tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN May 28, 2010 6:30pm-11:00pm EDT
shallow wells, so you need a higher flow rate. >> i do not get involved in the economics. >> the casing design gets involved with the economic. >> we are given a minimum hole size to deliver. this one was 8.5 inches. >> with the production casing of? >> 7 inches. >> you delivered? >> we did. >> for that size casing and hole, you essentially set them up for failure. >> not at all. >> you have a loss return below the production zone. >> not at all. >> you think it's normal for these measurements?
>> it's possible. >> do you think it is a good idea? is it a good engineering practice? >> i believe it is of sound engineering practice -- a sound engineering practice. >> i would not want to attempt that myself. >> understood. >> what was the result of this particular job when you did that? and all indications were that we had an adequate -- >> all indications were that we had an adequate cement job. >> what happened to the well? >> i am not sure what conclusion you are trying to draw. you are not entirely correct. >> you think it was successful, but then the flows were killed? he still did was successful? >> i have no data that suggest
it was not successful. >> the fact that the well flowed? >> it came out of control after the cement job. there has been no proof yet about why it came out of control. >> what is the purpose of this cement job is not to control the flow -- if not to control the flow? >> it is to control the flow and isolate it for future production. >> it all controls the flow of the well after the ceeent job. >> the cement and mud? >> the cement, mud, and perforation assembly. you need to isolate the various reservoirs'. -- reservoirs. >> if the well flowed, it would
be logical to anybody here that the cement and did not do that. >> i wait for the conclusion of the investigation to prove that. >> that would be my logic that the cement did not work. let's move on from that. thank you. >> i agree with the councilman. let me check my notes here. the ballooning -- do you think that had something to do with the fact that you set two extra casing strings? >> no, sir. >> why did you have to set up those it was not because of the ballooning? it looks like it trouble you had was ballooning. >> i cannot recall every section of the well that had ballooning. >> it you are a drilling engineer, are you not?
am i am one of the drilling engineers. -- >> i am one of the drilling engineer. >> is he a senior drilling engineer and you are a junior drilling engineer? >> the opposite is true. >> you are the senior and he is that training? >> he is jr.. >> do you get calls directly from the rig? >> occasionally. >> do they call you when they have trouble? >> depending on the type of trouble, yes. >> if they had a severe ballooning problem with the call you and ask for advice? >> possibly. >> would your advice be to set casing? >> no. >> what would it be? and let's find out why it is ballooning and find out what we can do to reach the objective. >> if you cannot fix it through some other means, such as
cutting back mud, what would you do? >> set extra casing. >> my assumption then is that ballooning resulted in these extra casings. >> i would not go to that same conclusion. if you are interchanging the terminology -- we had major lost circulation events in multiple sections, not alone in events -- ballooning events. >> what was the most severe formation where you had lost return problems? -- loss return problems? >> it was way up the whole. >> the second worst? >> i cannot recall which section. it may be a tie between the
productive and one up. >> how did you address those? >> loss circulation true, cutting the mud weight. >> is it a permanent fix? >> it depends on the material and how it is supplied? >> is it just temporary? >> it can be both. >> the loss return material -- does it invade the formation or is it just on the surface? but it depends on the material. >> what material? >> we pumped our standard be arrel of material that has a variety of products in it, as well as a two-stage process. the last part of that is
actually a product that goes from liquid to a semisolid state that attaches to the outside of the well bore and it goes into the potential fracture or permeable zone to seal it. >> when you got to the bottom of the whole, do you inform halliburton about the severe loss returns? >> they were aware. >> who did you inform? >> we have a desk engineer from halliburton in our office. jesse gagliano. >> did he designed a cement job with that in mind? >> i believe the model was greeted with that in mind, yes. >> it he discussed at in detail? >> he discussed that with several groups of people. >> did he discuss that with you? >> i was in those meetings. >> did you have any concerns?
>> not specifically. >> did anybody have any concerns? >> we were concerned that there was a very narrow window to execute the cement job. that is why we spent five days -- >> did anybody consider stopping because of safety and not proceeding? >> nobody believed there was a safety issue with pumping that cement job. >> ok. so you all did discuss your concerns? >> absolutely. >> and you proceeded with the job anyway? among the risks and concerns have been addressed. we had -- >> the risk and concerns had been addressed. we believe we would be able to have a successful job. >> did anyone in the group expressed concerns to you after
the meeting? >> not that i recall. >> anyone on the vessel express any concerns to you after you sent the procedure out there? >> not that i recall. >> when the job was pumped and there had -- they had some loss returns, did anyone consider running logs to find out where the top of the cement was? >> i was not aware of any losses during this event job. >> the data we received show that you had some loss returns. >> i have not seen that data. >> did anyone from the raid, talk to you about running those logs -- the rig talk to you about running those logs? >> no. >> thank you. >> earlier in your testimony, you said you visited the deep water horizon in march for what you thought would be a weekend trip, and it turned into a week. what happened for that? >> the problem i went out there
to oversee -- the correction was done successfully. i like to the offshore. it had been a couple of years since i had been out there. engineers did not get the opportunity to go out there that often. i knew a bunch of guys who died for a long time. it was kind of reunion, if you will. they spend half of their lives offshore. many of those people were involved in a big meeting before the job a few years ago for a well that i was the engineer on, so i have a personal tie with some of them. once you are out there, it is easy to stay. people do not want you to go in. when the engineer comes out, they give you plenty of things to do, because they like having you around if you are part of the team. >> there was no problem. >> i did not stay because there was additional problems. >> i was trying to get
additional clarification. thank you. >> mr. hafle, did you review the case file before you came here to testify? but i do not understand the question. >> did you review the bp case file on the design for the deepwater horizon in terms of this particular drilling operation? >> are you talking about the case in design? >> whatever design files you have on the drilling operation here. >> sorry, i'm not sure -- >> excuse me. with all due respect, this -- i object to you asking about anything he went through with
me. he works for bp. he is a design engineer. we have a situation. he comes here to testify. did you review the case file? >> i am very particular it -- i am very aware of all the design aspects. did our review them? people have been asking me questions since the our the incident occurred. i reviewed various aspects of the well, -- the well absolutely. >> bp has certified -- my understanding is that, one of the questions was a provision to some procedure. -- a revision to procedure and you did not remember what the latest version was for that particular procedure. >> do you have that procedure that had the revision?
there are dozens of procedures that have revision during the drilling. >> can you clarify which procedure you were talking about and which provision? >> there were multiple revisions submitted to mms. four revisions. the last six days, there were three revisions submitted to changing the program. i cannot release that, because it has proprietary information. the prognosis was changed. i can give you the dates if you want to go back and we can call you back to testify. >> what you are describing as changes, i would describe as additions to the permit. is certified, and you as a design engineer -- i would think that you would have the latest revision to the
particular procedures. >> i probably wrote all of those additions. if you want to ask about a specific one, i can ask a question. if there are seven or eight -- >> i can touch on some of this stuff. on march 26, that was the original approval, your revised program was changed to include the 9 and 7/8 liner. you revise the program again on april 14 to include the a 7-inhc production casing. on april 15, you came in again to revise that to taper casing. you corrected your well design info on that application. you inadvertently removed the liner from the well-designed information. the rich incorporated it into the two applications submitted on april 15 -- you re
incorporated that into the two applications submitted on april 15. >> you call those changes, i would call them additions to the permits. some of those were because of the people entering into the system. some people are new to the system. the primary person who input the data -- these were being input by someone else. due to the nature of the additions, she made some typos that we corrected. there is no substantial change to the well program. these are additional casing strings that are required to reach objective depths. that was the planned production casing. you have it before you run it on the well site. there are no changes, but additional permitting steps required to complete the well. >> i want to make sure that whenever the design or
modifications or additions, whenever you have done, that same version is on the raid itself for execution. it is what i am trying to get to. when your answer is that you do not remember -- >> i am not at the rig site, but i know our department is responsible for ensuring that they have the correct version on the rig site. >> i am in the coast guard and i'm also a marine technical officer. when the coast guard -- the coast guard approves vessel design. we deal directly with the engineer of the vessel. i was surprised to hear that, in this case, you are a design engineer for bp, but you have to go through your regulatory people to get to mms. different- that is from what i am familiar with.
can you tell me something about qualifications of your regulatory people who act in that area between you and the regulatory folks? what are their capabilities? >> we're given the luxury of having somebody that facilitates that conversation between drilling at bp and at the mms. sherry douglas is that point of contact, so that you do not have multiple people talking to mms and end up with two different frank, -- johnm, david, somebody else. she is the single point of contact that we're given the luxury of having. >> what is her technical qualification? and she does not have any, nor does she need any. -- >> she does not have any, nor
does she need any. we give her the affirmation. she just transfers it. she is a liaison, if you will, between the drilling engineer. >> she has no role in reviewing or approving your proposals. >> she knows the regulations. if she sees a blatant error in something that one of the engineers proposes, she can -- she has been in the regulatory for a long time. she knows some of the regulations to be able to say, that is not right. >> but the regulations have technical aspects to it. if she does not have technical qualifications, how can she ensure compliance with the technical aspect of the regulation? and she has her work history and years of experience -- >> she has her work history and years of experience. >> what would those be? >> she has been in regulatory for a couple of decades, without giving away her age. i'm not sure how long it is, but
she has a lot of experience in the regulatory both with bp and prior to bp. >> i want to make sure that the language between you and the government reviewer that performs certain functions, not just handing off the information without any additional review for regulatory compliance -- >> went any engineer does a permit, it gets submitted -- when any engineer does a permit, it gets submitted to the system. if we know there may be an issue that the regulatory department engineer may not be aware of, we would have a face-to-face or phone conference call with myself, sherry, or heather. we have personally talked to many of the drilling engineers at mms, both face-to-face and over the phone when there are issues we need to discuss. >> so, you know, from our
knowledge, you are the senior will design engineer? >> i have never had that title, but senior drilling engineer, yes. >> who is above you? >> i report -- if you want to see the overchart, i report to an engineering team leader, who reports to an engineering manager, who reports to the vice president of drilling, i believe. >> so, the one that the deepwater horizon was involved in, you design the well. how many levels of review and approval -- >> it is also reviewed in addition to the root -- it is also reviewed by the people who report through the regulatory side. the well site leaders and team
leaders, the trillings operation manager -- drillings operation manager -- besides all meet a few levels above me -- the sides all meet at a few levels above mean. >it sounds to me -- above me. >> it sounds to me there are also safety reviews? they would provide input to the process? >> absolutely, during the design phase, the casing is reviewed by technological folks. there is casing, cement, fluids, mud design, rock strength experts who checked the deal mechanics -- check the
geomechanics. all these people are involved. >> thank you. >> you said this was exploratory? >> yes. >> you mentioned criteria that you used in the plan. what were they? >> pore pressure and fracture grading. >> geology data and nearby wells? >> offset information. geologic predictions, if you will. they have shot size mack -- seismic across the lease. we analyze the data and determine if there is a viable prospect. >> how old as that data in this
area? >> some of it is very new. i do not know the exact date. while the well is being drilled, there is a lot of new technology that is being done. >> nearby wells -- how many are there that you looked back to? >> multiple. on this block, there are two wells that were drilled many years ago at a much shallower depth. there is a producing gas field on this block. we had some good offset information for the upper sections. the deeper sections, you are stretching 10 or 20 miles away. >> thank you. >> for the record, i heard you say that you had been doing day to day reviews and internal talks with bp. you never looked at the intermission of casing string? -- the information of casing
>> 10 days. >> when asked the reason, you said that you had come to know some of the deceased and you enjoyed being around them. i understand what you mean. let me ask you this -- which of the deceased were you referring to particularly? >> the people that i knew from the meeting in august and several years ago -- in galveston several years ago. >> the tool pusher? >> dewey. >> he was a driller. >> these are good men who knew their jobs. >> absolutely. >> there was no doubt in your mind about that. >> no doubt. >> they perished in this accident trying to do their job, is that not correct? >> that is correct. >> you do not criticize them for
the things they were trying to do, do you? >> no, sir. --now >> mr. hafle has acknowledged what they do, but he cannot confirm that they did everything right. >> i am not asking if he says they did everything right, but if he has any criticisms. >> we did not know what they did. >> i know those gentlemen. during the 10 days i was out there, i can say that they were doing the job that they were there to do. >> it you feel they are qualified to do the job? >> i feel they did their job. i do not know about their qualifications. i have no knowledge about what happened while the event was going on that night. >> at the top of this blowout,
let me get this clear, all of the casing had been run. and all of this amending had been completed -- the cementing had been completed? >> that is not correct. we had to set the surface plug. >> all of that below there, it was to be at what depth? >> i do not remember the exact depth, but roughly 3,000 feet below the mundeledline. >> so below that had been cemented? >> correct. >> the seal had been set? >> to my knowledge, yes. >> you had a sealed well bore, correct? >> it had been pressure tested,
which would indicate that it had been sealed above the fracture rating of any formations that would be exposed. >> in addition to that, there were all two negative tests. are you aware of that? >> i am aware that they were going to do them. i was not sure if they did one, too, or three. >> the testimony has been that both of those tests were successful. >> that is my indication, based on information i was given for the rigs. >> because it is a sealed well war that has been tested, it is safe to displace -- well bore that has been tested, it is safe to displace the mud. >> that is correct. >> the next step after displacing the mud and riser was to set the surface plug it, is that correct? >> that is correct.
>> that is a cement plug or filler of what dimension? how long or deep? >> it would be 300-feet long. >> how many feet below? >> approximately 3000. >> how many feet above the total vertical depth? >> roughly 10,000. >> at some point, you were asked a question about the cbl and temperature log. >> run on wireline. you rig the equipment, the operator allows it to freefall into the wellbore. >> were you planning to drop a separate parallel whole or both through the existing wealth for? -- well bore? >> you go directly inside.
>> what about the surface plug? how were you going to get past that? >> there is not a requirement to run a cbl. >> that is not my question. them and there were no plans to run the -- >> there were no plans to run the cbl. >> this occurred before it could be done. did you say that? >> i do not recall saying that. .
>> i don't believe that is correct. >> you don't believe that there was a need to run at the rig? >> i am not aware. >> the purpose, what does this give you. what information with respect to the quality and efficiency of a cement shell? >> this is a segment on blog. that gives you whether there's cement and casing contact through the pipe. >> in other words, whether it is holding. >> this is a quantitative not qualitative. >> this is whether or not it will be done?
>> does this cement which is meant to be a barrier, will that work? >> possibly. >> you want the cemented be a barrier? >> this is put into be a barrier. >> it will have to work. >> it has to be a place to go to the zone. >> it has to fulfill its intended purpose. >> the cement bond log gives you the information quantitatively. it does not give it to you quantitatively but qualitatively. >> i am not a bond expert. >> wouldn't it be a good idea to do a bond log? >> it depends on his opinion you
are asking. >> in my opinion, it is not always necessary. >> not always necessary. >> you had some returned at the production and local? >> yes, sir. >> what does that mean in english? >> we lost over three and a thousand barrels to drilling. >> when you're using this kind of cement, it makes it lighter. was their concern? >> the model would indicate that it can be put in place without losses. >> that was a model. >> this is only a hypothetical or projection. the reality can't can only be determined by the log? >> that is not correct.
>> temperature log, is that part of a lon \g? >> i'm not sure what to zero would have been run on those wells. you can have the temperature measurements more than likely and a single tepid sherlock. >> you said that this was under consideration. >> i did not say that. >> i thought you said it was under consideration.
>> for this well to have flowed, what would have happened? >> let's talk about the possibility. there are only a couple. >> there are several hundred joins of casing. >> the hydrocarbons to enter, there has to be a failure at some point. >> when the investigation is finished, we will know. >> if i asked you how did it gittin, that would be your answer. there has to be a failure at some point? >> not necessarily. >>there is the hostility that it
>> how can the hydrocarbons into this? >> they could have been in the well bore. >> if that is the case, there would have been a failure of this deal. is that correct? >> no. >> are you now or have you been a part of the investigation team looking into the actual failure. >> i am not part of the investigation team. >> we have established that the original -- called for six strings and it ultimately had 8. >> the original design back in 2009 when we started working on
this design. the original design had seven strings. upon review, we go through planning a well, this is the explanation ended planning department. we go through risk assessment, is this based on our understanding. >> how many will run? >> each one are required to reach the objective deaf. >> this has a length or distance that each covers? >> within a given the diameter, how are these casings put together? >> everyone is threaded. >> this looks like a 19th
century spyglass. it is larger and get smaller and smaller. >> someone might say that this is what they look like. there is a smaller diameter casing string. >> that is the way it works. >> part of the cement, every time a case in spring is run, cement is run out of the bottom and hopefully up the sides. >> that is the plan. >> the very last of these cases and strings, where it fit into
the casing string, was this run into that interval? >> there was no plans to bring this back inside. >> it was above that? >> no, i don't believe so. >> the cementing that took place was down at the production interval, at the bottom. cement was run out of the bottom and up the sides to close off the production interval. >> that was part of the job. it also covered up additional pieces in that section. >> by regulation, it has to extend 500 feet above the upper limits. >> if that is the only zone, that would be correct. >> would that be the only
hydrocarbons'? did it go 5 under feet? >> there was actually a higher zone. >> between the top of the cement and the next session or the casing is joined, was there any cement in that joint? >> this casing does not touch the casing until you are at the mud lines. there is no hang off procedures, there is no additional equipment. >> do you have a copy of the drilling program? >> no, sir.
>> for the record, this document is not required to be given to mms. that is your signature indicating that it was prepared and reviewed by you. >> absolutely. >> in addition to being reviewed by you, this is reviewed by -- >> it is reviewed by -- and approved by david since, of the drilling manager. in this document there is an indication on the second page, if you will turn to it.
in order to address this document, you need to submit it to the board for consideration. we should not be talking about this document. question we take a break and i will have some copies made? >> this document is over 200 pages in length. >> we will have additional hearings on this and we can do this properly. >> as long as one of the individuals who signed this is back and we can't cross-examine them. >> we can discuss this. >> when i resume and one of these witnesses are here, i will
be permitted to cross-examine the witness. >> you can request the witnesses and evidence. if we believe that the evidence is elements of investigation, we would have it. >> for purposes of identification for the board's understanding, this is the drilling program for this well and it says final drilling on it. >> this document may in fact not be a complete copy of the drilling program. there is another version that was created back in 2009. >> there might have been an earlier version created for the mary on this. is this created for win the
i have a few more and then i will sit down. the production zone must katrina what depth? can you give me th-- was betwee? >> i cannot give you that. >> did this to stand below the production zone? >> yes, it did. >> how far? >> several feet. >> what is the reason for doing that? >> when you go to complete a well, you need a case in both of rodham -- case along the bottom so that you get -- that fall sen. this is commonly known as radicat hole.
you try to set this as deep as possible. >> to you know how long the issue track was? >> approximately 200 feet. >> what was the pressure rating of the float of equipment? >> i don't recall. there was a question or so from the board dealing with the testing, you understand that when one of these is tested, the company men on board sign off on
the test. >> i am aware of that. >> that test, when it is performed and the pressures that are read on that test, they are signed off by a variety of people in addition to whoever performs the test. that would include the manage imanagement. >> i don't know who signs off the nine sure there is a group of people the sign off. >> you see when those tests are performed. you might not track it. >> i see one test is done and we are quire to do this every 14 days -- we are required to do this every 14 days. >> you have a communication and i am not sure what that included. can you repeat what you said?
this well. >> i thought it had to do with the surface plug. >> i don't recall. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> thank you, sir. >> with respect to the bottom lock, with this tell you what it was? >> possibly. >> if it was good or bad? >> these are oftentimes very inconclusive. it is likely that you might get a -- but it is not guaranteed. >> is there an indication that you would see the top of the
cement? >> my experiences that you should be able to tell where the top is. >> when you were being questioned about the decision to run or not run a long, you said that british petroleum and mms concurred. >> i don't think that there is a requirement for the log. >> to my knowledge, mms was not involved in the log? >> we don't have to request permission for this. >> thank you. >> if it is not in these, perhaps it should be. is this an integrity test? i understand that there is
pressure and i guessed you bombed this with pressure. what exactly is this telling us? >> these are run most usually, you have a production casing, you run one of these. this would have been run on this well. some day in the future, when we did the completion, you would run it on blog to find out if it crossed the productive interval and has enough integrity to want perforating the casing and allowing the well to float part to the flat form. if the bond log shows there is for cement, you can do a remedial cement job because you have to have a good one for production. that log was an evaluation tool. it is not always 100% correct.
there are many things that can affect its quality. this is not a quantitative tool. it if it shows that there is we will do it reveals a man job on the casing. >> forgive me, don't know the purpose and i'm trying to relate it perhaps to a well procedure when there is a moment between the two plates, we can test through non particles are we can test and determine if a well was bonded. >> if it is a cement job, the bond log shows you.
the decision about running the cement bond log was not a decision that halliburton was involved in, was it? >> how burden it does not direct what logging tools that we run on the well. >> that was british petroleum's decision? >> correct. >> there is a crew out on the rig to run the segment on blog. >> i'm not aware that they were on the rig. >> you talked about a gas flow pressures and you mentioned that someone knew about the gas flow pressures. >> i have not talked about those today. >> are you aware that -- and
others at halliburton designed a plan with regards to the cement jockb? >> that was the primary engineer for halliburton who ran the model on this. >> are you aware that we recommended that 21 be used in this well? >> i am aware that the final model that was agreed upon had perhaps 21. it was in that ballpark. >> how the burden recommended the use of 21. how many were actually in the well? courts to be honest, i'm not sure how many. >> are you aware that number was 6. >> i've heard ferris discussions that that was the case. >> thank you, sir. >> >> good morning, sir.
do you know what a lockdown sleeve this? >> i of familiar. >> i am familiar. >> do know it does? >> this is prior to running a tree installation. >> the know how works in conjunction with a steel assembly? >> know. >> the note is a -- was used for this well? >> it was. >> was installed at the time of the accident? >> it was not installed. >> thank you.
>> any additional questions? >> in general terms, who makes the final decision on deviations and changes to the well- designed? >> this is a team decision. we recommendations and people approve those design changes. >> is there a group of do? >> it is usually not a single person making a decision for a change on a well. on this procedure, there are three approvals, there is not a top approval. you can say the highest ranking
official would be the top approver of the change. >> who would be looking at the daily reports to make sure that the well is going as planned? >> 1520 people would be looking at that report. >> who had the ultimate decision proved course i'm not sure. it depends on the time who decided a change was required. i'm not sure what changes are required. someone made that determination, i don't believe it was made by a single person but don't have the facts about what was that they. >> i want to do a follow-up. i don't want to stay on this issue too long to do not think
is it very important part of the decision making as to why the well blew out. you said that he would run a cement logged as part of the evaluation of the perforation and producing the wealth. >> i've never run one for the purpose but i know that they are used to a valuate the production casing prior to duty completion. >> i thought you were planning to one run in the future. >> someone that is running this will run it on blog. >> i will not be involved in the completion of this well because i'm a different division. >> if you are going to run a
temperature bonn blocked, wouldn't you also want to run want to make sure it is safe to leave it in the current condition? >> no, serve. we have suspended hundreds and hundreds of wells. every operator in the gulf of mexico does that. >> even if there's one that has a severe loss return if you had to punt the loss return materials. you had a very technical job which i don't think is the standard design for production casing. you have some clues here that you might have a cementing problem. to be safe, you should take some steps to make sure it is safe to leave the well in that condition. do you feel like this petroleum
did that? >> [applause] -- [no audio] >> you want to cooperate but think your question is too broad. can you break it down a little bit? >> i withdraw the question. >> thank you. >> are there any questions that we did not ask for any information that you think we should know? >> i am sure the gentleman from transitional have additional questions but i have nothing bad. >> will you make yourself
available to the board? >> i fully available. >> thank you very much. >> we will take a break. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> sunday, david and jean heidler on henry clay. >> up next, the state department briefing with a look at the situation between north and south korea.
>> the secretary of state will travel from peru, ecuador, to participate in the general assembly in the organization of american states and confer with our partners on shared interests. she will be in peru for the general assembly and then she will travel to ecuador on the eighth and on to columbia where she will meet with government leaders. she will be in barbados on the ninth and she will meet with leaders of caribbean nations as well. turning back to pakistan, we
extend our condolences to the families of those killed in a violent attack on the mosque in lahore. we condemn this brutal violence against innocent people. pakistan has witnessed an increase in provocative statements and they are assigned to extremist. attacks on minorities undermines a tolerant society. we expressed our condolences to the families of the tragic train crash that killed 65 people and we hope for a speedy recovery of all of those injuries.
we're not aware of any citizens killed. the ambassador at large for war crimes will lead an interagency observer delegation to the rome statute review conference from may 31st until june 11th. this is the agreement under which the international criminal court was established and the agreement called for the holding of this review conference. the u.s. is not a party to this but has an interest in participating as an observer to advance u.s. interests engage other delegations on matters of importance to the u.s.. we will advance u.s. opinions regarding various amendments to be considered after the review conference including those related to the crime of aggression there are moral imperatives. there are specific concerns
about aspects of the icc. participation is consistent with our commitment to engage the international community on those things that promote accountability and are part of our interests. tomorrow is the international day of u.s. peacekeepers. it pays tribute to the men and women serving in peacekeeping missions around the world. this has been a difficult year. the u.s. suffer the biggest loss of life in 1996. in addition to those who died in the duty in sudan, afghanistan, elsewhere. a more than 120,000 peacekeepers from over 100 nations serve in the peacekeeping missions risking their lives to make the world more safe and secure. yesterday, the u.s. donated medical equipment including neo
nationnatal, incubators, water quality testing equipment to china. this is the second installment of assistance. on may 23rd, we gave two water purification machines. we'll continue to offer our assistance to china as they continue to cope with the effect of the earthquake from last month. the 2010 conference is scheduled to conclude in new york. everyone recognizes that the new approach that the u.s. has brought to the table on non- proliferation including the speech made improper by the president. -- made in prague by the president. this is a substantial
conference. we will be looking for an outcome that strengthens of three pillars of the non proliferation treaty. non-proliferation, nuclear energy, and we remain mindful that any party can block consensus. this will begin at 3:00 this afternoon. we hope that no country will deliberately blocked consensus. >> everyone recognizes the new approach? >> who is everyone. there is one country in
particular participating in the conference that is not in compliance with its obligations. it is hard to say when the conference will wrapup but we're confident it will do so today. the last one or two will go into overtime. we hope it in a call this afternoon or this evening. >> i am sure that the moral they celebrators will be very happy. can you tell us why someone attended this year's inauguration? >> we had a young officer who was the u.s. representative at
the inauguration. i would point out that it would include at the inauguration as the first fis president of the republic of sudan and the president of the republic of southern sudan. we have important business we are conducting with the government of sudan. we will continue to press the government to fully implement the cpa. our participation was in line with must to were involved. >> we think that the president
should respond to the warrant for his arrest for war crimes. we continue to believe that those responsible should be held accountable for their actions but we're working closely with the government to resolve the situation. as we have outlined this, there are important actions to be taken to prepare for the referendum on southern sudan. >> you don't think that sending someone to attend the inauguration runs counter to the idea of holding them accountable? >> no ceremony changes.
>> the opposition calls the ambassador for the sudanese's party. >> well, there has been a number of trips made it to sudan n having gays government officials on a regular basis. the government of sudan has specific obligations that they have to undertake for full implementation. it is on that basis that we deal with the government of sudan. we have nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
>> i was wondering if you have more details from the agenda. this year, i think the topics will be disarmament. >> those are all good questions. you have a preview briefing next week. >> there is a new report that says that north korea is developing ballistic technology. what is your reaction to this? is this a sign that the u.n. is coming around? >> last summer, the security council has longstanding
concerns about north korea's proliferation activities and exports of dangerous materials to unsavory countries and characters. i don't think that this is a start revelation. we have had some concerns about the countries named in this report. this goes past 1874. we have been doing our part and other countries have done the same to implement 1874 and to restrict the kinds of exports which can have a destabilizing impact both inside the immediate region and other places of the world. we will continue to do that. as we consults and at some point
we expect south korea it will bring issues regarding north korea's behavior back before the council. we have pledged that we will support south korea and we will see what other steps are appropriate said that we can further minimize the threat that north korea poses to the region. >> there is support in the u.n. resolution and they continue to export these materials. this is not a revelation. the ongoing activity of north korea is destabilizing with in its own neighborhood and elsewhere. it is an exporter of counterfeit material. they are an exporter of illegal material, they are exporters of
control of material. the export of missiles, nuclear missiles, are the cash crop of norrh korea. we have offered them a different relationship so that they can actually go about building a legitimate economy, one that is far more constructive to stability and in the region. we hope that they will take a purpose steps to minimize the neighbors -- the threat that they pose to their neighbors. >> i have not read -- >> [inaudible]
>> there are countries that intercept shipments for north korea. we should investigate those and report those to the u.n.. we are fully supportive of those efforts. >> we talked about the situation but we did not sign up to point the finger at north korea. it is the u.s. satisfied? what did they make of those statements and how do we go forward with china on marshaling international concern? >> i think the premier is in the country. this is still ongoing. south korea will continue their
consultations with china and others. we expect that south korea will bring the matter before the security council and we will see what the attitudes of important countries would be. china will recognize and support the conclusions of the investigation. we think that the evidence is compelling. we think that it is time for the international community to come together in a united and demonstrated way and send a clear message to wachovia. >> [inaudible] >> since there is no change, that is the question that we are evaluating and we will be guided by facts and the law. >> how would you assess this?
>> well, the premier of china is still there and he has had the opportunity to consult with the president and others. china has to draw its own conclusions based on the evidence in the investigation. we would hope that china would support international efforts and south korea as we consider these apart reaction in the security council. >> certain members of the state department are reporting. are there john burt commenton y?
the president should be put before the international court. >> a lot of the discussion today was on the importance of this reconciliation commission and its independence. another aspect of the foreign minister's comments to secretary clinton was that sri lanka is consulting with a number of countries that have gone through this experience before. we think that they have framed the issue in the right way. we will be focusing on what it
does. the other thing the foreign minister mentioned was the importance of rebuilding institutions and dialogued within the timamil community. the new government has a special responsibility. we will be watching carefully to see which actions sri lanka takes in the coming months. >> are you aware that mr. coke in jamaica is willing to surrender? >> that is an interesting question. i am not aware that we have the knowledge about what mr. coke is thinking. >> do you know about the arrest of an american lawyer in luorwa?
>> -- government announced in a joint station yesterday. what is your reaction? >> it was a significant step as both governments worked to achieve the objective of relocating approximately 8000 marines and their families to guam and returning -- as soon as possible and the consolidation of the remaining facilities in okinawa. there are still some details to work out. experts will be working on some of the particulars regarding consolidation of operations.
we expect to have that worked out by the end of august. >> there are some difficulties that remain. are you still confident? are you going to deal with this? >> well, we are very conscienccs of the reliance on u.s. forces in okinawa. we are mindful of the current security environment which underscores our security. thank you.
what you are seeing here is where the old boom was picked up yesterday. this will soak up the oil. if you want to get closer and get dirty, you can see in these little balls. these are the tar balls that they are talking about. madam president, you can actually send out teams to pick these up as a wash ashore. -- as they watch on shore. as the boom soaks stuff up, you can pick up these corbels as they come ashore. -- these tar balls as they come ashore. until we stop the flow, we have problems. it may be that there are additional strategies.
so, tghad, do you want to talk about how the coast guard and the cleanup teams have been working to whether -- together? >> the unified command center that they have here is where the coast guard and local responders from the parish and the state and federal agencies work together and they have ever body -- everything on screen. the use modern technology to do that. the have a sound strategy. -- they have a sound strategy. >> we are concerned about the beach is being closed by oil. the coast guard has been very vigilant about that.
any oil that has attempted to come ashore, we have been unable to close our ports. >> we try to establish cleaning stations so that we can keep the traffic flowing. >> they were also saying that on a day like today, it is ideal for burning in skimming. -- and skimming. it is home, and there are boats that are in a position that will help it prevent it from getting too short. there were a couple of dolphins about 50 feet out. obviously, there is precious wildlife in this area, even though you see a bunch of oil rigs in the background. we want to make sure that this
is cleaned up. thank you, everybody. >> can you make sure that these oil -- these tar balls are from the oil spill? >> , we attribute everything we see now to bp -- we attribute to it -- we to get everything we see now to bp. -- wheat attribute thing we see now to bp. -- everything we see now to bp. >> we are one to be doing a statement that the next thought. -- we are going to be doing a statement at the next stop.
>> good afternoon, everybody. i know that it is worn out here. we want to get started. -- warm out here. we want to get started. i just had a meeting with these governors. as well as admiral tahd allen, the national incident commander in charge of response efforts to the bp oil spill. the admiral gave us an update with the latest information on the efforts to plug the well as well as giving us an update on arrangements and coordination that is being made with respect to mitigating this damage that has been done. he updated us on these efforts to mitigate tte damage to the
great beaches of the gulf coast. i had a chance to visit with authorities and it gives you a sense of what extraordinary efforts are being made at the local level and also the damage that we are starting to see as a consequence of the spill. our mission remains the same as when the disaster began nearly four weeks ago. we want to stop the leak. we want to contain and clean up the oil, and we want to help the people of this region of return to their lives as soon as possible. our response treats this event for what it is, an assault on our shores, our people, the regional economy and on communities like this one. this is not just a mess that we have to mop up, people are watching their livelihoods washout on the beach.
there are implications on children's health. residents want this made right and they want to make it right now. i just had a chance to listen to the mayor, our host, telling us heartbreaking stories about fishermen who are trying to figure out where their next paycheck is going to come from and how they will pay their mortgage or a note on their boat. he is having to dig into his pockets to make sure that some of them are able to deal with the economic impact. this is something that needs to be dealt with immediately, not some time later. that is everybody's striving focus that is standing behind me. this is the highest priority and it deserves a response that is equal to the task. that is why this has already
been the largest cleanup effort in u.s. history. on the day that this disaster began, as we launched a search and rescue effort for workers on the drilling rig, we were already staging and equipment in the event of a larger scale spill a week after the platform sank, we have already stationed more than 70 vessels and hundreds of thousands of feet of productive boom -- protective boom on site. there are thousands of people working on the clock to contain and clean up this bill. we have activated 1400 vessels in the containment effort and we have deployed more than 300 million feet of boom that was just 100,000 yesterday. -- feet of boom. including 100,000 feet yesterday.
i expressed to the admiral that he should get whatever he needs to deal with this crisis. whatever he needs, he will get. right now, we are still within the window where we do not know the outcome of the top killed procedure that was authorized to use to stop the leak. if it is successful, it will be welcome news. if it is not, a team of some of the world's top scientists and experts, led by our energy expert, has been exploring any and all reasonable contingency plans. our response will continue regardless of the outcome of the top kill approach. even if the leak is stopped today, it would not change the fact that these waters still contain oil from the largest spill in american history.
it to ensure that we are prepared for that, i have directed secretary napolitano triple resources where oil has hit the shore. this will further intensify this historic response. it will contain and remove oil more quickly and reduce the time that oil is in contact with our coastline. that means cleaning more beaches and performing more monitoring of wildlife and the ecosystem. we will continue to do whatever it takes to help americans whose livelihoods have been offended by this spill. gulf coast residents -- been of ended by the spell -- upended by this spill. we have ordered bp toupee economic injury claims and we will make sure that they deliver.
perished presidents and governors have been notified of the bureaucratic problems we will have to cut through, but we will cut through them. for those who are in economic distress, if you have already filed a claim and are not satisfied with the solution, then we will point you in the right direction. the small business administration has stepped in to help businesses by approving loans, but also it is important to allow many to defer existing loan payments. a lot of folks are hurting from country and other natural disasters. they may need additional help. if you are a small business owner and you were not aware of some of the programs or have not participated, again, the white house website will direct you to the resources that you need. we are making sure that all the parish presidents are going to be aware of how they can get
help from us. we have stationed of doctors and scientists around the area to monitor any ill effects felt by cleanup workers and local residents and we have begun to set up a system to track these efforts. we have told bp that we expect them to pay for that, too. bp is the responsible party for this disaster. that means that they are legally responsible for stopping the leak and they are responsible for the enormous damage that they have created. we will hold them accountable along with any other party responsible for the initial explosion and loss of life on the platform. as i repeated in the meeting that we just left, i ultimately take responsibility for solving this crisis.
i am the president, and the buck stops with me. i give the people of the gulf my word that we will hold ourselves accountable to stop this catastrophe and repair the damage and to keep this region on its feet. justice will be done for those whose lives have been appended -- upended. that is a solemn pledge that i make. i think that i can speak for anybody here and anybody involved in the cleanup effort and for most americans when i say that i will gladly do what ever it takes to end at this disaster today -- and this disaster today. i also want to repeat that this is a man-made catastrophe. we face a long-term recovery
effort. america has never experienced an event like this before. as we respond to it, not every judgment that we make is want to be right the first time out. sometimes -- is going to be right the first time out. there may be disagreements between officials and between states about what the most effective measures will be. sometimes there will be risks and unintended consequences resulting from a mitigation strategy that we consider. in other words, there are going to be a lot of judgment calls. there will not be a silver bullets or perfect answers for some of the challenges that we face. the sense that any response is inadequate, we expect that frustration and anger to continue until we solve the
problem. in the meantime, we have to make sure that everybody is working in concert and everybody is moving in the same direction. i want everybody to know that everybody here, at every level, is working night and day to end this crisis. we are considering every single idea. admiral allen announced yesterday that after a lot of back-and-forth between experts, he is prepared to of the rise moving forward with a portion -- he is prepared to authorize moving forward. we will see if additional steps can be taken on this barrier island. what i told the parish president and the governor, is that if there is an idea that is shown to work, then we should move
forward on it and they deserve quick answers. i remind you that we have to make sure that what we do will work because we are going to have -- we will not have unlimited resources. we're one to have to make some decisions about how to deploy efforts to effectively. every decision that we make is based on a single criteria. what is one to best protect and nicole the people and ecosystems of the gulf. -- what is going to best protect the people and ecosystems of the gulf. to the local officials and every citizen that calls this area home, and every american who has traveled to the region to lend a hand, if any american is looking for a way to volunteer or hell, we have put links to that information -- volunteer or
help, we have put links to that information on our web site. officials want one of the most powerful ways to help the gulf is to visit the communities off the coast. except for three beaches here in louisiana, all of the beaches are open and they are safe and clean. that is always a way to help, to come down and provide support to the communities along the coast. to the people of the gulf coast, i know you have had a tragedy. there have been times when you have wondered if you are being asked to face this along. i am here to tell you that you are not alone -. your not abandoned. you may not -- you will not be left behind.
cameras may soon leave, but we will not. we are on your side and we will see this through. we will keep at this until the leak is stopped. that is i promise to you. that is a promise on behalf of a nation. it is one that we will keep. i will make one last point. i say this to every leader that is here. if something is not going right down here, then they need to talk to thad allen, and if they are not getting satisfaction with him, they can talk to me. if there is an idea, a suggestion or a problem that needs to be dealt with, we are in this together. it is going to be a difficult time and the folks down here are going to be feeling the brunt of it. we will get this resolved as
quickly as possible. i want to thank everybody here for the extraordinary work that they are putting in. you should not underestimate how hard these people are working day in and day out on behalf of their constituents. thank you very much. thank you, everybody. [applause] >> is everything going all right? >> is one down here. -- it is warm up down here.
for arkansas senator blanche lincoln with former president bill clinton. also, rep daryl issa says that the white house offered him a position in the administration in exchange for not running for a pennsylvania senate seat. following that, senator carl levin on the markup of the defense authorization bill. >> tomorrow, on "america and the courts," justice scalia and justice briar speak on an advisor committee. both justices worked at the agency before working on the supreme court. you will hear their remarks at 7:00 p.m. eastern, here on c- span. >> this holiday weekend, nonfiction books and authors on c-span2's "book tv."
former shell president john hofmeister on why we hate the oil companies. three days of bu"book tv." >> arkansas senator blanche lincoln is facing her opponent in a primary runoff. former president bill clinton spoke at a rally for the incumbent senator. a new poll shows the lieutenant governor with 70% of the vote. we spoke with a reporter from the associated press about the candidates. >> in about a week and a half, the primary will be held in new orleans. the lieutenant governor and senator blanche lincoln, the chair of the senate agriculture committee, she is seeking a third term.
halter is ahead 47% to 44%. here are a look at ads on the air. >> i have known built halter for years. >> president clinton put bill in charge of security. >> but would not let wall street gamble with our retirement. >> vote to cut social security and medicare. >> you will be hearing from me. >> ibm bill halter -- i am bill halter and i approve this message. >> breaking news at this hour, the united states senator past -- the united states senators pass the bill. >> they hate this so much, they are explosively liberal.
>> lobbyists are lined up against her. >> of blanche lincoln is standing firm for arkansas. >> joining us for some perspective on this one of race is a reporter from the associated press. thank you for being with us. former president bill clinton will be campaigning for blanche clinton later today. we will have coverage tonight. give us an assessment of this race and what you are looking at. >> right now, we are looking at this being a very tight race and a race that is focused on turnout. as you said, former president clinton is going to be here today campaigning with ms. lincoln. the fact that he is coming out right now is about turning out the debate in this primary.
they are showing how much both sides are focusing on turning on the american -- the african- american vote. we have one county that is an urban county where little luck is. -- were little rock is -- where little rock is. >> is it safe to say that organized labor has been very much in the lieutenant governor's corner and now the money that he is spending? >> that is a big statement. he spent more than $5 million and labor leaders have said that they are ready to spend a similar amount. a week ago, there were four to put another million dollars into
the race. -- another $4 million into the race. they are accusing lincoln of going washington. they are focused and emboldened after forcing lincoln into run off with halter. >>looking at either lincoln or halter, whoever wins this nomination will be running pretty far behind congressman boozman who won the nomination out right. he gets to sit back and watch lincoln and a halter go after each other during what has become a really bitter campaign. >> you alluded to this a moment ago. the issue of turnout in a runoff election.
this is the only question on the ballot. >> there will be other races on the ballot. there are also wants in the second congressional districts on the democratic primary. there will be a democratic runoff in the first district that covers eastern arkansas. you also have a couple of statewide runoffs. this is definitely the most high-profile of them. the first and second district races, those will affect the turnout. in central arkansas, you have a high-profile race. that race is believed to really help the focus on both sides in turning out the african-american vote. >> andrew demillo, with the
associated press, thank you for being with us. we appreciate your perspective. >> of next, a campaign rally for arkansas senator blanche lincoln who faces a primary runoff with lt. gov. bill coulter. -- bill halter. this is about 25 minutes. >> you have to let me resist the temptation to preach to the saved. we are all for blanche or we would not be here. [applause] but i want to talk about this election. i want to give you a serious talk for just a couple of minutes because of what to say what i would say to every arkansan.
i want you to repeat anything that i say that makes sense to you. i care a lot about this. i am not running for anything. i cannot run for anything. however, the older i get, the more that i think about the future, not the past. the older i get, the more i think about the impact of the decisions we make on our children. what is it going to be like for people who were not as well-off as i am? well everybody not have a shot of the american dream? let's talk about this election. we all know what we are here. under normal circumstances, anybody who had performed as well as blanche lincoln would not be in a race like this. we are here because america is in trouble. people are mad.
[applause] here is an article from the "usa today." it says that polls find anger over country's leaders. fair enough, most people in america have an income that is lower than the day that i left office. but that is the not blanche's fault. we only produced $2.5 million -- 2.5 million jobs before the economic meltdown. everybody has a right to be mad. there are people in this country that are getting up that have been out of work for six months. they are having to sit down at dinner and look at their spouses and their children and wonder if they are letting them down. they see these changes going on
and they cannot make sense of it. i understand why people are mad. forget about politics. think about your own life. every time in your life that you made a decision that amounted to anything when you were mad is about and 80% signed chance that you met a mistake -- a% chance that you made a mistake. -- 80% chance that you made a mistake. [applause] blanched lincoln's opponents are really telling you to stay mad and not to think. just go in and blow your anchor. -- vote your anger. if you want somebody who will get up and change your life for the better, you should vote for her. [applause] now, here is what i know.
i know that in this miserable economy, these eight years that we just went through, before the financial mess, two-thirds of the american people have low or incomes than the day that i left office and health care costs have doubled and college costs have gone up 75%. before this, she was on the job and she worked hard to get the windmill manufacturers and to save the jobs of the people making refrigerators. she worked hard to put 700 people working in our national forests back to work by giving funds to the national forests. she worked hard to save those tired jobs in texarkana because they have under their -- and that unfair competition.
the real problem in america was not trade, but the enforcement of our trade deals that dropped by 80% because we were borrowing money from the same people that were hammer and us on the trade bill -- hammering us on the trade dbill. [applause] this is stuff that blanche did before. she got a billion dollars put into the fresh fruits and vegetables program that would give our children and their schools better meals. the biggest public health problem in america, and while she was doing it, she got 80,000 more children free lunches. [applause] she did all that before she was chairman of the senate agriculture committee.
finally, for the first time in my lifetime, we have a chairman of the senate agriculture committee. a lot of my former friends are out here and they understand -- a lot of my former -- farmer friends out here. this goes way beyond this. people in this neighborhood should care about this. agriculture committee controls the child nutrition programs and controls the economic development program for small states, little states and small towns. [applause] in my last year as president, i had the republican speaker of the house and jesse jackson and
we went around america to promote the new markets and initiative. it was designed to give people tax incentives to put jobs any place where the unemployment rate was above the national average for the income was below the national average. but we never had enough money. a lot of times, the small towns got left out. blanche lincoln put $3 billion into that program and arkansas has already gotten $125 million to put people to work. [applause] you can run the numbers. we are less than 1% of america's population, and she got 4% of the money. that means that she got four times more than what we would have gotten from her efforts. i do not think that we want to give that up. to you want to give that up? do you want to throw out all away -- do you want to throw out
all the way? -- that all the away. this man had nicer cars in his pocket and his friend saul that instead of cigars, he had dynamite. he asked what he was doing. he said that every time this one man sees me, he slaps me in my pocket and destroys my cigars. he said that next time he does, it will blow his handballs. that is what you are being asked to do. -- it will blow his hand off. this is what is best for your community and your children and your grandchildren.
[applause] now, the second thing that i want to see is not about blanche's opponent, let me show you what i pulled out after the primaries. here is an article from the " washington post." as you read along about the primary, it says that national unions made a decision a few months ago that they wanted to make senator blanche lincoln the "poster child" of what happens when the democrats crossed them. this is about using you and manipulating your vote to terrify members of congress and members of the senate from other states. if you want to be used that way, have at it.
every vote that they cited, one of these issues, blanche voted a way that i would not have voted. every vote that they cited, if she had voted the other way, it would not have changed the outcome, but it would have defeated her. they it meant that they do not necessarily favor her opponent. they want to make for a poster child. they want you to be something besides a boater for your children and your future, they want you to make a poster. if you want to do that, go back to grade school. if you want to vote for somebody who will fight for you, vote for blanche lincoln. [applause] everybody you talk to says that they do not like washington,
everybody is fighting all the time and they never get together. if you want to make washington more like it is, vote against blanche lincoln. vote for this poster child strategy. back off in your corner, stop talking to each other, don't ever make a deal and don't talk about how you are going to solve a problem. if you vote against her, it will make washington more like what you don't like. you will get the very thing you do not want. have you guys seem the advertisement on television with that lady says that blanche lincoln voted to make sure that her poor sick child could not get health insurance because they cannot charge you for pre- existing -- not cover you for pre-existing conditions. have you seen that? >> guess what, unlike the vote
that they want to make her a poster child over, if that that were true, health care will have failed because blanche lincoln cast the decisive vote that would make sure that we would cover everybody with sick children. shame on them. [applause] now, i want you to go out and tell all of your friends and neighbors that if you want to be the instrument of somebody else's will and you want somebody to come in and make a bogus ad, by all means, say that you are in the message sending business. i voted in arkansas so i could intimidate a senator somewhere else. so i could intimidate a house member somewhere else. she voted for the health care bill. it is illegal not to cover
people who have a pre-existing condition and now you can not charge them more. that is one of the main points of the bill. . this is a job. [applause] you might be interested to know, blanche told me that the lady in the ad called her office and thank her for voting for health care. who knows why she may adde the . this feels like a washington campaign. this is the kind of game they play in washington. this is not us. this is not what we do. we talk to each other. when i went to washington, i had to go to washington to find out what a bad person i was. one day, i read something in the paper in washington and i asked
fred smith if he read this article. he said yes. i asked him what he thought of it. he said they were talking about somebody that he is not familiar with. they perform reverse plastic surgery on you. even if you are pretty, they can make you ugly. it is all a game. this is not a game. this is your life. this is your life, this is your children, this is your future. this woman has worked her heart out. i will tell you one problem she has, she was not governor before she became a senator. she got into politics when she was young. she got into family when she was older. on some weekends, if she had
been a man, she would have been at home. i say that that reflects well on her. she did not lose the votes. -- she did not lose any votes over with. -- over it. [applause] her opponent is trying to make for a poster child. that is not what we do here. this is too important. she has done too many things. she can help to change the future for countless numbers of arkansans. do i like her? yes. will she cast the hard vote? you bet. republicans wrote that she is not pure enough, but they have to make her a poster child. they say that she supported the
president too much. kids in this college and others can get out of college and always pay it back at a limited percentage of their encounter that this will allow thousands and thousands of kids to finish on time in their college studies. they don't like that. she got national guardsmen included in the new gi bill and now they will be able to go to college here and other places in arkansas. she is about changing people's lives. this is about you. and not about me, not about interest groups, and it certainly isn't about making a poster child. this is about you, your grandchild and your future. we need to keep blanche lincoln working for us in the united states senate.
[applause] >> is and he incredible? -- is a t incredible? -- is he not incredible? i don't know about you all, but that is the bill clinton that i love. i love him. he is amazing. [applause] did anybody see the arkansas in him coming out? mr. president, thank you very much for being here today. thank you all for being here. a very special thanks to general wesley clark who has just been a fabulous friend and a great supporter and i want to say an unbelievable thanks to these incredible legislators standing
behind me who work day in and day out to make this a great. they are wonderful. -- to make this state break. they are wonderful. thank you for your leadership. all of the people that are here, i cannot think them enough for the incredible support and willingness to see beyond what is happening here. i am so grateful because the president brings to this discussion an incredible knowledge, having been in washington and having worked with so many of these individuals. this is not about me. it is not about bill halter. it is not about any of that. this is about our state. it is about the people of our state and whether we will allow our vote to be blocked or misconstrued -- to be bought or
misconstrued. this is bigger than me. it is bigger than this election. it is all about whether we are going to love the tide of this nation turn and feed on the ability of those that just want to spend a lot of money misrepresenting who we are and what we are about. that way they can make people even more mad. i do not know about you, but i am tired of that anchoger. there are so many other people to thank. all of you that are here, i have campaigned across this state and i have heard arkansans. i have heard when they say they are frustrated with washington and they are mad and angry.
it is so critical that we channel that anger and that madness to the appropriate place. i listened to our good friend the other day that told me that when our country was in trouble, when i was a small girl, and we were in the depression, we did not get mad at each other. we came together to make our country stronger. that is what we need to do right now in this election. [applause] i just want you to know that i hope that as arkansans, the example that we will be will be an example of people that understand and cherish who we are and what this nation and our great state mean to was and that we will come together and make it strong and we will not let other people's anchor and madness divide us, but we will
see the ability to become stronger. i know that people are frustrated. i have been frustrated, too. a i will do everything that i can, but the first thing that i have to remember is that this is a job. he is exactly right. whether it is the most ambitious child nutrition bill in the history of a program that i was able to pass in a bar putting some -- in a bipartisan way and pay for it, or whether it is fighting to eliminate the kind of greed on wall street that has put our children's college funds at risk, our
retiree's retirement at risk, our small banks and our other banks at risk. it is because it is important to us to arkansas and the rest of the country to have a strong economy. [applause] they make my wall street bill about this election, they say that i am doing this because of the election. that is absurd. the bill that i produced it is produced because i looked and listened to you. i looked at my savings account and i saw what happened. i realized that this is not about this election. it is about helping families pay for college and protecting those retirees and ensuring that our small businesses can grow the jobs that they need to grow.
that is absolutely the reason behind what we have done. the president is right. i stood up to the d.c. union. unfortunate for them, i did not support their wanting to take away the private ballots. i have been using a private ballot since i ran for student body president in high school. i do not see anything wrong with keeping that ballot private. this is about so much more. i do not want to be a poster child unless it is for you. unless it is for the things that are important to you as our kansas and that is exactly what we will be fighting for -- important to you as arkansans and that is exactly what we will be fighting for. it this campaign has become about something that is not arkansas. this campaign has become about
proving a point. not just me being used as a pawn, but you as well. i have to tell you, my vote in washington has never been for sale, and yours should not be either. [applause] a lot of what this has been is about trying to divide our democratic party. i do not want to see that happen. i believe strongly in my democratic party of arkansas and the democratic people of arkansas. i was raised in a democratic household and i was taught to appreciate what it meant to be inclusive and to be a part of something and to make sure that everyone else felt comfortable
in being a part of that. that is exactly what we will do, is stand tall as democrats as we move forward. my parents raised me to stand for what i believe then and not to run from a fight. more importantly, to learn from all sides of it. that is critical right now. i have no intention of running for anything except november and the united states saienate. [applause] i have to tell you, this campaign should be about you. it is about you. it is about our wonderful state and all of the things in this wonderful state that we cherish. certainly, our alcor way of life, but more importantly, our
fate, our family, our small community and the wonderful opportunity to be able to share that with the rest of this nation. as we move forward in this campaign, we have a lot of work to do. i will hit the trail and i am proud of that president clinton has come to help us in our countdown to victory tour which is starting right now. [applause] we will be successful. i am so proud that we have mamas for blanche and we have farmers for blanche and seniors for blanche. i just want all of us to walk away from here with something
that president in said. i was raised in a family -- president clinton said. i was raised in a family that taught me that you do not use anger and hatred to try and solve your problems. you use hard work and a consensus of bringing people together. that is what we are about in arkansas. have you ever seen anybody respond to natural disasters like arkansans do? when a tornado hits or a flood hits, i am on the front lines. neighbors are right there to be there for one another. we do not use anger and hatred. we use what all arkansans nknow. we make a difference not just in our lives, but in the lives of others. when anybody asks you, you tell
delivered, i'm yours. ♪ here i am, a babbaby. >> tomorrow, it on "america and the court," justice scalia and briar joined a -- an advisory committee. both justices work at the agency before serving on the supreme court. hear the remarks of 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> of this holiday weekend, nonfiction books and authors on
more questions than answers. more importantly, upon seeking guidance from counsel, i find that 18 and 595 are still deeply in question. not wanting to investigate this any more than necessary myself, ranking member lamar smith and the committee are sending a letter to the director of the fbi, asking him to open an investigation in a similar fashion to the one done under the clinton white house "travelgate." if the attorney general will not, as has been asked of him in hearings and by the senate republicans, investigate and this through an independent counsel, at a minimum, allegations made and now
confirmed need to be checked by law enforcement officials were able to discern whether these or other criminal codes have been violated. this does not mean that we will give up our investigation. what it does mean is that we would prefer that we concentrate on the committee on the question of the proper role of the white house through transparency and oversight, ethical behavior, and the administration of trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money. this is best left to independent investigators, either at the fbi or at the u.s. attorney's office. we are again, reiterating that is what we would like. we must have closure on this. that is what today's letter from the white house -- a created more questions than answers. i would like to answer your questions.
>> what are some of those questions? >> one of them is that, in the plain english reading of 18 usc 600, the admission that opposition was offered in return -- a position was offered in return for getting congressman sestak out of the race, those statutes speak to such an action, talking about several different ways contracts -- they specifically name "position," not unpaid, not paid, as being a violation. 18 usc 595 is more broadly related to a senate race. although the white house says in their closing remark, "there
have been numerous reported instances in the past when prior administrations, both democratic and republican, and motivated by the same goals," i would presume that to be to clear the field and, "discussed alternative patterns -- paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaign for public office. such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and at the core requirements." -- and ethical requirements." it is not consistent with the standard president obama said he was setting for his administration. on the face of it, it is not consistent with the law, but in violation of the law. >> have you tried to walk across the aisle and talk to sestak about this? but conversations between two members of congress, although they occur -- >> conversations
between two members of congress, although they occur frequently, would be inappropriate for us to do ourselves. there is a procedure, if there are questions, deal with that. in this case, congressman sestak has been forthcoming in two ways. has repeated the same allegation -- he has repeated the same allegation and said he would cooperate. he has repeated that. although this is a joint statement that appears to be coordinated through his campaign, we would welcome the fbi or u.s. attorney investigation in an ordinary course, in which congress and sestak could be asked questions and answer them -- congressmean sestak could be asked questions and into them openly. i cannot ask him the questions because i'm not on the right committee. >> how does 18 usc 600 apply
with political fund-raisers where you get a photo op with the candidate or the president, for that matter? >> it does not. in this case, it is very clear that it is designed to be applicable to offering somebody a position or a job, a politician to supplying his time for his photo op is very much consistent with the federal election commission rules and laws. although many people, myself included, would prefer that we had a system of financing our campaigns and funding them that was less open to the question of, what did somebody give you $2,400 for, if not for something else? the truth is, this statue, which has been modernized repeatedly, the last time in 2006, is specifically intended
to protect from patronage, from direct giving of jobs or other things of value in return for anything of value. 595, more specifically, deals with the senate. 600, with all political offices. understand that it is extremely easy for a congressman or senator to talk in terms of having a large staff or this or that if i am elected, therefore i will be able to appoint your daughter to west point or whatever. these are wrong in criminal. every member of congress, as we go through our ethical training, laurens were the lines get crossed and why you cannot cross them. -- learns where the lines get crossed and what you cannot cross them. babes two -- it begs two questions. is this and in an ministration
-- is this an administration where this is ok? now that the president is in office, what he said no longer applies. there are a couple of things we need to bear in mind. during my tenure in the house, i have never had an irrefutable statement by a credible witness, confirmed by the person who bestowed that offer, so explicitly that one can say, on the face of the statements, one could bring credible charges. yes, sir? >> there is a rather slow response from the white house and the department of justice. what makes you think the fbi will be any faster? >> first of all, we're not in a hurry. what the process to be done at the delivery of the speed. -- we want the process to be done at a deliberate speed. the 10 weeks it has taken has been inconsistent with the
promises of the white house. they have given us a valid reason for investigating. once the in big as the -- once the investigation begins, i would like to be done in the ordinary course, as it should be. it should be done properly and the independently. i do not want to have a political witch hunt. i do not want to have politics in the middle of this. it was a democrat asking another democrat to ask another democrat if he would take a position in return for getting out of the democratic primary. that is something by definition that the democrats would be good to investigate -- would not be good to investigate, nor would they want the republicans to investigate. other questions? yes, sir? >> will the investigation continued past the election? >> i would expect it would not take nearly that long. many of the facts are known. we know that rahm emanuel was involved. we would undoubtedly expect that
the president knew. the instructions appeared to have come from rahm emanuel to president clinton, and from president clinton to joe sestak. i think the u.s. attorney or the fbi should be able to interview the witnesses, come up with an independent finding in a short period of time. anything else? i want to thank you all for coming today. goodbye. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> congressman joseph stock held a conference today. he talked about his conversation -- joe sestak held a press conference today. he talked about his conversation with president clinton about the position that was offered to him to keep him out of the race
against senator arlen specter. the congressman said he never considered any position with the white house. he spoke for about 15 minutes. >> can i first just say thank you. i am sorry to delay it until right now. i did not want to do it in the middle of all of the votes, and potentially miss a vote. i am happy to answer questions. >> congressman, in bringing questions -- president clinton into this, we had not heard his mentioned -- heard his name mentioned before, why did you just say he was involved? why did we not hear that earlier? >> president clinton called me last summer. i just did not feel it was right for me to talk about that conversation with him. >> congressman sestak, can you describe what your reaction was to him? was it just one phone call? >> he has called several times.
he called last summer. during the conversation, he talked about how tough this democratic primary might be if i got in. he also said, you know, you have done well in the house. with your military background, you could really make a mark there. he brought up that, during a conversation, rahm emanuel had brought up a presidential board of something. i almost interrupted the president and said, mr. president, i am going to decide to get in this or not only depending on what is good for pennsylvania's working families, not an offer. and he said, i knew you would say that.
>> was this something that the white house was asking president clinton to do? was it very clear to you that this was something the white house was asking president clinton to do? >> what the president said was that he had been talking to rahm, and that rahm said this. i will try to get to all of the questions. >> this could have very much been a misdemeanor, perhaps even a felony. >> if i thought anything have been -- had been wrong about this, i would have reported it. >> you have consistently said that nothing inappropriate happens. is it your intention that what president clinton said, bringing you a job offer, would you say that is not inappropriate? >> i was very conscious that they did not want me in the race. i looked at this as just another effort by the democratic
establishment in washington, d.c., not to have me in the race. there was nothing wrong that was done. >> you called it a job. why did you call it that? >> can you hear me? >> no problem. i am wondering why you called it a job and not just a position. >> this happened last july and nobody asked me about this. it was in february when someone asked me if they offered me a job. i felt, for my own personal accountability, that i needed to be honest. i said yes. then, i said after that, a no comment to the -- no comment to the follow-up questions. i talked about my role in the matter, because i felt that was important. >> were there any other calls or
communication from anyone else? but there was just that one phone call. -- >> there was just that one phone call. >> did he go into any detail? did you cut him off before he got into any detail? >> this portion of the conversation -- i'm not exactly sure, but i would say 30 to 60 seconds. we went on to another conversation. it was almost, as he was saying the words, i almost felt like i was interrupting. mr. president, i would never -- i would only get out of this or not it into it -- i was not in the primary at that time -- if i felt like it was the right thing to do for pennsylvania's working families, and not for an offer. he chuckled and said, joe, i knew you would say that. go ahead. >> since that conversation, and
since this came up in the interview, how often have you spoken to bill clinton about this? but never again. -- never again. -- >> never again. >> you of not spoken to him since february about this? >> -- you have not spoken to him since february about this? >> the answer is no. >> how do you feel about this? >> i understand that washington, d.c., is often about political deals. you know. i did not feel bad, good, or indifferent. i just said no and moved on. people in pennsylvania have been slammed because washington, d.c., has not been accountable to them. that is what we have run on and
continue to focus on. >> the expect the federal prosecutor to be appointed to this? -- do you expect the federal prosecutor to be appointed to this? >> this campaign is in large part against what happens in washington. what do you think about the position you were in? there are ethical questions that this raises. >> i was asked a question and i said no. as i said, i would only not get in if it were the right thing to do for pennsylvania's working families, not for an offer. >> did you feel you needed to disclose this? >> when i as -- when i was asked the question, and answered it. for my role in it, the white house talked about the rest of it. >> do you think that this washes up on your campaign in any way?
not that you done something wrong, but that we will continue to hear about this? >> not at all. come on up to me. they are not worried about joe sestak. they are worried about their jobs. washington, d.c., forget about them. i never forget the farmers. when i talk to them about the recession and they said, not too bad, i was hurting so much already. washington, d.c., needs to focus on them. that is all we have done in this campaign -- keep the focus on them. >> for clarification, you were on "meet the press." >> i did not feel it was right by me, being called by a former president of the united states, to talk about the details of that conversation. >> you never spoke to rahm?
>> not at all. >> i last saw him, i think it was march 1 year ago. it was about the impending health care bill. i said hello. he said a low. -- he said hello. >> did you feel the former president was crossing the line by making this offer? >> absolutely not. >> but could you not just reveal, in the many times you were asked, anything about that it was president clinton that you had a conversation with? >> i honestly did not feel that it was right for me. i did not feel comfortable talking about the former president of the united states who called me to talk. when i was asked about my role, i did answer that. >> you are running on transparency.
>> i am sorry, interrupted. >> since it is part of your position to be transparent, why would do not disclose that? >> when i was asked a question -- by the way, i never put that out there. someone asked me a question about something that happened seven months earlier. i said yes. it was about my personal accountability on some issue that mattered. i did. >> what exactly was it? >> at the time, i heard the words "presidential board." that is all i heard. it did not matter what it was. there was nothing else. i just said, mr. president, i almost interrupted. no, i said. >> but you never knew exactly what the job was. >> i've heard the words and that was kind of what i heard.
it was either intelligence -- i was not interested. that was the bottom line. and how close is your relationship with bill clinton? -- >> how close is your relationship with bill clinton? >> i have great respect and admiration for him. >> do you talk to him about politics? >> i do not want to overdo it. he calls every so often. he checks in. how is the race going? >> [inaudible] >> i asked him for advice. i was sitting in his hometown in georgetown, when the issue about arlen specter switching parties came out, asking for his final thoughts before i announced -- i was about to announce -- and arlen specter was still a
republican. i remember when he -- my daughter had a brain tumor and i was out one day with her. he called. she heard me talking and asked if that was the president. she asked if she could talk. he talked to her for five minutes on the phone. i have great respect and admiration for him. >> what about your appearance? the white house called your brother -- people will read things into that. >> they called him to say that they were doing a review. they just wanted him to set up when they're going to go out. they just want to give him a heads up and ask for his comments. my brother was just a conduit. >> can you talk about your ability to run as a washington outsider? >> i am hoping to go right over there and work very well with people.
i do not want to compromise principle, but with a principle of compromise. principle should triumph over politics. >> now that the details are out, will this go away anytime? >> people do not care about this in pennsylvania. they do care about the job they are holding out to -- holding on to or the ones that have lost. >> do you think anything will come of a federal investigation? >> no. yes, sir. >> does it seem like too little to persuade someone? >> i did not even think about it. >> it does not have any value at all. >> i did not know what it was exactly. the presidential board -- somewhere in intelligence. he said, joe, if you stay in the
house, rahm had brought up being appointed to a presidential board. that is when i almost interrupted. i was not rude. that is when i said, mr. president, no. >> thank you very much. >> i am sorry i kept you until this. i hope you did not mind. i just wanted to do it once. for the next couple of days, i am just taking a couple of days. i appreciate you letting me do it here. i promised i would take to hold days. i will be back on monday. thank you very much. [applause] >> up next, senator carl levin on the defense authorization bill. also, a hearing on the oil rig explosion investigation. following that, president obama's remarks on the gulf of mexico oil spill.
on tamara's "washington journal," criminology professor james alan fox. michael blanpied on predicting earthquakes. and a look at military and veterans' issues. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 p.m. eastern, live on c- span. >> the senate armed services chair talks about his panel's markup of the defense authorization bill and how it is different from the house version. among the topics, pay raises for military personnel, don't ask, don't tell, and the joint strike fighter program. this is about 35 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. the armed services committee
completed its markup and its work on our bill late yesterday afternoon. it adopted the bill by a vote of 18 to 10. the focus of our markups over the last couple of days and are hearings over the last couple of months, and our effort, is to support our troops come and give them everything they need to succeed, support their families. that has always been the focus of the armed services committee and it always will be. we authorized a 1.4% across the board paris for military personnel -- pay raise for military personnel. i'm not giving you these items in order of priority. they tend to follow the subcommittee decisions that were then taken up by the full committee.
a committee released will be on the websit -- the committee release will be on the web ssite. you already know about the action relevant to don't ask, don't tell that was adopted by a vote of 16 to 12. there has been a lot written about that already. the prohibition on the performing of legal abortions in d.o.d. facilities has been revealed -- repealed. there is no government money involved here. it is only done on a voluntary basis by a doctor. there is no requirement that doctors in military hospitals performed abortions. it authorize them -- authorizes them if they are prepaid with no expense to the government. the afghan security forces are fully funded at $11.6 billion to
train and equip the afghan national army and police, so that we can grow as quickly as we can the capability of those forces, to prepare them to take over responsibility for security in afghanistan. the request for $2 billion for the iraq security forces fund was cut by $1 billion. this is consistent with the view that most of us took -- not a large majority, but a sufficient majority to make that cut. our view is that we want the iraqi government to take responsibility for the financial burden of their army. the request in the iraqi parliament was cut in half for defense. did not even fully funded their own defense budget. the amount of oil revenue they get has increased because the price of oil has increased. we reduced that it -- that request by $1 billion.
we sent the second $1 billion to make sure that certain actions are taken. we extended, for an additional as our troops withdraw. we extended the authority to transfer that equipment to security forces in either iraq or afghanistan. we adopted by a vote of 17-11 in moratorium on the transfer of detainees from guantanamo to certain countries, certain identified countries. we added six fa18 fighters because of the shortfall we have in fighter aircraft. we added 6 to the budget request.
we authorized full funding for the joint strike fighter aircraft. there is a reduction of one, i believe. we did not replace one legacy aircraft that was lost. other than that, we fully funded. we did not put a fence around that funding, as i was tempted to try to do, but the house has put a fence around the joint strike fighter aircraft. as chairman, and as one member of the committee, i will be supportive of a fence in conference because of the problems we have had with the production and development of the joint strike fighter. we did not take up the issue of an alternative engine for alternativef-136 alternative engine. -- for the f-136 alternative
engine. there was voting on additional c-17 aircraft, a close vote of 15-13. the committee approved an amendment to require the president to send 6000 national guard personnel to help secure the u.s.-mexico border. my view is that it is inappropriate for congress to mandate that specific deployment. we can authorize it. we can find it. we cannot constitutionally mandated. only the president can do that. i thought this language went too far. it passed by a vote of 15-13. i do not know of any modern president that directs the president to deploy troops in the manner that is provided for in this amendment, but that is an issue that will be resolved either on the floor or on -- in conference. we received a letter from the
security advisor to the president, general jones, strongly opposing that language. we added funding for the un funded priorities that were not funded in the president's budget, which were high priorities of all the services, the army, navy, air force, and there was a significant add for a number of those so-called un funded requirements. i can go into that more on the q&a part of this as well. we added additional funding for the israeli iron dome short- range rocket defense program. we increased funding for another u.s.-israeli development
program. a number of energy conservation -- conservation programs were involved here. relative to iran, we adopted a very significant amendment, which prohibits the department of defense to enter into any contract for the procurement of goods and services for entities in beijing in activity in the energy sector in iran. we authorized the secretary of defense to provide some funding for 75 -- 7 $5 million -- bonds for training for the counter- terrorism force in yemen. we -- there was an amendment to
restrict the executive branch from entering into executive agreements with other countries relative to space. that was rejected by a vote of 14-11. that restriction on executive authority relative to entering into agreements with other countries was rejected by that vote. the money for a prison in illinois was struck. the prison would have been available to house detainees from guantanamo. that was a voice vote. the clear majority voted "aye." i and a few others have voted against striking those bonds.
-- funds. i think i will stop there. >> we hear about the language regarding that. [inaudible] do you hear the language from other senators about that effort? [unintelligible] >> that is similar to the language that was adopted last year by the senate. it obviously did not succeed in conference last year. i don't know whether there will be an amendment on the floor of the senate or not. last year, there was an amendment on the senate floor that struck the language that the full committee had added. i don't know whether or not supporters of the second engine, and i have always been one of those, will want to take that course of action if it is going to lead to another negative vote
on the floor the senate. it would be a better course to go to conference with the house, which i understand, last night, had the funding for a second engine. >> [inaudible] >> very encouraged by it. i think it makes sense to have that competition, particularly when you have the amount of money already invested in the second engine. the competition is soluble in terms of reducing cost. it is as voluble as a hedge against a first and not working well. -- first engine not working well. it is a 50/50 deal as to whether the current value of dollars and what it would cost to maintain two engines and the value of competition, it comes out to be a wash. even by their own numbers, and rethink their numbers are very conservative, slanting toward their position, which is not to have a second engine, but even
by their own assessment, it is at least a 50/50 deal to have it. i have always favored it for competitive reasons. i think it is, from my perspective, good the house adopted the funding yesterday. >> i assume the prison in illinois was the one the obama administration wants to transfer the detainees from guantanamo to. how much money was struck? will there be an attempt to put that back on the floor? >> i do not know if there will be an attempt to put the money back on the floor. i think it makes sense to close guantanamo. i opposed to the production of that money. it was obviously going to pass. the ending of that funding in this particular year's budget was adopted by voice vote. in terms of how many -- what the dollar figure was -- $245
million. >> the entire amount was struck. >> the entire amount for the prison was struck. the funding line was larger than that, which remained. the ballot for me. >> if you are successful in conference to keep the funding for the alternate engine, are you concerned that the president will veto the bill? don't tell" repeal legislation is in there. are you concerned it will jeopardize that step you took yesterday? what do you think? will the president veto? >> it is a huge bill. there are all kinds of items in this bill. this is a bill that supports our troops, supports them, trains
them, provides medical care, and we added an important provision to provide for military dependents up to the age of 26. it is difficult for me to believe the president would do anything other than look at the entire bill, not just one provision. the -- many on the republican side voted against the bill. they voted against the bill because of the presence of one position. whether the president would want to take that kind of a view because of the presence of one provision, i don't know. there is a number of provisions that the government -- that the president would not like, i would think, including the prohibition on transfer of detainees to four or five specific countries, including the cutting of the funding for
the prison in illinois. there is a number of provisions in here the president of difficulty with. i think he will be very satisfied with some of our add- ons. he may not like the cuts of a billion dollars to the iraqi army. some of us feel pretty strongly about this issue. given the amount of money iraq is taking in in oil revenue, and the fact they cut their run defense budget in half in parliament, it is hard to justify putting billions of dollars in for the iraq army. we cut that in half. the president may not like that cut. he will like a lot of things. he won't like something. i would hope you with a set the overall product that comes out, but we are a long way from having a product, a long way from having a product. some of the things that i would think he would not like may be dropped along the way. we do not know what the outcome would be on the second engine come in any event. >> do you think it might be
difficult to get this bill to the floor? senator mccain was here with you for the press conference. i notice he is not here today. a lot of people voted against the bill. >> i think it is hard to filibuster a defense bill. there is so much in your for the troops. the fact that there is one provision in here that some people don't like, it seems to me it would not be sufficient appeal for 41 senators to filibuster the defense bill. i would hope that we could get this to the floor in the next work period, but that will be up to our leaders. yes? >> could you give us a sense of the tone regarding "don't ask, don't tell"? what was the tone of the debate? talk about the future of that particular provision on the floor. >> the tone was lively.
that is a euphemism. it was a lively town. the future on the floor -- i think it is likely it will stay in the bill. i believe the majority of the senate, like the majority of the country, according to polls, favor changing the policy. it is a discriminatory policy. we'll put in significant protection. the same protection that the chairman of the joint chiefs and the secretary of defense provided when they said they favor the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," the same protection. when it comes to how and when we do it, you have a study. you have a determination. we had something else, a certification that before there is a repeal, there must be a certification from our top military leaders that there is not a negative impact on training morales or recruitment.
we protect that very explicitly and very carefully. i would think that would help us on the floor. again, we are following the pattern of the secretary of defense when he put into place a commission, a review process, i think it is a committee more than a commission, of folks that will look into how to implement. when i asked point blank the secretary of defense, are you saying, mr. secretary, that the issue for you is not whether to repeal it, but how to implement a repeal, his answer was "gets." -- "yes." they favor repeal. they have made that decision in advance of their own study. i do not think it is appropriate to criticize us for doing the
same thing, which the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs did, which is to take a position relative to repeal, but preserving the question of how do you implement a repeal, because there are issues that have to be resolved. i am optimistic that this would survive on the floor. i think it should survive on the floor. yes? >> on the pay raise issue, you provide -- appraised -- the raise the president asked for, 1.4%, the house bill is 1.9%. congress has up to the raise recommended by the president for many years in a row. what is your rationale for "only" giving 1.4%? >> there will be a proposal on the floor by senator webb that will provide for additional pay for certain categories. it will be more targeted then
may general perret's. he offered it yesterday in full committee. it is a very important and very significant proposal, which -- i do not know if it gets the total to 1.9%, but it would be higher than 1.4%. i suggested yesterday, because there was some discussion about this, i suggested that we take it up on the floor, and that we get the pentagon's analysis of it. that was not available yesterday. i think it is safe to say it is going to be much more overall than 1.4%. i just don't know the outcome. it was understood by everybody that we will be going above 1.4%, but how you do it, how you slice it, how specialized those increases are, how targeted they are, would be left to the floor.
>> why not just give 1.9%? >> senator webb as a creative proposal -- has a creative proposal to have paid in more targeted way to categories of people who are mainly on the lower end, though not exclusively. it is important that that be taken up and voted on. we just were not ready to vote on that. we did not have even the analysis by the department of defense. we should be hearing from the department of defense before we take that up. >> there was a report that senator mccain wanted to vote for an open session. did the vote take place? >> it did not. there was unanimous consent request that would have been required. we had already adopted a rule, a decision that the market would be closed for various reasons,
including the possibilities of security of classified information being taken up. to change that rule, or that decision, would have taken unanimous consent, in my judgment as chairman. >> where do you stand on the measure that passed the house last night that would require dod to take into consideration allegedly unfair advantages in the tanker contest? >> i have not seen the provision. i want fair competition, but i cannot give you more specifics. i hope everybody would want their competition. i am not familiar with that language. >> but, would you support any such consideration, without getting into the details of what they did? this has been an issue that has been out there. senator brownback introduced
legislation that would require dod to take into consideration certain findings of the wto. i am just wondering whether you think that that warrants consideration by the full senate or the conference committee. >> i am not going to go beyond saying that there should be a fair competition, and that relevant information, from whatever source, should be part of a consideration. i am not going to stand up here and say what is relevant and what isn't relevant. that is up to the department of defense. if there is a protest after their decision, which there has been in the past, that protests would have to be fairly considered. if and when the matter is finalized, we would then presumably have hearings to make sure there was a fair competition. i do not want to go beyond that.
>> how would it be resolved in conference? how so? do you feel there is support to remove the provision? >> you do not necessarily need 60 votes to do anything in the senate. happily, some things are still decided by 50 votes. don't ask me for the criteria as what is decided by 50 and which by 60, because that is in flux. so, i imagine and i believe that this would be an issue on the floor, as to whether or not the congress has the authority to direct troops to go to specific locations. there's no precedent for that, according to the library of congress. we can recommend. we can fund. we can prohibit.
can you direct the commander-in- chief to send troops to a specific place? there is no precedent for it. i don't think it is consistent with the constitution, myself. it was a close vote in the committee. i think -- i assume it will be raised on the floor. we will be hearing from the president, or his security advisor, again on this. he wrote us a letter strongly opposing it. i would imagine we would see a strong debate on this issue on the floor as well. >> on guantanamo, you said there are four or five countries prohibited on the transfer issue. can you say what those are? >> they are identified. i will try to find out the list. it was -- i know that three of them are afghanistan, saudi
arabia, and pakistan. yemen is the fourth. somalia. >> your committee brought the weapons acquisition reform act. two years running, you seem reluctant to bring it up in the committee. if you feel strongly that competition is good and the engine as good, why can you not as chairman push that? >> we did not act on it last year. you said last year we did not do it in committee. we did. >> the language virtually assured the pentagon would not certify the meeting. >> not in committee last year. i don't think. >> the point is whether you push it this year. >> last year we put it in committee and then it was stricken. >> why didn't you do it this year?
>> because we did not think we have the votes in committee to do it. i very much favor the second engine for the reasons i gave. i don't believe in following a course of action that is destructive to my own beliefs. >> [inaudible] "don't ask, don't tell" amendment? >> yes. the votes are available. they are available. >> how likely is it that you think this conference committees will support the alternate engine? >> i cannot predict that. it was one of the last issues last year. i assume that if -- it will be one of the last issues this year as well. " isdon't ask, don't tell purely about how, not if. it is about how it this point.
it seems like you have already decided. >> you should take it up with secretary gates. he made a decision. he and admiral mullen made a decision that this should be revealed -- repealed before the study. we followed that same course. we think this matter -- the policy should end. we followed the gates-mullen approach of saying we should study how to do it, and make sure it is done in a way that does not affect unit cohesion, or readiness, or recruitment. that path, that course was set by the secretary of defense and by the chairman of the joint chiefs. it is a very strong and powerful statement. we followed that same course. for the troops that have that kind of question, we are obviously -- each of us
represent a different state. we will answer that question differently. i know how i will answer representing my state. everyone has their own opinion on it. what i would tell troops generally is that we followed the same court that the top military leaders of this country set out, which is that this discriminatory policy should end. how you do it in a way that does not affect those important considerations of cohesion and readiness need to be looked at, taken into consideration, so we make sure we do not have that negative effect. >> senator, you have had trouble getting the bill on the floor and finished the last several years. it seems the actions you took in committee have not made your job any easier this year. can you give us a forecast of how and when this will be blown up? can you finish the defense bill this year? >> i hope it will come up in july.
it will come up before -- our goal is to get it up before the summer recess. that is our goal. >> [inaudible] >> before july 4. yeah. or the august recess. my hope is that we can get it done. it has been some -- has it been simplified? the answer is no. these are significant decisions. their decisions in here, basically to make it more difficult to close guantanamo. their decisions here relative to mandating troops to go to a particular location. there are decisions here on "don't ask, don't tell." there are other decisions that are important decisions. does it complicate my life to try to get the bill to the floor and complicate matters?
of course it does. it is my hope we will be able to succeed. we have overcome major challenges before to get a defense bill. the reason we have overcome the challenges as with all of the difficult parts that we are focused on, 99% of this bill is agreed upon. that is what we must do for our troops, what we must do to succeed, wherever our troops are in harm's way, what we must do for their family, what we must do in terms of health care, in turn ptsd, what we must do in terms of acquisition reform. that is the heart of this matter. i know the focus is on items such as "don't ask, don't tell" or whether or not a prison in illinois should be opened or closed. i have views on each of these items that have been identified. 99% dominant view is that this
is a bill that is required to support our troops. with all of the differences that may exist on guantanamo, or sending troops to the border, or "don't ask, don't tell," with all of the differences on those issues that exist, honest differences that exist, where the public is unite it is on supporting our troops. supporting our troops. we hear that all the time. we do it all the time. we darn well ought to do it all the time. that is the driving force behind this bill. it is not going to be deflected by debate. i hope it is not going to be deflected, or derailed, by debates over these other issues. as significant as those issues are, i hope that are driving force is going to be, what do we need to support our troops in terms of the well-being, their health, their family support? >> this bill could be vetoed
over an engine that most americans do not care about. >> i think the president will look at the whole bill, not one feature. >> [inaudible] >> we did not take any action relative to fencing. there was not much support to do that. since i favored taking some kind of fencing action relative to jsf, i thought it would be better to leave that for conference. >> [inaudible] do you have any language on the path on that? >> there was not any debate on that. he is shaking his head. anyone who has not had a question -- let me take two
more. we will be done. >> is there a certification that there is some negative effect on there are two hurdles here. even if we get the certification that there are no negative effects on cohesion and ready to is -- readiness is to remove one hurdle. it there is still a prohibition that exist in the military's on regulation, all we did was put that regulation into law back in 1983. even if we did decertification, which i hope we do and expect we will, even if we then say it is
in your hands, it still requires action by the military to act on their own regulations and on prohibitions. it is two hurdles. if we do not get the certification, the legal prohibition does not end. it stays in place. one more. >> when it is the last time this defense operate -- authorization failed to pass? >> i would like to say long before i got here. i do not want to take it back that far. i do not think we have failed to have the defense operation -- authorization bill since i have been here. >> 28 years ago we passed it.
>> coming up, the oil rig explosion investigation. following that, president obama's remarks about the oil spill. also, a campaign rally for blanche lincoln of arkansas. on tomorrow's "washington journal," james alan fox on the latest fbi report showing a decline in violent crime. also, a geological survey on predicting earthquakes. we will have phil longman. this holiday weekend, non- fiction books and authors on " book tv."
former shell president john hough miser -- hofmeiser on why we hate the oil companies. now, a hearing on the deepwater horizon oil rig explosion. first, remarks from the bp drilling engineer. following that, transocean supervisor and the deep water horizon survivor christopher pleasant thoughts about what happened on the day of the explosion. this is the third day investigators have heard from survivors of the explosion. the hearing takes place in kenner, louisiana. it is a little over three hours. >> before we start the hearings this morning, i would like to
make a couple of comments. i respectfully request that the parties not engage in conversation. clear goddess on the rights of the parties and interest are in the government safety manual. if you have witnesses or evidence that you would like the board to consider, please do so in writing. when a witness is subpoenaed by the board, they have the right to exercise their constitutional rights. there is no presumption of innocence or guilt. we are here to gather information. with that, our first witness this morning is a witness from bp. please rise silicon put you
under oath. -- so i can put you under oath. >> a false statement given to end agency of the united states is punishable -- punishable by fine or imprisonment. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> i do. >> thank you, sir. for the record, can you state your full name and spell your last name? >> yes. mark edwin hafle. >> i am employed by a bp. >> how long have you had your position of engineer? >> 23 years. >> all with bp?
>> yes. >> what is your educational background? >> i have a degree from marietta college in marietta, ohio. >> you have any qualifications to be an engineer? >> no. >> can you describe your job responsibilities at bp as a engineer? >> we take all of the geological data that is generated as well as all of the offset information from the area that we are drilling. we take that data, come up with a reasonable assumption going into the well. we put together drilling plans. we get the permits. we do cost estimates. during the drilling operations
we answer day-to-day questions. >> you do review the daily reports that are submitted to you? >> every day. >> have you had any special deep water drilling experience? >> i have been involved with the water since 1993. >> how many wells have you drilled since 1993? >> i have been personally involved in -- i lost track of the numbers -- i do not recall the exact numbers. >> thank you. when the original well was being drilled, did you ever visit during that time? >> i visited it while it was thought side in galveston. -- dock-side in galveston.
>> what problems did bp run into with this well? >> we did not do a bypass. >> it later came back and bypassed the deepwater horizon. >> i do not understand the question. >> did bp jill in mississippi canyon 252 and come back with the deep waters horizon to completely bypassed? >> we came back to establish the well and to keep drilling. >> used up with the horizon? >> when the horizon came on vacation in february, we resent drilling operations because we had to release the contract obligations from bp. >> how many times did you visit
the horizon at the current location? >> one time. >> when was that? >> during the month of march. >> was that for a special reason? >> i went offshore for -- i am not sure exactly what the reason was. we went out to oversee. i went out there with the assumption that that would be there over the weekend, but i spent 10 days there. >> what is your specific authorities to make provisions for the deep water well? >> it is the engineer's job that if they facing changes, we engineer that change, make that proposal, and use the proper channels of bp. it is recommended by may, -- me and approved by somebody else.
>> all rot has a given strength under certain constraining forces. >> can you give me a brief definition of for pressure? >> it would be the pressure that is contained in the fort spaces. >> can you explain the relationship between the two? >> four pressure is always better than are equal to the gradients. there are rare instances that pressure and brest can beat not exactly the same number but close enough. >> during the design of your well, the bp take into consideration risk? >> everyone has rest. >> did you take into consideration the location of
casings? >> yes. >> how about ballooning? >> ballooning is a result of drilling. it is not something that exists naturally. >> what about cement jobs? >> absolutely. >> how you evaluate and manage risk? >> it is done at all different levels. from the well-side, we do a risk management type of plan. we put together a risk- management document and capture all the risk we think exists. we take previous wells rest and look at how those turned out. we have eight risk register. it contains the terminology you may find. i came up with the basis of design. we had that designed validated
by our technology group. >> who is in that group? other people -- >> rich miller, joe patillo, sr. >> if i told you the work force changes to the casing programs submitted, is that accurate? >> it is possible. >> is it possible, or do you not know? >> when we set out to drill the well we thought it would take six streams to drill the well. it ended up taking eight streams to drill the well. some of those were shortened and some of those were lengthened. there are changes to plants because of the type of well.
-- plans because of the type of well. >> in the original casing program is admitted, there were seven casings. did it change to 9? >> the original program had six. >> no. that is not right. why, specifically in this well, with the changes needed? >> when you start the well, you have pressure being applied. with assumptions being made all of the data, you essentially prove or disprove the prediction. the prediction in this case was not accurate as it is in most exploration wells -- exploration wells. we had six casings, but we knew that we had more contingency strains available.
it is not required to permit contingency strains. sometimes they show up. in drilling and exploration well, neutral -- and depending on where you are, you begin to adjust the plan and mobilize the contingency extremists -- stremes. >> do you normally have any interaction with the drilling engineer? >> usually through our regulatory department. >> prior to drilling the well, did anyone b fromp visit with the newark -- bp -- did anyone from bp visit with the commission? >> this casings were going to be
>> i would say that the drilling department moc, this is what they were talking about. i do not personally have a copy of this document. >> no problem. i've wanted to ask some general questions. it might not be that one. when you change an application permit to drill, do you get to a management change process as initiated by someone? >> we do go to a management change process. >> how long does that take? >> it depends on the nature of the change. how much risk there is with the change, how much time will be involved with the change, there are various factors. >> to verify this process?
>> -- who verifies this process? >> there are multiple people involved in both the review and approval of management change. >> who would review such a change and actually sign off on it? >> it would depend on the scope of the change, the level of the change -- the level of approval of the change. if its is -- if it does not allow you to get to the planned debt, that is a change of a much different scale. >> do you recall what you use a 7 inch casing? >> yes. >> can you elaborate on why? >> we have tried to run a
contingency planner. the original plan was to run a inch strain to the reservoir. >> you still have the option to run a five-stream -- 5 inch stream. are you familiar with the economics of a five-inch or 7 inch casing? earlier we talked about lending. can you give me a brief definition of what formation ballooning is? >> what you are drilling a section, you have a certain blood-rates in the hole. when you drill out that casing stream, you get an estimation by
doing ain't integrity test. in a blending situation, he will start losing -- ballooning situation, you'll start losing mud. you may be getting 900 or 800 back. you are not getting full returns. you would shut the pops down, much of the whole, and -- monitor the hole. it is not an exact science. you do not know what is going on in that hold. e. the zero contracts when you turn the mud off. >> was there any planning as it is that you were aware of in the other well? >> yes. we have many different ways to combat ballooning. in one as fans, we slowed down
the pop-rate which lowers the -- pump-rate. you can cut off the circulation of materials that may be causing the ballooning. we did all of those. >> at any time did bp consider using massive pressure drilling? >> no. >> did you encounter any other and moralities in the jailing of this well? >> -- encounter any other abnormalities in the drilling of this well? were there any tight spots in this well? >> i cannot recall specifically. >> what was the maximum
background gas that you received while doing this casing? >> i do not recall that number exactly. it was not the highest background as we have seen in these wells. >> do you have a range? >> the minimum was zero and the maximum was 3000. >> while you were drilling that production section, did you have any height drilling gas? >> i am not sure. >> did you have a detailed procedure for performing a negative test on the production casing? >> i've read the permit for that. it included the detailed procedures. >> those are set to the raid? >> the detailed procedure is
created on the rig. >> that preceded the negative test with the chill wind? >> i believe that is what the permit said. >> there were no other permits submitted to the rate except for this one? i am just try to clarify something. -- trying to clarify something. do you know it the deepwater horizon crew set the top flow -- top plugged before circulating the riser? >> the surface blood was not set. >> we have different terminology. he was talking to me when you answered the question. i am sorry. >> that plug was not set. >> the think they should have set that plug before they
started to circulate the riser? >> yes. >> would it have reduced the risk of that operation in your opinion? >> i do not know. i do not believe so. >> are you involved with the procedure of how to route the mud while you were circulating the riser? >> no, sir. >> were you aware of who is responsible to monitor? did anyone at bp remove someone from monitoring the well? >> monitoring is done at the riga site. -- rig site. >> is it common for bp to remove someone marching? >> if they made a decision to change people, i am not aware of that. >> we do recurring well-control
training. in the last two years -- >> have you ever witnessed a blowout preventer test on the horizon? >> i have not. >> were you aware of any problems while they were drilling that well? >> every test is been satisfactory to my knowledge. we were aware that the arianmara had blowout preventer problems. they are white that rig -- why that rig was on standby when hurricanes occurred. >> if you're not aware of any
problems -- you were not aware of any problems? >> no. >> can you explain what a dead man function on a blowout preventer is it? >> if you lose full communications with the stack for what ever reason, the stack has power and hydraulic capabilities. >> can you explain a lot to- share? >> that is part of the dead man system. >> bp require any testing on those systems? >> i am not aware of any requirements, but i do not get involved in the blowout preventer testing. >> if you are not familiar with any of the blowout preventer functions? you're not familiar with any type of components of the stack, what role they play, or any type
of bypasses? >> i have the general knowledge of the systems, but that is not one of my primary duties. >> according to the mud lot on the deepwater horizon, the jailed the former nation just below the production song -- zone. did you take this circulation into consideration when you're designing? >> absolutely. >> what did you take into consideration? what would be the end result of what happened? did you continue to go to go i am not sure what specific part you are talking about. >> did you change your cement job at that time? >> we designed it these in that job after we had the well data to give us the best chance of
getting a successful cement job. the actual data gave us pressure and lost circulation. >> who gave you that design? >> we worked with halliburton to design that. halliburton had the software. they run the model. we reviewed the model and adjust the model parameters until we are satisfied that the model has been prepared as well as possible. >> if you know that they had anything in that segment that would create loss returns? how about hydrocarbon influence? >> i am not sure. i do not understand what that means. >> the friction reduction on the
scene that job. >> i am not sure. >> why was nitrogen used on this job? >> nitrogen is used for the cement. >> you approve this? >> the recommendations were from the drilling information department and halliburton. the approval process would be the people above us. >> how many previous and nitrogen jobs did you you are approved? >> two on this particular well. a 22 inch and a 28 inch casing. nitrogen jobs are used primarily on deep -- on every deep water well because it combats shallow water flow. >> if you have any loss returns?
>> i was not made aware of any. >> did you look at any data that would indicate that there was loss returns? >> no, sir. >> did you run any temperature logs? >> no-cert. >> why not? >> we had not gotten to that point in the plan before the incident occurred. >> did you have a cigarette job on that casing? -- c-net job on that casing? -- cement job? whose verbal indication >? >> thesebp drilling engineer -- the bp drilling engineer.
cementou think the job was directly related to this blowout? >> i cannot speculate on that. >> that is all i have. >> thank you. >> can we go back and cover a couple of items real quick? specifically, the -- can you elaborate on the deep water well and the shallow casing's? is there something specific that needs to be looked at for deep water drilling for shallot casings? >> the deeper the water, the bigger they are. occasionally, you have to take that i -- and to consideration.
>> how does that differ from a shelf-well? >> you have a very high radiance. it is not necessarily always the case, but generally speaking, deep water wells go to an equivalent depth, we would buy more casing streams. i have never heard the terms casing yourself out." >> when you get to the bottom, it is not productive to produce the well? >> it is never happen to our deep water group, but i can see it happening. i think it is what you have to be careful for. >> in deep water, the cost is a
lot more expensive than it is far shallow wells. a higher flow rate -- flo-rate justifies those -- flow-rate justifies those wells. when we are doing the objectives for a while, we are given a minimum hole size that we are expected to deliver. >> what was that whole size? >> 8 and a half inches. the casing was 7 inches. >> you delivered that? >> we delivered that. >> do not think that for that size casing in the small of a hole that you is essentially set up your alberta and see mentor -- halliburton cementor for failure?
>> i believe it is possible to get a a sixc zest -- successful cement job in there. >> personally, i would not want to attempt that myself. >> understood. >> what was the result of this particular job when you did that? >> all indications were that we had an inadequacy met job. >> was the ultimate result? >> i do not know the answer to the question. >> what happened to be well? >> i do not know what conclusion you are trying to draw. >> you think the senate job was successful, but then the well flowed -- cement job was successful, but then the well
restricts the flow? if the well flowed, it would be logical -- i think anybody here can see that the cement did not do that. >> i wait for the conclusion of this investigation to prove that. >> let's move on. >> i agree with you, counselor. let me check my notes real quick. the ballooning, do you think the ballooning had something to do with the fact that you set two extra casing's? >> no. >> why did you have to set two extra casing strains if it was not because of the ballooning? i read a report that makes me think the problem was ballooning? >> i cannot recall every section of the well that had of winning.
i am one of the drilling engineers. >> who is the other drilling engineer? >> brian murrow. >> is the a senior drilling engineer? >> the opposite is true. >> you are the senior? is he a trainee? >> see is a junior drilling engineer. >> the get calls in the middle of the night? >> occasionally. >> do they call you when they have trouble? >> yes. >> if they had a severe ballooning problem, with the rate call you and asking for advice? >> possibly. what would your advice be? >> let's find out why the well is ballooning. >> ultimately, if you cannot fix it through some other means,
what would your suggestion be? >> if you had to set a string of casing. >> my assumption is that ballooning resulted in you setting these two extra casings strings. >> i would not all the same conclusion. it is possible that we had that circulation in sections. >> could you tell me the most severe information in this well? did you have a loss return problem? >> i cannot remember the exact section, but it was way up the whole. >> -- hole. >> how about the second worst?
>> i cannot recall which section that was. it may be a tie. >> you did have severe loss returns? >> 3,000 barrels. >> had to do just that? >> well circulation materials, cutting the mud wait -- weight. >> if you feel it is a permanent fix? >> it depends on the materials. it can be a permanent fix. >> is a temporary fix? >> it can be both. >> all material did you pauper pum -- p -- pump? .> we pumped a product
the last part of that is a product that goes from a liquid to a semi solid state that attaches to the outside of the well as well as go into the permeable zone to seal it up. >> when you get to the bottom of the whole and tried to seem that, did you alert halliburton? >> we have a desk engineer from halliburton. his name is jesse gagliono. >> did he designed the senate job with that in mind? >> did he discuss it with you in detail? >> he discussed it with several people that week. >> did he discuss it with you?
>> yes. i was in those meetings. >> did you have any concerns? >> not specifically. >> did anybody have any concerns? >> we were concerned with the lower pressure -- floor- pressure. >> did anybody consider stopping because of safety? >> no one believed that there was be a safety -- would be a safety issue with that job. >> you did concession concerns, right? >> absolutely. >> u.s. ahead and proceed with the job anyway -- you went ahead and proceeded with the job anyway. >> it executed properly, we would get that a successful cement job.
>> did anybody in the group expressed concerns after the meeting? >> not that i can recall. >> did a body on the -- anybody on the ray expressed concerns? >> not that i recall. >> did anyone consider running lots to figure out where the top of the cement was? >> i am not aware. >> you had some loss returns. >> i have not been shown that data. >> did anybody on the rig talk to you about running the logs? >> nobody on the rig discussed that. >> you said earlier in your testimony that you visited the deepwater horizon in march.
why did it take a week? >> the problem that i went out to oversee, the correction was done successfully. i'd like to be offshore. it has been two or three years. engineers do not get an opportunity to go offshore that often. i have known a lot of the guys who died a long time. it is kind of a reunion, if you will. these guys have spent their lives offshore. i have a personal attachment to some of those people. once you are out there, you need to stay. people do not want you to go in. they give you plenty of things to do. you are part of the team. >> so there are no problems? >> i did not stay because of
additional problems. >> i was trying to get a clarification. thank you. >> i have a couple of questions. did you review the case file for the deepwater horizon before you came here to testify? >> i am not sure i understand the question? >> did you repeat -- review the bp case file or the deepwater horizon in terms of this particular operation? >> if you mean the casing design? >> whenever design problems you had. -- whatever design problems you had. >> excuse me. with all due respect, this is a delicate information. i am am going to object.
>> he is the design engineer. we have a situation here. he is here to testify. did he review the case file for this particular job? >> that i review this prior to coming here? people in the bp office had been asking me questions. i reviewed various aspects of the well, absolutely. >> is bp certified until 9001? >> i believe they are. >> one question we have for you was concerning the revision of the procedure. you did not remember what the latest version was for that particular procedure. >> do you have that procedure?
do you have the revision? there are several procedures that have revisions. >> could you clarify which procedure you were talking about? >> there were multiple provisions submitted through march and april. the work for revisions. there were three revisions in the last six days submitted. unfortunately, i cannot release that because it has proprietary information. we can call you back to testify. >> i can summarize. you are describing the changes that i would describe as additions to the permit. >> if bp -- bp -- i would think
that you had the latest revisions to a particular procedure. >> i probably read it all of those, but if you want to ask me about a specific one and i can answer the question. it there are seven or eight -- >> i can give you a synopsis of what happened. on march 26, your program was changed to include a different liner. you revised your program again on april 14 to include a different production casing. he came in on april 58 to correct the casing -- april 28 to correct the casing again. on the same day, you came back and inadvertently removed the liner from the design information that -- and we
incorporated it. -- we incorporated it. >> i am is familiar with every one of those changes. you call them changes. i call them additions to the her bed. some of those were because of the person -- that person is new to the system. these were being input by -- powell.lpo - she made some corrections to some typos. the casings were the plant's to permit before you run them on the well-site. they are not changes, they are additional permit requirements for completing the well.
>> i want to make sure that the same version is on the rate itself. >> absolutely. >> that is what i am trying to get so. your answer that you are not aware -- >> i am not at the rig site. someone is responsible for making sure that version is there. >> the coast guard approved the design. i dealt directly with the engineer of the vessel owner. i was surprised to hear that you are the design engineer for bp, but you had to go through your regulatory people.
that is a little different than what i am familiar with without process. can you tell me something about qualifications of the regulatory people. what are their capabilities? >> we are given the luxury of having somebody that facilitates that conversation between drilling at bp and drilling at the mms. we have a point of contact. that way we do not end up with two different stories. and doalk to ithe mms not pass on the information -- that is why we have the rep.
the gender relate -- killing engineer supplies the -- drilling engineer supplies the permits. >> she has no role in revealing are approving your proposal? >> no. if she sees a blatant error in something that one of the engineers it proposes, she can, through her knowledge of the regulations, she would be able to say, "hey, that is not right." >> if she does not have the technical qualifications, how can she ensure compliance? >> she has her work-history and years of experience. >> what would those be? >> she has been in a regulatory for probably a couple of decades.
i am not sure how old she is or how many years she has worked. she has a lot of experience. >> might wind up question, i want to make sure that this project -- i want to make sure that the linkage between you and the reviewer is a performance option. -- function. >> when any engineer does a permit, it gets admitted to be well system. if we know there are going to be some issues that the engineers would not be aware of, we would have a conference call with myself in the meeting. i have personally talked to many of the jelling engineers at relate -- drilling engineers at
people on the raid. -- rig. the double -- two sides meet at a level above me. >> are there independent safety reviews within bp to assure -- are there also safety reviewing chains that would provide input? >> absolutely. the casing design is reviewed by independent folks. most of them work in the technology department. there are cement experts to check the scene that design. -- cement design.
there is lost circulation specialists that review plans. all of these people were involved in the other wells. >> you said that this was an exploratory well? >> if yes. >> i think you mentioned two criteria that you use in the plan. what were the two criteria? i think you said something like geology data and thereby wells? >> offset information, a geological predictions -- when you first obtain a lease from the u.s. government, somebody help to analyze the data and determine that there is a viable
prospect on that block. >> how old is that data? >> some of it is very new. while the well is drilling, there is a lot of new technology that is being done. >> in nearby wells, how many nearby wells -- >> multiple. on this block, there are two wells that were drilled many years ago shallower depths. we had some good offset information for the sections. >> thank you. >> just for the record, earlier i heard you say that you had been doing day to day reviews. you have never looked at the scene that information on that
horizon. it extended it to a week. >> 10 days. >> when as the reason for that, you said that he had come to know some of the deceased and that you enjoy being around them. i understand what you mean. let me ask you this, which of the deceased were you particularly referring to? >> the people that i knew from the meeting in galveston several years ago. >> was jason anderson -- >> he was the trailer was the not? he was a good man was the not? >> he was. >> he knew that they knew their job. there was no doubt in your mind about that. >> that is correct.
>> you do not criticize them for any of the things they were trying to do? >> no, sir. >> desolate not sure that he has the knowledge of what these crew members did on the horizon. i do not think he can confirm that they did everything right. i just want to confirm that. >> i just want to know what the as criticisms of what they did. >> we do not know what they did. >> in general terms, i know this gentleman. during the 10 days i was out there, i can say that they were doing the job they are out there to do. >> you feel they are qualified to do the job. >> i do not know their backgrounds are qualifications. i have no knowledge of what