably make it clear that the russians ask for many thgs they do not get in this negotiation. i think it's important for there
on the changing world of the newspaper industry. >> i worry about some of the standards and maintaining journalistic integrity as we move from one media world to another. >> clark hoyt, tonight on c-span's q & a. >> c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public affairs all created by america's cable companies. bp's vice president in charge of worker safety said the company's taken steps to improve working conditions since the oil rig explosion in the gulf that killed 11 workers. steve flin testified before the subcommittee on health and safety, this is about an hour and 45 minutes.
we were joined by expert witnesses from the steelworkers union, the programs office and in california and the national petra chemical and refiners' association. i did invite bp to send a representative to help us understand what's been going on with the injuries and what led to the situation and what disasters they learned but they declined the invitation. i found that to be outrageous given the workplace safety including 11 workers killed in the deepwater horizon disaster and 15 workers killed and more than 170 injured in the
explosion at the texas refinery, a record in fines levied against bp in 2009 for failing to correct safety hazards after the texas city explosion and fines revealed hundreds of violations of a settlement agreement that were put in place, coupe less reports of unsafe practices and evidence that corners have been cut in operations, cuts that put workers at risk in the interest of maximizing profits. the inability or unwillingness to fix known problems raises serious problems about bp's commitment to create a site-safe workplace and protect its workers. so i am glad we were able to work out an arrangement today to have bp testify about its safety practices and record. there's only one panel and one
witness. that is for a number of reasons. first the subcommittee and congress and we do deserve an accounting of the bp practices. the family of our workers killed at bp deserve to understand what happened. and bp's workers whether they work onshore or offshore deserve to know what the company is doing what happened they will do differently to ensure their safety and avoid another disaster. but let me be entirely clear. bp is not the only country in the industry and not the only solution we need. this is not a safe industry. the materials being handled are toxic, highly combustible and deadly. the processes and procedures used are complex and carry inherent risk. mandatory companies still carry a swagger more wildcat than
refined. bp may be an extreme in a company of insafe practices, but they are not alone. there have been 21 fires, 26 deaths and 36 injuries in oil and gas refinery accidents, alone. 2010, there's on average been one fair to a week at refineries and those are the fires that have been reported since refineries have no legal obligation to report every stint. between 2006 and 2009 there were an additional 30 worker deaths. 1,298 injuries, and 514 fires on riggs located on the outer continental shelf. to me, this doesn't seem like simply a string of bad luck. it prs to be a pattern of safety violations across an industry. now, i'm very corned it is the result of profits over workers
safety. it seems to me the oil and gags industry as a whole has a hard time learning from their mistakes and have a hard time covering their workers. it seems to me bp is an extremely poor student. >> we need to make sure everyone knows business as usual in this industry will no longer be toleratemented i look forwarded to hearing from our witness today. i thank you to coming. i look forward to today's testimony and the questions and answers many of our senators will have. before we move to our witness and opening statements, i want to recognize senator isaacson for coming and joining us and being part of this. >> thank you very much for calling this very important hearing and thank you for preparing to testify tie today. the lives of 11 workers were claimed and saddened our entire
country. this catastrophic event threatens the gulf coast and still do not know how bad it was and will continue to be. >> the devastation of the gulf coast vags natural resources. ifer that reason i co-responsered legislation that require bp live up to its process of paying all economic claims. there's no way we should have to choose between goss domestic process and the fellow light and it can be done in a responsible way that is safe for workers and the environment. the range of federal agent can is can be government after i mean in a recent letter to the administration, urging additional corporation between these two industries. our prayers remain with the
victims and their families and the people of the gulf coast in this terrible tragedy. i thank you for calling the hearing and dr. flin for your appearance. >> are there any other members that appear to want to make an opening statement? >> yes. thank you, madam chair, and thank you for holding today's hearing. thank you, mr. flin, for being here today. bp has been in the news and on the minds of the american people. bp is an enormous company. last year they had over 230 billion in sales and operated 16 refineries, five here in the united states. more importantly, they employ over 80,000 people, and they are responsible for the workplace safety of 80,000 employees. that's the same number of people that live in bloomington, minnesota. that's a big reason we care so
much about the safety procedures is bp. just as much as any other employer in the oil and gas industry, when mistakes are made, lives are lost, and bp has established a very disappointing track workers. 26 workers have died under its watch in the past five years alone. >> one reason why americans are so outraged by deepwater horizon is because we lived through the reality of a horrible bp explosion at a texas city refinery and bp said it was the worst tragedy in its theory and this is a quote. it would do everything possible to make sure nothing like it happens again. >> now it's clear that bp didn't do everything that it could. in the aftermath of the texas city accident, the chemical safety and hazard investigation
board urgeled bp to commission a panel to assess the safety procedures. the paper was very comprehensive and included many recommendations for improving soft there. one of their suggestionings was improving the culture of safety. yet in this morning's "new york times," we read a survey in which workers reported they saw unsafe behaviors on the rig, but didn't report them because they were afraid of reprizals. today felt comfortable reporting things to their immediate supervisors but felt corporate level repercussions for anything yont that. the rig was hired by bp to operate the rig. almost everyone choose it is process for tracking safety issues was counterproduct i. one committee report that had the company was always using
fear tactics. and bp was to create a culture of safety. if these workers' concerns had been heeded, 11 lives might have been saved. finally, i want to remind others we had a hearing on this last month and mr. charles dread anyway, president of the natural petroleum and i'm sorry petra chemical and refiners association. i mentioned to him that bp had 97% of the egregious, willful -- willful violations in the industry. and so i asked him about the industry's efforts to self-monitor, and why they weren't on bp. he said well, our trade group doesn't represent. bp. and i remember being kind of shocked to hear that. and then i said well let me ask
you -- is bp the only major demean does refinery that you don't represent? >> and he said, yes. i'd like to ask you why you're not a member of that association. >> i appreciate this -- the opportunity to follow up with dr. flin on bp's progress in implementing the bakeers report recommendation, and other safety improvements. i presume they are currently undertaking. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, chairman murray, and thank you the ranking member for being here. i'd also like to acknowledge dr. flin from bp for joining us this morning. the city has the responsibility to explore workplace safety and protections. generally, in bp in particular, chairman screened a look when it was unearned to protect your safe. >> great deal of attention
stemming from the explosion of the deepwater horizon focused on the spill. we should not forget that the initial explosion killed 11 workers and injured 17 others. beyond the tragedy of the waters in the gulf, a 2005 refinery built up an explosion. and injuries at least other than drulls. unfortunately, there are other problem atic lapses in recent company history that also worry me. for example, three years ago he was forced to pay in fines after false, inaccurate or misleading reports of its natural gas production in the southern youth industry 10e8 tear. when auditors told bp to fix them. the same problems in subsequent
reports leading them to believe top top's report was quote knowing or willful. the smaller example, and certainly not one involving human life. but it's a worrisome track record across the company. the tragedyings should serve as stark reminders that energy development without safety and prugses can be a dangerous business. >> to be sure, i'm not going to redeprive the official, nation's boy. however, these recent balance must be struck between traditional energy development and the absolute obligation we have to worker health and safety. oil and gas development that comes from the oil and pass joined that i or anyone on this committee can support. thank you, organizing today's
important hearing. >> thank you. with that we will turn to our witness today. steven flin is the vice president of the health safety security and environment for bp. mr. will come, i would like for you to present up to five minutes of homing testify. -- of -- >> we are devastated by the catastrophic events in the gulf of mexico. i personally want to offer my sincere condolences to the family and friends who have suffered such a terrible loss, and for those in the gulf coast whose lives and livelihood are being impacted. as i will explain, that's not a slogan. it's bp's most fundamental
corporate policy. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the important steps teen enhance worker safety across bp over the last several years. we have had challenges, but we have taken a hard look at ourselves. we have made substantial changes. the fair to explosion at the texas city location was a tramming did, riffly after that, a year, the prudhoe bayh experiences lit up. we have publicly acknowledged our responsibility for the short comings. we knew we could not change the past. but we were determined to learn from it. and to fundamentally change the way we operate based on what we learned. to do that bp
their review was widely considered one of the widest, most deep-reaching internal investigation ins history. fwol following the 2005 and 2006 incidents, we developed a form to transform a commitment. this is not just a commitment on paper. we've taken real steps, measured and sustained results i had an vested billions of dollars in implementing this ajend ia which had four main elements. >> first we acknowledged that oversight is drill. the tone from the top maters. from the moment tony hayward became c.e.o. in 2007, he made it clear that for safety, bp's safety is our number one identity. >> he has worked to dry
cascading -- and he comprise it is company's most senior scufertse. -- securities. and identifies years where additional focus is needed. ballpark bm also enhanced the role of the board level. the committee that receives regular reports from management's operations and safety performance. secondly, we finalize the development of a single new comprehensive management operating frame work. based on global best practices, this dries safety standardization and businesses businesses worldwide. provides a common way to focus on what we call keys of integrity safety. procedures to identify and manage risks, and the
expectations of leaders. implementation of process safety metrics and audit prieges. third, we focused and amended our training programs, because we believe it's key to a robust culture. bp expanded existing safety traininging at all level. rigorous new developments for our air people. and bp has established its safety training for leadership which has been conducted by m.i.t. and metrics that effectively stress and monitor performance. we want to how it measures up to others and identify trends that require intervention. the audit team of approximately 50 auditors edit bp's regular tory standards and clients.
they ordered findings and closure through quarterly reports. in addition bp personnel have played a leading role in the a.p.i. and identify new indicators that measure safety progress center. >> and bp knot the same company that existed at the time soft texas city and prudhoe bayh accidents. while we cannot change the past, we can learn from it and have strengthened our culture as a result. the -- protecting the workforce is the number one priority. 1k3 consistent with this commitment we stand trod learn and apply the lessons of the deepwater horizon tragedy. we are conducting a long distance of both parties involved, including bp. we will share the results of this, so everyone in the industry can heroin about this
terrible event. >> mr. flin, i want to start by talking about bp's culture of safety. your c.e.o., tony hayward said he has a laser focus on safety within the company. well, i'm fundamentally concerned that the culture of the company is anything but safety-oriented despite what we are hearing from senior management. in fact,, we know bp has a record or trying to say the right thing, but following disaster here in the united states, there's disturbingly actual changes on the ground. to that point, the 2006 pipe like% line leaks in prudhoe bay alaska, the general claims the company would get the priorities right. mr. brown dame out to say we don't just fix them on the circuit. he goes downtown. >> one year after the texas
city refinery explosion that injured many and jim. that led to an independent panel chaired bicek tear james baker and produced a secretary of public from hi it's cultural and practices. but this past november bp was fined a record $87 million for 270 violations of the 2005 settlement agreement to repair hazards at the texas city refinery. hazards that the company committed to fixing, but obviously never did, and 439 knew willful violations. 439 new violations. i schowled mention that since 2005, there's been four additional fatal accidents at the texas city refinery. so mr. flin, i would contend
that in the next five years, nothing has been fixed by spook weard. but the company, as you know has wanted to keep production over and over. can you explain to me and this company, what exactly a culture of safety means to bp. >> since the accident at prudhoe bayh, there have been changes starting with the commitment from the top to put safety as the number one priority. there was also investment. investment to remove buildings, to harden buildings. to replace pipelines, to repant changes. >> also we had to look at systems. and we focused our priority on putting in place required processes for managing the integrity of plant also the
safety work practices. then at if end of the day, it's the workers and their leaders that need to understand how to implement those practices, and how to make the workplace say. but not only did we do that, we need to understand we need checks and balances, to join our edit disease to go anywhere. we put in place actions to close them. so we've made progress over the last five years. things have really changed in bp. >> well, you just described to me and the committee of a number of processes and plans. can you tell me exactly when you will expect to have that in place. because, frankly, i'm tired of having to worry about companies that handle posses and dangerous and hazardous materials and in unsafe ways,
so our workers in our community that is very impacted by it. so you described all of these plans on paper. when does it already have been changes. >> they really have been qur systems put in place. now, it is a multi year program. and so i believe there will always be more to do. that's what i spent my entire -- >> but you can't give us a definite time line on chen o when -- turner had 70 vileses. >> yes. so as far as the violations at texas city were concerned, we were very disappointed by the outcome of that audit. we believe we had a program, which we agreed with osha, a year-on-year program to abate
those findings and put in place to what they were daring. we have put in place a program. sfrant progress i'm just glad i had a blond no-nonsense guy. we'd fulfilled our commitments. certainly we were working with oceana to resolve the differences, but in the end of the day we want a safe workplace and our workers to go home safely. so we will fulfill those commitments. >> but you can't give us a specific time line to do that? >> i'd be happy to work with your staff to explain what the time line is. i think we'd all be interested in seeing that. one more question before i turn it over to senator isaac your
report that it was bp engineers and staff who kept cutting corner on safety. denying the use of property equipment, and rushing the completion in the whale in order tore stay cocked. evidence given just this week was said to have what i would focused. >> the reports you described, thrnl concern me. i don't know yet what the cause of the accident on the deep water rond you were kidding short you had just talking about of a joycey dog. and of course if workers have concerns, then naturally we would be your oh, caft. >> we don't know what caused the dent on the deepwater
horizon. if workers are concerned, naturally, i am concerned. when workers raise them, we investigate that. but on the deepwater horizon rig, a very complex incident with many factors and many different parties involved. and we need to understand all the facts. so that we can put in place actions to prevent reoccurrence. >> senator isaacson? >> thanks. dr. flin, is bp's relationship with transopenings a contractedal relationship? >> yes. >> do you know what provisions that contract requires for safety on recent. in relation to bp's culture of safety? >> our -- what we require is that there are contractal requirements and safety and environment when we work with
contract ofs. so that may not have been en crawled. >> and i know this is what bp would expect. >> if the company lawyers would allow you to do so, would you see if we can get a copy of that contract? >> i will work with staff to see what we can come up with. >> thank you. and third, the bill -- to build the significant person training. beginning at all levels, beginning on the front lines with paint nat khobar system. >> an extensive training program for the leadership ranks. this is referring to post houston time, i believe. do you train transocean or do
you -- with them and require on their training? >> we provide on them to provide compliment to requirement your job. it's fun and something you and do all the re80's when you acted did it. do you have a bp officer who is a supervisor of the rig who is ulingtly the decision maker or do you actually delegate the division making ride po op to of how decisions are taken and who takes what, that should be set out in the contract ahead of time. so it could be that the bp company on board has certain decision man on board, and the tractor has certain addition rights, that would be set out in time. understanding that you
obviously are doing a lot of internal investigations, post explosion to try and find out what happened. and i know that's an ongoing procedures, but has bp i guess i didn't mind explosions. if we find things that need responding to. then we abc lutely do that. so already we've initiated tests of low blowouts looking point our nephew would be addressed today step, hey, hey, hey. and your fourth statement on the culture of safety. it reads from your statement, bp has developed robust you had a its and. ing your signy and recollect the company's former performances and assuming it applies to earlier.
what you would have star of david. but it was refatigue ls. one of the requirements would be that they have safety requirements in their contracts with contractors that set out who is going to do one thing. i would have all the third places are interior body. but were being comblefmented in the way a contract was managing its sub contract. >> as the chief officer for bp, do you have safety concerns? if a worker or contractor or employee report it's a safety concern either at an rig or
safety site, do you have a paper that you require them to have -- that requires them to realize first, it's noted, and second, it's investigated? >> there are multiple channels. if a worker raises a concern with their superadvisor, we would expect them to take action immediately. our requirement is that they make safe. if the concern is one that requires an investigation, and we set out at what level and internal investigation would be required? that would need tobbed documented. but we also have other channels for -- inside the company we have a confidential, anonymous line, a 1-800-number where people could raise concerns. a and that goes to a separate concern. one who would carry out an independent investigation. would work out what's going on and would give feedback to an
employee. we also have an external independent person, the omni budsman who would also, confidential calls would be made to him. so, yes, when concerns are raiseded then they would be documented. >> thank you for your testimony. and would appreciate if you would let the committee know when you can supply us with that contract. between bp and transocean. >> i will work with your staff to see what i can do. >> one question before i turn it over to my committee members. you mentioned that you have 50 outside safety audit ors. can you provide the members of this committee with their audits? >> i'll have to work with your staff to see what we can provide, information on audits.
>> dr. flin, thank you for being here today. i know tuve target of a lot of anger and frustration of late, and i appreciate your being here. and thank you for your expression of empathy and sadness for those who died on the rig. when we had the hearing a few weeks ago, one of the fathers, one of of one of the men who died on the rig was here. and he said that no one from bp had ever talked to him. expressed their apologies or condolences. have you talked to any of the members of the families of those who died? >> i've not personally talked to them. but i would have expect that had bp people would have done that.
>> you would have expected it? >> normally if there's an accident, then our business people would get involved. but i don't know the details of this particular case. >> so you don't know for sure whether anyone from bp has contacted any of those families, do you? >> i don't know that. but i could find out. >> well, this gentleman, said that no one from bp had talked to him. talked to him. i think you should know that. the senator for public integrity recently published a report state that bp is responsible for 760 of the 761 egregious and willful -- that's what they called it. osha vileses over the past three years. this is post texas city, of course,, when you were going to change your culture in safety. that's a pretty hard statistic
to believe. >> we were disappointed with the 760 safety violations, because we believed we were in compliance with the majority of those orders. now way would say, is in making those citations, osha did use a different approach. they did an per instance citation, and then they would pick a system comparing apples with apples. all that said, we're absolutely committed to solveing the problems with osha. at the end of the day, osha and the handful of those want to -- want the same thing. >> a safe environment and safety for the workers. >> ok. i mentioned in my opening statement my conversation with
the president of the national petra chemical and refineries association. and i cuz efforts to self-monitor and self-regulate. and in response he explained that there were efforts within his group to set and meet industry safety standards, as i said, within their trade group. >> and then when i ask, when i mention this figure, 761-706. seems to make bp to be something of an outliar. and this is an egregious and willful. >> egregious and willful violations. so when i asked why more hadn't been done to correct the problems at bp, he reapplied bp wasn't a member. and that it was the only major refinery that wasn't a major member.
why aren't you a member of that trade association which seems to have at least some sealing willing. and the safety suggests you may be something of an joit liar. >> i talked about the 760 and how a different approach was taken on that, and the fact that we are working to resolve those differences with speasher. >> i don't believe that we are a yen move, reknewed, so -- >> with you work with them. but i'm asking why aren't you a member of a trade group that self-polices its safety standards. and yet, you are the only major doctor natical that operates in the united states that sant member of the self- -- >> i would need to look deep
into your situation. and so we need to find out. >> you thought you were a member of it? >> bp has always been a member of the ballpark bavep. i'll have to look at it sand get back to you. >> ok. thank you very much. >> senator bennett? >> thank you. mass m key. i was asking some of the questions replayed that used, workers created concerns, because we m collected and documented them. today in the new york times, and i also recognize that the investigation is ongoing and conclusions haven't been reached. but there are, there is information coming out every day. today's "new york times" there's story that recounts a survey taken of the workers in the deepwater horizon and the months leading up to the explosion.
the story tells of how workers quote often saw unsafe behaviors on the rig and voiced concerns about poor equipment and relieibility, ha! one worker commended. it's nine years old. bp is not a dried up. houston be will. what specifically has bp done to ensure deperiod maintenance is being carried out and drilling isn't taking a priority takeover maintenance, either planned or not, of your assets, around the world. so there are two aspects of that. first of all, at the highest level, we would never put -- work above safety. the need to make progress, above safety, and we wouldn't expect those who are
contracting with us to do that. in terms of maintenance, we have standards for making sure critical safety maintenance have not been wetter dealing with that -- some, there's. we have safety critical maintenance up to date. now, if there's something that's companying throughout the club with our needs, that's something we need to look at. i know we've already looked at blowout preventors. >> i'm trying to figure out -- it would appear that if the standards were in place, that they weren't followed in the case of deepwater horizon. i understand the investigation is still ongoing. what has assure and that you're
coming back to get the rest. >> and that the safety or spriret lol. have you done anything to change the day-to-day operations. >> so we already had in place requirements for that to happen. and so that would already be there. so it's already a rirnlte. we expected you to audit. so we would expect maintenance to be up to debt. >> whether there's been some betting fit justs comes to -- >> i understand that, but if i were reading the things that you also are reading. i guess, like i said, i'll try one more time rather than
expecting that people are actually fulfilling their obligations. what are you doing to ensure people fill their relations. i'm sorry, we do contracts. we expect our operations to be doing them and making thur everything is up to date. >> what are the tests of the blowout prevention can assists are sewing today. i know the tests have been of occurred. and we wouldn't -- at least there wasn't a problem with any of the blowout preventers we would have had. them we would have made sure we could operate successfully. >> could you let the committee know what words are here? >> i guess i could necked free wall. >> or safety equipment or other equipment that have been done
around the world citizens accident happened. are you aware of other things aside from testing out the blowout preenttive? >> can i work with your staff to get an update on what has happened? >> i think what would be most useful for the committee would be to know what tests have you done as a result, of the accident, and what those tests have shown. i think that would be helpful to know. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. >> senator casey. >> thank you, madam chair. we appreciate you being here and assembly build high rah. and we share a broad sense of condolences as it relates to the families who lost loved ones, and we appreciate any expression of what?
i wanted to ask you principally about a news article. i'll read the headline and then provide somewhat of a summary and then ask you a few questions. this is from the observer. sunday, july 18 of this year. > overhaul an important piece of the rig in china the observer has learned. the blowout, the last time defense subsequently failed to activate and is at the center
of what caused the disaster. third sentence, experts say that the practice of having such engineering were carried out in china, rather than the u.s., saved money and is common in the industry. end quote. >> later in the article, just to put something on the record that is clear as to the -- as to what is known or not known by the author. it says, and i quote in the fourth paragraph, there's no evidence that the significant monitors are carried out in oug or demine 2005. caused the equipment to fail. >> ok? >> i'm just giving a summary. and that that was part of the represents. but i have a couple of questions. first of all, the the -- one of the threshold questions is did bp order this overhaul work on
theblowout be done in china? >> i am not aware of the answer to that. it's presumably something that might be looked at in the scope of the investigation. but it's not something i know. >> from your understanding of the contract variation. would bp have the authority to order that that type of work be done in china or anywhere else. >> i don't know the answer to that. we -- the aware of i'm aware of would have safety requirements. >> it was something hills were get amented -- i'm assuming but do you know if these modifications were done in china or not? >> i don't know. >> all right. are you aware that modifications were done in
2005? any modification. anywhere. >> i'm not aware of that. >> argue. do you have any information about our knowledge? i'm assuming by the answers to the first couple of questions, you don't have knowledge about the contractal relationship as it relates to any kind of modification or whether or not that was done in sun dance. this is a practice in the industry to have such modifications done in china, when these are china cards? >> i don't have by way of -- we have limited time, in order to make the record complete, if you would go back and check whether or not you have any other information in written
form that relates to these questions, and make that available to the committee. and also i'd ask that you seek information from the leadership at bp. if you don't have the information or knowledge, someone does. to make that part of the record. because obviously this blowup preventer is subject to the investigation. but we ought to know in the united states. ethink the world needs to know whether or not an action was taken to make modifications. to the blow you prevent yell yet. it was a cost-saving measure as opposed to making sure that those overhauls or modifications were done with an eye towards quality in making sure you would have done it rent is that you don't have
knowledge of that. but we need to know the answers to these questions. i had an know i'm out of time. but we appreciate your forth right answers. >> pping thanks a lot. >> senator hagin? >> thank you, madam chairman, and dr. flin, thank you for being here today. i certainly have many prayers going out to the family members of the 11 individual that is were killed on the rig, and certainly we're all concerned about the devastation that wreaked halven. i wanted to start by talk about the baker report releaseed in january of 2007. i understand after the 2005 refinery explosion in texas
city, that bp put together this baker report. chaired by former secretary of state james baker, and the report was released in january of 2007. just son realize -- >> and the report note that had bp emphasized permanent safety? recent years, but did not necessarily emphasize progress or safety and bp didn't always ensure effective resources were dedicated to refine her search. and instances of a lack of operating discipline and from safe operating practices and a an apparent complacency toward risks at each refinery. i understand that a processed safety hazard is one that can
cause amazing accidents involving fires, explosions and the release of toxic materials. with that background, as you know, the baker provided with tennis does liker report. >> you can learn which recommendations have been implemented, and then i've got a series of questions to follow up with that. >> well, the fwaker panel investigation was very deep, very hard-hitting. and to be honest a difficult read. but we accepted it. and only we have had worked tirelessly to implement the tire recommendations. >> so we've featured the recommendations and incorporated it into a plan. for example, they talked about the tone at the top. leadership, and we made changes and the c.e.o. tony hayward, the board, who met with the
baker panel, they certainly heard that. and they made that personal commitment. but it's much more than about their words and actions that they take personally. it also has to translate to physical changes in the plan. baker panel report talked about changes that needed to occur, engineering changes. those sort of things. and there's been billions of dollars invested. domestic violence and tens of billions by bp to attack safety issues. the baker panel talked a central theme was a comprehensive system. for minimizing risks. that's why we developed the operating system that brought together all the standards that we had been working on to make sure it was comprehensive work-bassed. and all our major operation in the u.s.
that's been a very important change. and then finally, they talk about -- they talked about process safety capability. and we recognize that had to be at all levels in the company. not only do workers in the front line need to know the things they need to know to work safely. but so do to learn about process safety as relevant to them and those type of things. but finally, importantly, what the baker panel and others have said is we need a balance of lagging metrics, not to rely on one measure alone. so we put those in place and our executives and board spend a lot of time on the leading and lagging metrics. so that's a summary of the changes. it's been very substantive it's been huge for us. >> has bp