>> host: and, unfortunately, we've only scratched the surface on the issues we wanted to discuss with you, so you will have to come back soon, aneesh chopra, chief technology officer of the u.s. and cecilia kang of "the washington post," thank you both. >> host: thank you. >> guest: thank you for having me. >> "the communicators" also airs tonight in prime time. if you missed any of the program with u.s. chief technology officer aneesh chopra, watch "the communicators" again tonight and each monday night at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span c-span2. >> just ahead, c-span's distance learning class hears from anita mcbride who is chief of staff to former first lady laura bush. then, the head of the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission speaks to a senate panel about the lessons learned from the japanese nuclear plant crisis. later today former speech writers for president richard nixon discuss how they attempted to shape the public language of

the nation's 37th president from his minor statements to major speeches. among the participants is former white house aide pat buchanan. the forum is co-hosted by the richard nixon foundation and george washington university. it's live at 2 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. tonight on the c-span networks, u.s. labor leaders discuss the future of labor unions including recent republican efforts to curb collective bargaining rights. >> the republican party's drive to crush organized labor even at the cost of further wrecking the economy and disabling democracy has reached epidemic proportions. >> that's on c-span at 8 p.m. tonight, and on c-span2 a look at the balance of states' rights and federal authority as well as the legacy of brown v. board of education. >> i would say, and correct me if i'm wrong, that brown v. board was to protect the peace and prosperity of the people. and if that's the federal

government overstepping its bounds, i don't see why the federal government's there if not to protect the peace and prosperity of its own people. [applause] >> man. well, i must say for being a student at the university of colorado -- [laughter] you have great insight. um, i would say, i would just say this, that i would love to see the federal government dedicated to those principles that you mentioned. but running every facet of our lives and including education is not one of them. i honestly believe that colorado educators are smart enough to do it without the federal government. to do it without the department of education. >> you can watch that discussion on states' rights and federal authority tonight at 8:30 p.m. on c-span2, and the discussion on the future of labor unions at 8 p.m. on c-span.

>> now, c-span's distance learning class looks at the modern role of the first lady. our guest is anita mcbride who is chief of staff to former first lady laura bush. this is about an hour and ten minutes. >> on behalf of the students joining us at the university of denver at the cable center and at purdue university in indiana and george mason university in fairfax, virginia, we want to welcome anita mcbride. thanks very much for being with us. >> guest: thank you, steve. i'm happy to be here. a veteran of three administrations, presidents ray gab, bush and bush. -- reagan, bush and bush. >> guest: correct. >> host: thanks for being with us. the job of first lady is not in the constitution, yet its role and definitions are part of american politics ask culture. how is it defined? >> guest: it's defined by the first lady herself. actually, first ladies throughout our history has been most effective when they bring their own talents and experiences to bear and,

actually, make the position one where they can make a contribution based on their experiences. so it is not defined, it actually gives enormous flexibility to every first lady that has the position. >> host: what i'd like to do is to go through the years, and i want to begin with jackie kennedy. >> guest: sure. >> host: her national debut came with a tour of the white house which runs about a minute, produced by the three networks including cbs. here is first lady jackie kennedy. >> i want to thank you for letting us visit your official home. this is, obviously, the room from which much of your work is directed. >> yes. it's attic and cellar all in one. since our work started, we receive hundreds of letters every day. this is where we evaluate all the signs, see if we want to keep it. >> mrs. kennedy, every first lady and every administration since president madison's time has made changes, greater or

smaller, in the white house. before we look at any of the changes you've made, what's your basic plan? >> well, i really don't have one because i think this house will always grow and should. it just seemed to me such a shame when we came here to find hardly anything of the past in the house, hardly anything before 1902. i know when we went to colombia, the presidential palace there has all the history of that country in it. every piece of furniture in it has some link with the past. pleasure i thought the white house should be like that. >> host: anita mcbride, did she define the modern first lady? >> guest: well, i think, actually, modern first lady may have been defined by eleanor roosevelt and given how activist that she was. but what you saw in that clip with jackie kennedy was with actually quite extraordinary, and people don't realize how much work went on behind the

scenes to create this history in the white house, that as she rightly says she was surprised was not there when they came in. all of these artifacts and decorative art objects, even paintings and things that tell the story of our country. she recognized what a symbol for our country the white house is and needs to be preserved and maintained that way. it was an extraordinary effort. >> host: so how did subsequent first ladies apply the model of jackie kennedy to their time in the white house? >> guest: well, mrs. bush did do a great number of restorations and renovations in the white house, in fact, almost every room in the white house was different after the time that she left. but i think every first family that comes in there really does feel the presence of the ones that have come before them and really do take very seriously the responsibility to be a

caretaker of the white house. i know it's something mrs. bush enjoyed, she embraced. she also had the opportunity, unlike other first ladies in our history, to walk those halls and walk those rooms for four years prior to her actually inhabiting the house. and so she gained a tremendous appreciation for the history, for the artifacts, for the furniture, for the art. and shared in a lot of the celebrations and historic events of the white house. so coming in as first lady was even that much more information that she was armed with to really do a number of restorations including the lincoln bedroom, one of the most famous rooms in the white house. >> host: we're able to go through the c-span archives to show you some of the moments from first ladies, and awant to share with the students -- i want to share with the student t the last interview conducted with ladybird johnson traveling to the ranch in texas in 1999.

>> as a wretched obstacle along the way which he couldn't shake off.y im c-span: when did you see him at his lowest? >> guest: during those days. i think when the bags began to come home. by that i mean -- c-span: body bags? >> they would come in at night on freight trains, and i don't know whether this was good planning or just happenstance, but several times i would be on my way back from a trip to new york or somewhere and at the station as i would get off there would be freight trains, and there was bags being unhoaded

and put -- unloaded and put onto -- i don't know what kind of vehicle. and that, i knew what he was doing, and i knew i couldn't help him. >> host: your thoughts. >> guest: you know, it's painful. and what that clip tells me is something, you know, that is very human. it humanizes the president. regardless whether you agree with the war or agree with the person and their politics, that kind of a description, that kind of an interview helps to humanize who the person is that has to carry out these extraordinarily difficult positions and decisions. so you can almost live through that period of time with her 30

years later and in those words and how difficult that was on the president, and she really is the only sole support. i guess i would disagree on one thing that lady bird johnson said. she probably helped him more than anybody else possibly could have. >> host: and it would be another seven years before we would end our involvement in vietnam in 1975, but a year before that there was a moment that was seared into the memory of this country, august 9, 1974, and we're going to show the students what the scene looked like on the south lawn of the white house as you see richard nixon walking out for the final time with then-vice president gerald ford and pat nixon who is there with betty ford. and as she was boarding the plane, it was reported that pat nixon mouthed the words, so sad, this is so sad. >> guest: uh-huh. >> host: pat nixon and richard nixon and her imprint on the white house. what is it? >> guest: you know, very stoic, very stoic.

she, clearly, and i think the biography that her daughter, julie, you know, did of her really does tell her story better than most can. what a strong woman, how much sacrifice really in her life, but also, in her own gentle way left an imprint on the white house too, and you see a photograph of things that she did and children that she met and ways that she reached out and embraced people that came to visit the white house. what that clip also tells me, too, is really the extraordinary families, of course, that go through the white house but, also, how the white house is able to manage these transitions of different families and different experiences and times in our country, crisis and also times of joy. it stands as that very firm symbol of our democracy. >> host: and yet the white house is lit at night because of pat nixon. >> guest: that's exactly right. that's exactly right. >> host: let me share with the

students your friend and former boss, laura bush, her book that came out shortly after leaving the white house. she spoke here in washington about life in the white house and the role of the first lady. >> guest: uh-huh. >> it's a shame, really, that we don't somehow -- these stereotypes start and our first ladies are seen as so flat and one-dimensional because they're always so much more complex and so much more interesting than those views of them. and, certainly, barbara bush who was just seen as a nice grandmother and who instead is such a strong-willed and very fascinating woman, and, you know -- >> that was true for martha washington, but, you know, i think her cat did her in. [laughter] but the, but i just wonder if you think it's because, thank you, there's a press bias against, you know, that people didn't like your husband -- >> well, that's part of it for

sure, there's no doubt about that. i think, you know, i think that's part of it for sure. but i hope and i think that maybe we're slowly moving away from that. >> guest: you know, actually, i agree, of course, with mrs. bush. i also think there was another reason, um, why the coverage of her may have been so flat. i think when she came in as first lady in 2001 she was typecast as this shy, retiring, you know, tradition ally brain. and it was hard to bring out of that no matter what she did, going to afghanistan three times, going to the middle east on breast cancer, a very culturally difficult topic to talk about, going to africa five trips, 15 different countries, going to the border of burma and thailand to talk about human rights and to take on the military regime in burma. these are extraordinary things. this is not something a shy, retiring person does. it's something a, you know, a very dedicated and interested

and committed person who embraces their opportunity to have a public life and to have a platform. but mrs. bush, you know, never let any of that deter her. and, frankly, george bush, any of the criticism he took never let him deter him either. >> host: betty ford went from being the wife of a member of congress who was not terribly well known to vice president to first lady all within a one-year period. >> guest: right. >> host: she spoke about life in the white house in 1997 at the nixon library in yorba linda, california. >> guest: uh-huh. >> first families of our country are only temporary residents of the white house. and i have always felt that the white house is truly the house of the american people. the professional staff, many

have been there most of their adult lives, served from be one administration to the next giving each president and each first family their total and immediate dedication. the part they play in the orderly transfer of power is so very important. most people think of the transfer of power as involving the state department and all those cabinet posts and, true, that is a very important transfer as far as policies of the country are concerned. but without the support of the white house staff and their loyalty to their responsibilities in that marvelous old house, the transition from the outgoing first family to the incoming could easily be a moving day nightmare. for me just the thought of being first lady can be very challenging, and it was. it was a demanding job, but it comes with no job description.

i was tentatively very worried that i was going to hate every minute of it. fortunately, i was wrong. >> host: and you've been there both for the outgoing and for the incoming administration. >> guest: uh-huh. i've witnessed three transitions, outgoing and incoming, yes. and she's absolutely right, the institutional staff, the white house staff that helps to manage those moves both in and out, it's nothing short of miraculous really. and it does, it does speak to, really, the institution of the white house and how it is there to support every family that comes through there. and she, in fact, a graduate student, alex moll, that's with me here today said if something comes up about betty ford, remember to say how she was a bellwether for what was going on in the country on a number of social issues, which is true.

her open discussion of equal rights amendment and premarital sex and all the things that, frankly, she was facing in her own house with young children, a teenage daughter. you know, she played that out on a national scene where people were playing that out in their homes as well. it was very interesting. again, another way how the house adapts to what's going on in the country and adapts to the families that are inhabiting it and what they talk about. >> host: so with these point t to start the discussion, let's go to the students at purdue university. carolyn? >> thank you, steve, and thank you, mrs. mcbride. it's really terrific to have you here. >> guest: thank you. >> we're going to go directly to the students. alex bradley has the first question. >> thank you. i was interested in knowing what the most effective way that a first lady communicates with the public is. >> guest: it's great question and thank you for asking it. i think, you know, we alluded to a little bit in one of the clips that we saw about mrs. bush about breaking through the media

and being, you know, portrayed as something other than a flat personality and how you do that, and it is actually quite difficult. i think -- but it's possible. and there are definitely great examples of how they successfully can tell the story. and, you know, it's really -- the best champion ever, of course, is the first lady herself. if she is willing to do the interviews and willing to really put herself out there and then have, you know, a team and a staff around her, communications team that really does work with her and works with the media to have good outlets in order to do the interviews and tell the story. and a lot of it, too, is, you know, the issues themselves that the first lady engages in and what the level of interest is. so it can be, um, really the most challenging part of running a first lady's office, but it also can be quite successful too.

>> host: we'll go to steve kline, george mason university. kline, george mason university. go ahead, steve. >> thanks, steve. tony? >> hello, ma'am. >> guest: thank you. >> i was wondering, what do you think it's the role that the >> i was wondering, what do you first ladies to play? >> guest: that is such a great question, and it's one, frankly, that every first lady wrestles with and they're best at it when they pick and choose the things that they know most about and that they can bring an air of authenticity and credibility to whatever issue it is that they choose. i think that we're in different parts of our history there was an expectation of first ladies being more of a traditional role and, certainly, a homemaker and caretaker of her husband and of her family and of the white house. over time -- and those are important functions, and one thing to remember is the role of

social has tez in our -- hostess in our nation is important. it's important how we convey the use of the white house not only to americans, but the our international visitor. but i think, also, over time we've come to expect so much more out of first ladies, much more of a voice to use their platform on some very significant social issues. and we've seen more and more of that, as i mentioned to steve earlier over time we really do expect our first ladies to be deeply engaged in issues that they care about. >> alex has the first question.

>> host: alex, hit the microphone. >> oh. thought i did. thank you, mrs. mcbride, thank you for joining us. sorry about that. first of all, are the first lady and staff actually paid through the federal budget? and then after that, are they -- who sets the policy? i know you've said that the first lady defines her role as first lady, but she does engage in this a lot of different policy things, there's a lot of policy interaction between you and her and who decides what is most important for her to focus on? >> guest: great questions, thank you for asking that. first, to your first question, first lady is not paid. it is probably the most important and most demanding unpaid job in the world because you are on 24/7. in that job. but it is not paid. her staff, however, is. although they are not considered, technically, the staff of the first lady. they're considered staff of the office of the president of the unite assigned to the office of the first lady. and that office itself has grown

over time as well as there are more demands on what we expect out of the first, out of the first lady's office. and in terms of policy decisions and how she decided what she engages in, yes, she has the flexibility to do that and, frankly, i'm one of those that believes the first lady's role or first spouse in the future is one that shouldn't be paid because it does allow for the flexibility to pick and choose what you want to do and is not tie today a position description. before tied to a position description. but what i have seen in the administrations i've worked in and, obviously, those i've observed because i'm interested in this topic is first ladies are best when they choose policy decisions or choose to work on policy issues that are of importance to the administration at large. you don't want to be running a shadow government. you don't want to be running your own white house. you really are there, and i remember laura bush saying this to me when i interviewed with her, she said, i'm here to help george, and i want to work on

issues where i can bring my voice and my interest and my background on administration initiatives that are critically important to what he wants to do in the country. and for her that decision was a lot of the global health initiatives that were really, um, catalytic actions for the world like the emergency plan for aids relief. and did you have a third part to your question, alex? >> no, thank you very much. that was verying-- >> guest: okay, great. >> host: let me put on the table michelle obama. she has focused on childhood obesity, bullying in the schools, and this is what mrs. obama had to say at a recent white house event about the issue of childhood bullying. >> as parents this issue really hits home for us. as parents it breaks our hearts to think that any child feels afraid every day in the

classroom. or on the playground or even online. it breaks our hearts to think about any parent hughesing a child to bullying or just wondering whether their kids will be safe when they leave for school in the morning. and as parents, barack and i also know that sometimes, maybe even a lot of the time, it's really hard for parents to know what's going on in our kids' lives. we don't always know because they don't always tell us every little detail. we know that from sasha. sasha's response is what happened at school today, nothing. [laughter] like, well, we're taking you off the that school. [laughter] so as parents we know we need to make a real effort to be engaged in our children's lives, to listen to them and be there for them when they need us. we need to get involved in their schools and in their activities so that we know what they're up

to both in and out of the classroom. and when something is wrong, we need to speak up. and we need to take action. >> host: all important issues, but my question is, can a first lady do too many issues and lose the focus of what her agenda is? >> guest: that's always a risk, it certainly is. and i think for an issue like this, like bullying, you know, here is a young mother in the white house, so i think her talking about an issue like that really does make people stop and think. there's almost an expectation, um, that a first lady does talk about issues that are important to our nation's children, but when you're a mother of young children, even more so. i actually do think she's been fairly strategic in the issues that she has selected. you know, she came into the white house saying i want to settle my own children first. and then i'll begin to engage in these things i care about, childhood obesity, military families, etc.

so in two years' time she has rolled out two major issues. the question is, now, steve, how much time are you able to continue to devote to those issues so that you do keep the nation's focus on them. and from the look of them, they are engaging various sectors of our society from entertainment, you know, through i government to keep a focus, you know, on at least the childhood obesity one we've seen more. and now this one, this issue of military families, i mean, let's remember she is the wife of the commander in chief, so technically, she is the first military spouse. >> host: let's go to other questions, and we'll return to george mason university. steve kline? >> thank you. >> thank you. ms. mcbride, given that you have, your previous work with initiatives to help empower women and children in developing countries, what is your opinion of congressional republicans' attempt to halt federal funding

to planned parenthood during the last budget battle? >> guest: well, actually, i think there are a couple of answers to this. i am, definitely, very deeply involved and continue to be on issues that effect women worldwide and particularly in developing nations where, in fact, we just had a big conference in dallas on afghan women and trying to diffuse some of the lack of interest that there may be in worrying about afghan women and still the challenges that they face. i think as far as -- and we all need to as women, western women in particular, speak out to help our sisters around the world, particularly that face these challenges. as far as the budget debate in our country, and this is one of those issues that is going to have very feelings on both sides, and our country is dealing with tremendously

difficult budget decisions that are going to have long-term effects not just on my generation, but yours and the ones that comes after that. and everything is on the table. frankly, that's where we are at. and i think that it will be a very difficult decision to eliminate funding entirely, but i think everything needs to be looked at, and everything has to share in the sacrifice. >> host: during the 1992 campaign, bill clinton campaigned with hillary saying you get two for the price of one. >> guest: uh-huh. >> host: very early in his administration health care became the dominant issue. she led the effort on a policy issue. did she redefine the role of first lady, and are there lessons from be her as we watch her testifying in 1993 before different committees talking about health care? are there he is sons for subsequent -- lessons for subsequent first ladies? >> guest: sure. it's a great -- are you playing a tape? i'm sorry. >> host: no, we're just watching her testify. >> guest: you know, it's a great

risk, of course, to be putting yourself out there on a public issue particularly when the president now gives you this issue to be responsible for, and there's tremendous expectation that you're going to have a resolution. >> host: and a personal issue because it effects everyone. >> guest: and it effects everyone in the country, absolutely. and there, again, like the planned parenthood funding there are some very strong opinions on all sides about this. this is something, part of her life she -- it was a big part of her life being involved in particularly children's health care, so she brought that air of real credibility and authenticity to this issue that she cared about, willing to put herself out there, very risky. but important, i think important that she did sort of redefine a little bit how engaged a first lady could be on a particular issue of such tremendous importance and significance in the country. >> host: did it surprise you that she ran for the u.s. senate? >> guest: not at all. not at all. and i think, you know, what a

brilliant move. i think that this is, you know, an extraordinarily talented, ambitious, smart person in our national political scene. that continues. you know, she evolved in the role of first lady as well, and she has left her imprint, and she's left her mark and continues to do so as she continues to serve the country. so that did not surprise me one bit. and, really, how unusual that was that she had a terrific transition of her own out of the white house right into the senate, much easier than the transition that her husband had who says himself he didn't know what to do when he walked into a room and a song wasn't played. ..

>> someone tested and ready to lead in the dangerous world. it's 3 a.m. and your children are asleep. who do you want answering the phone? >> i'm hillary clinton and i approve this message. >> host: the irony is now barack obama and hillary clinton both answer the phone at 3 a.m. that ad became emblematic of her campaign. >> guest: it did. whatsoever resting, i remembered that ad. all of us do. you have to take a step back for a minute, and i know those with

their, what does that mean she knows she can take the phone call because she happened to meet these world leaders at social events. the role of first lady gave her this opportunity to travel the world, 80 countries. she worked with people on the ground. she worked with women's groups. she's worked with the leaders. i think it did paint a picture of her as an experienced person, and she talks about now even now in the role as secretary of state, the role of first lady helped her because of this global opportunity that she had to travel the world and to meet with people who are leaders in those countries now. or emerging as leaders in those countries now. >> host: purdue university is next. >> we're going to go to ally. >> thank you for being with us today. does the first ladies will typically involve special

interest. what you role role of the present husband to be should waste elect a female president in the future? >> guest: i hope you will be the same. we came very close to this in the 2008 election, and we had sort of that discussion a bit in our offices. we were already thinking about preparing for transition and preparing for documents, what with the position be called, what would they do? and the reality is they would have the same platform as the same position to do what they wanted to do with the job. i think again going back to the point i made earlier, the white house is a place that address to all kinds of families, all kinds of changes that could really count on at least providing a venue and a place where these transitions and our nation can transitions and our nation can take place quite easily. >> host: we will go to george6

question. steep climb. steep climb. >> thank >> now that there's been more political middle eastern countries like libya and egypt, can we expect women in those countries such as the >> guest: that's a great question and i think one of the initiatives that came out of the terrorist attack on our country in 9/11 was the development of the middle east partnership initiative, a program run out of the state department that was working with women leaders and other leaders in the middle east, region in north africa, so there have been a lot of work that was actually going on for a number of years, not only -- but to other institutions like the

national endowment for democracy, the national democratic institute. these have been working in many countries around the world trying to develop the respect for the rule of law, the opportunities for political participation, particularly for women. and we have seen places where there's been success because the women in kuwait that just got the right to vote in 2006, and the first three women that ran for parliament didn't make it but several of them went back, and now one of them is serving in parliament. so these are great examples or support for women who want to be part of the political process and contribute to the the life and health and sustainability of the country, where we have been helping them. and not just us in the united states although i do think we have been leaders. and the u.s. afghan women's council is a terrific example of one of the most difficult places

on earth for women, or the challenges are so great. imagine an entire generation of women that were tonight an education, working through the council with the private sector and the public sector to slowly develop women's empowerment their, has been really one of the greatest experiences for me and for all of us were on the council, but our greatest worry is the freedoms are so fragile. and without our continued support, what will happen, and the women do worry about that. so i hope these are templates that can be taken to other countries like libya, syria, egypt. i've worked with a number of egyptian women who have tried under great duress and great challenges to participate in the political process, and it's something they are determined to do a. >> host: what did you see in the faces of those women in afghanistan? >> guest: you know, it is, and

what i continue to see, a real desire to improve their lives. the most courageous women in the world are the women of afghanistan. no one can imagine the repression and brutality that they faced. imagine being a widow losing her husband, at war with the taliban, and having children to take care of defeat, but you can't leave your house because law, the taliban law prevents you from leaving your house underscored by a milka is no mail in your household to do it. so you just can't imagine living in those conditions, yet somehow they survived. they survive. and when the world was shocked by what we learned after 9/11 and these stories of brutality really hit the world screen, you

can't imagine not helping women like that because they want to do it for themselves. and they also don't want to be seen as victims. that i think is what strikes me most about afghan women. they have every right in the world if you like a victim after three years of war, and the terrible repression that they have lived under. but they don't feel that way. and want a hand up. they don't want a handout. women in afghanistan are carpenters and jurists and parliamentarian's. and lawyers and judges in teachers. they are in public works. they are farmers. they i really want to build their country, and they just want people to know their investment is working. >> host: go back to denver. who has the next question? >> next we have sherry lynn. >> first i wanted to just thank

you for coming here and giving us your time, and i really enjoyed your comments on afghanistan. one of the many issues that you tackled, in your various positions throughout the bush administrations was education. in 2010, the best places to work in a government survey, the department of education was ranked 30th out of 32 large agencies. what do you believe are the biggest challenges affecting this agency, and what recommendations do you have for improvement? >> guest: i think the challenges that are in the agency are the challenges that are in most government agencies. the bureaucracies get very big and they get unwieldy. they get very difficult to manage. and sometimes the purest of mission can be really clouded by too many layers of decision-making, a lot of

regulation, there's just, you know, a number of challenges. yet given that and despite those obstacles we still really do have one of the finest systems in the world that tries to address what are all the important issues that face americans every single day. but i do think, also, the sheer size of bureaucracies makes it difficult to sometimes get the job done. and pressures from outside groups as well. >> host: let me go back to life in the white house. we did a policy interview with president obama heavy on domestic and foreign policy issues, and at the end of the interview we talk about life in the white house. here's a portion of that interview. >> "time" magazine out with a cover story about your life saying quote no first them has lived with the weight of hope and hope that his lead on the obama's. do you feel that way? >> we don't feel a lot of stress but we don't think in those terms. we think in terms of mom and dad

and kids, and now a dog it and how do you make sure that your kids are doing their homework, brushing their teeth, treating each other nicely. when i think about michele, i'm thinking am i listening to her and responsive to some of the things she's going through. i think she's trying to do the same for me. in a way we really think of ourselves as a family like every other family. we've got, you know, issues like every other family has that they have to work through, but one of the things we found actually is the white house is been terrific for family life, compared to some of our other previous situations like campaigns, because we're all in the same

place. i've got is pretty nice home-office and i'm home for dinner every night, just about that i am in town. and i can read to the girls and they can tell me about their day. i've even gotten to go to a couple osaka games. so, -- soccer games. we happen to be blessed by two almost perfect children. so we're pretty lucky there. >> host: can you lead a normal life? >> guest: absolutely. and that makes me happy to hear that the president who does face so much pressure and every president has, nobody can really understand the level of difficulty decision-making challenges that comes to the desk every single day. no other leader in the world faces what the president of the united states and the 43 men before him did. now, the white house is the one place whether its sanctuary, where your family is, you are close to them it and i do remember that conversation

taking place between laura bush and michelle obama where mrs. bush assured mrs. obama you will have a good family life here, do not worry about bringing their young children here. it will work but it will be wonderful. you can make a good family life. and hearing that it's very encouraging because we want our leaders to know that passionate we want to know there's some comfort and some sanctuary for them. >> host: back to question. let's stay in denver. who is next? >> next we have nikki. >> hi. thanks for being with us today. my question has to do with the policies that first ladies choose. michelle obama being a obesity, laura bush is being reading. and hillary clinton's being health care. how do you think that by choosing something that was so politically controversial how that painted hillary clinton as a first lady? did that change from her first term to her second term? >> guest: you know, i think,

again going back to the point we made earlier, every first lady needs to choose issues that they really care about, where they can bring their background and credibility to it. and try and move the needle on an issue that demands and needs our attention. and also remember, too, because the first lady can pick and choose issues they are engaged in because every problem comes to the presidents desk, that's where hopefully over time they really can have some impact. so in terms of how this defined hillary clinton, you know, i think she took a lot of arrows and a lot of blows for being so out front on such a controversial issue, yet she was able to withstand that. and, of course, it's difficult. you have to work so hard to not go into a hunkered down mentality that you're unwilling to get out there in future platform. win health care failed, you

didn't see her retreat from being engaged in issues that were important to her, but she shifted focus and she shifted it to a global landscape. that to this day she has enormous impact on. so i think like any of us that would take a job or work hard at something that we care about, really try and do your best. and if sometimes you have to shift gears, and shift lanes. some of us have to do it more publicly than others'. >> host: another example, this is an interview we conducted with rosalynn carter after she left the white house about what it was like for them when they came for the first time, 1977. >> we went into the white house with my family and just kind of had a good time discovering the hidden doorway to the upstairs, and lots of fun things.

and the next day i think the first folder in the white house we stood in line for receptions and just shook hands with the invited people from all over the country. we had i think today's we did not. >> we had to meet with all the names of congress and their families. it was cabinet and their families. we met with all the service leaders and their families. and officers. one of the most interesting things we did during the campaign, we didn't have any money compared to others so i lay down a rule that anyone who slept on who's working for me and to slip in a motel or held to -- who slept in a motel or hotel have to pay a fee. that included my family as well. >> so you spend the night with folks from and get to know them rather than just saying i'm going to stay in a sterile motel room and watch tv. so we had a recession for all those people into some members of my family had spent the night. there were 700 people into so we

had stayed overnight. and we gave each of low brass plaque, members of the carter family slept here. so that was one of the nice events we had the first day we were in office. >> host: gives you a sense of what it was like for incoming administration as well. lots of receptions. >> guest: lots of receptions, lots of responsibility. the white house doors always open. this is really the only executive managing in the world where it's still open to the public, despite security concerns. i didn't know that about the campaign staff members staying in different peoples homes throughout the campaign trail. i think that's really interesting. and actually illustrative of the card to bring those people to the white house to say thank you. the white house is a special place and i don't know very many people who would turn down an invitation. they would have to be really way out the door to get that.

>> host: we will talk to somebody who spent many years at the white house. carolyn at purdue university, if you have a comment or questions for one of your students. >> first a comment and then we'll turn to jacob miller. i did spend several years there, and work with hillary clinton's staff in my role as speechwriter to the president. and i'm just one is mrs. mcbride misses it? >> guest: i don't miss the precious everyday. i don't miss getting about 5 a.m. and being at my desk at seven and getting home at 10, 10:30 p.m. that i don't miss that. i have young children. my children were three years old and three months old when i went back into the white house and there was a lot of time i spent away from them. but i knew it was temporary. i knew it would be exciting. i knew it would be demanding. so i don't miss the demands on my schedule. i think a couple things i miss, and i'm sure you feel, you miss having that camaraderie of people that you are working with together in all trying to do

important things together in a short period of time. i miss the ability on a daily basis to really get some terrific things done. you know, that you know impacts a lot of people so you just have to find other ways to do that. >> host: we will stay at purdue. carolyn. 's back jacob miller has the next question. >> thank you. you spoke about the process made in issues on afghan women's rights but i wonder what in your pain is the most important change that has yet to be made? >> guest: full participation of course in the political process for afghan women, although there is in their constitution, you know, a quota as to how many women should be serving in parliament or elected position. so it's very difficult for them to participate in that process.

again, part of it was a lack of education for a long period of time, but those are issues that have to be addressed, and that will happen, you know, over time. still, some of the tribal, cultural issues, that this is perceived as an islamic if women are in political or public roles, so there still are quite a number of challenges, but the issue is if women are not engaged in the political process and helping to write the laws, and also enforce the laws that are lost on the books and make them lost on the streets. we've got a ways to go. >> host: back to george mason your steve klein, you our next. >> thanks. >> thanks. brandie moorehead who is from diamond, oklahoma, has a question. >> thank you once again for coming and talking excluding the 31st ladies that you worked for, if you could >> thank you once again for

throughout history to work for, who would it be? >> guest: on that is a really terrific question, and one of the things i really have enjoyed is reading, reading a lot about first ladies. i think if i had the opportunity to work for someone else, i would love to have known dolly madison. i would have loved to have seen how this woman who used her experience as a hostess in a philadelphia boardinghouse can bring that personality to this new little fledgling democracy in washington, and be able to bring people to different sides together.

i think she's an example of someone who was able to choose her personality, user hostessing ability to drive the debate on issues that as an example, people, it is often said that people who came to the white house, critics of president madison would leave actually a little less critical because they had the opportunity to see the real person and to be an dolly madison's presence, and that should have this kind of impact on people. it would be very interesting to work with someone who left the kind of imprint on washington. i think the other person, if i could choose a second, would be abigail adams. her story is just so unbelievably intriguing and so powerful on how she was an early abolitionist, and she sacrificed

for her country. she sacrificed all this time with her husband because she believed in the nation. she believed in what it could be. she believed in what america must be. and i just think she's an extraordinary character that i would have loved the opportunity to work for somebody like that. >> host: let's stay with george mason. another question. another question. >> steve, we touched on health care in hillary clinton's role a little bit, a little bit ago. why difficult issue? you would think it would be a no-brainer given the benefits to why hasn't historically been such a difficult issue? >> guest: you know, it's interesting you raise this because last week at american university general powell, colin powell was the speaker at the

kennedy political union, and he talked about in his role as sort about talking about leadership, and he said, you know come in so many leaders as he met around the world he would get that question from them, how in the united states of america, this rich nation, that you don't have health care for everybody? and he would find himself at a loss of responding to that. but, you know, try to explain that to the audience mostly, students that this is one of those very difficult and intractable issues in a country where there is debate, is health care a right or isn't it? and i think that is really, you know, contribute to why it is just very difficult to resolve. >> host: it's also very a personal issue. >> guest: very personal. >> host: you worked for the reagans, both nancy reagan and betty ford, so assassination

attempts on their husbands, both surviving. and in 1994, nancy reagan discussing the assassination attempt from march 1981, it would have been for her and for her husband. >> you have to first understand the whole emotion of that day, which was tremendous, and, obviously. and you say things not -- may be as precise as you wouldn't have sent them otherwise. what i meant was that it's always been a very close marriage. and i can go through most anything as long as i know that ronnie is there. and the same holds true for him. and that's what i meant. they don't know how it is with us. he's got to know i am here, and

the idea of him lying there and not knowing where i was, or if i was even around, you know, i knew that wasn't going to be well, sit well. >> but i know you also at different moments have gotten angry because he doesn't get angry. in politics, have you always have to sort of place the bad cop and he was the good cop? >> well, in a sense, in a sense yes. i think maybe because, because as you mentioned before, i'm more, i'm more aware always of people who, as you said, and

running him, and he wasn't. and so i would step in and say you've got to kind of watch out for him to. >> host: and, of course, two months later that ronald reagan penned the letter after the midterm election announcing his alzheimer's disease. ass right. well, you know, the incredible love affair between nancy reagan and ronald reagan. and i think that point that she made which is really the most poignant one of that interview. i think that she knew behind a white curtain in the george washington university emergency room that unless he knew she was that it really wasn't going to be okay. not for her and not for him. and how close, you know, they both realized that they came to losing, you know, each other. and i'm not sure anybody could

be prepared for something like that. i just think last week, was at march 30, we all were sort of thinking about that anniversary 30 years ago. and you know, how the country dealt with it and difficult, but serve as a couple and for her. not sure she ever really truly recovered from the memories of that. and then you're right, just a few months later writing that message to the nation, clearly she knew what had been going on. >> host: and, of course, the issue we will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the events of september 11. laura bush talking about that and her own book festival that took place just a few dayswhen a before. here's mrs. bush. >> i saw that leading up to september 11, this, the booktheo

festival and then on the morninw of sileptember 11 which i will e reading about in a minute, i was on the way to capitol hill to brief the senate committee on early childhood education. so i think i was just sort of finding my way as first lady right before that weekend before. which is hosted an accident president, president fox, martin fox on september 6 for our firse state dinner. i when i left for the capitol thag morning, september 11, the white house grounds were covered withc picnic tables. we were hosting the co congressional -- the whole congress and their families for the congressional picnic that night. so i think in many ways i was just finding my way in figuringt out really what i wanted to do.. and, of course, i knew what iano wanted to work on was education in reading because that has been my whole life. and that's what happened that weekend before september 11. >> host: so you can set the agenda, but events will also

shape these agendas. >> guest: absolute. the 9/11 shaped those entire eight years here even at the afghan conference last week president bush said i remember 9/11 like it was yesterday. and it did. it defined the eight years. it defined the actions that he had to take, and ultimately has an impact, too, on the actions that bush had engaged in. but, you know, one of the things i found were i came, we did have a record of all the movements and activities and phone calls and everything of 9/11 for her. and i knew that not only would that be important historically to do that, but that also at some point it would occur to her to write her memoirs and to have those events documented in the time and following days would be really important. so we managed to get that done,

and it proved to be quite helpful actually, and, of course, writing a book. although for her, too, the memories were -- they lived it. david. there's just no way to describe it. and i think vicious bush often said as you know, americans, we really do forget the anxiety that we all felt on september 11 and the days, weeks, months after. and as slowly as people started to go back to living their lives, you know, for george bush but never did. >> host: go back to humor question. carolyn kellogg purdue university, you are next. >> went going to go next. >> thank you for being with us today. [inaudible] >> host: challenges. >> guest: oh, challenges. the fact that you are not any official position can be both good and bad.

good innocent you get to pick and choose, you know, more challenging in the sense that you really do have to work hard to make your positions known, you get them out there to really have them resonate, to show that they really do fold into what the broader national debate is, what the broader initiatives of the administration are. and so working very closely and collaboratively with your west wing counterpart is really important. and i found for us in our office that by doing that. in fact, mrs. clinton's office when she had an office in the west wing, and i think now it may be carolyn is at george mason could maybe -- posted at purdue. >> guest: she could tell us what she thinks. but i think different writings or different articles that that decision were to be made again, maybe would not have gone into

the west wing because it put so much tremendous pressure and expectation to even greater challenges on you, working closely with your west wing counterparts is important, but sitting in a physical space i'm not sure really is. i know i wouldn't have wanted that extra pressure of sitting there. i like being in the east wing. >> host: carolyn curiel, did you want to weigh in on that? >> i think the west wing office is something, like the great brass ring for people and of the white house. i do think that being physically close, the proximity was something that was desirable for a reason. there were many opportunities when you're in the west wing to get business done on the fly, giving in to see the president, the vice president, chief of staff could be very difficult sometimes, but sometimes if you were there we could get him

pretty quickly. so i think it actually did help to facilitate the role that hillary clinton had, which involved a lot of the weighing in on what was happening on the president's desk. >> guest: and that actually is the point of location, location, location, is important. the closer you are, to have that on the fly kind of conversation. to that extent i would definitely a great. >> host: michael lewis in this class, he said people would rather have a clause in the west wing rather than an office across in the eisenhower executive office building. let's go to george mason for another question. another question. steve klein. >> tony again, please. >> i had a question. why do you think recently to such a backlash against a number michelle obama has in her office? >> guest: i have seen a lot of articles about that, actually

more than i ever remembered being questioned about the numbers of people that serve our first lady. i remember being asked about it very early in 2009, how may people did laura bush had. and i said it varied. it varied. it was and the low '20s, but we would borrow people from other agencies to help us a short-term assignment, or different projects that we had, that we were engaged in. and i don't really remember this level of controversy over it. i don't know. i think maybe some of it is just questioning exactly, again, it does rear its head occasionally what is the first lady really do, and why do they need this number of people? and partly, too, i think that it could be maybe unfairly going after the president by going after his wife. >> host: we will go to denver.

who is next, jennifer? >> next we have elizabeth. >> hi, ms. mcbride. i notice from one of your posts on the arena that you use me for his role in the election of 1976 as an example of how the residents of the first lady during campaigns can really make or break an election. and i was just wondering, why do you think the first lady can be such a powerful force in winning votes during campaigns? >> guest: again, for a couple of reasons. first ladies humanize the president. you see sort of a window into what they are like as a person, not necessarily a politician by hearing from the person most close to them. and, in fact, in that posting that i did do in the arena about betty ford in 1976, it's widely believed that if she were allowed to make that last campaign stop that she wanted to do in ohio and they lost ohio, that it could have been the

votes that they needed to actually read elect jerry ford. >> host: let me as a way to set up this next video, take us back to the gridiron dinner and nancy reagan, who performed as second hand rose at the same time she's been criticized for spending a lot of money on china and on close. share with the student that story because it will be a segue to laura bush. but what did nancy reagan to and was effective? try to i think was very effective. performer press secretary would tell people it was very effective. she took what was constant and daily sort of bombardment about her regal ways and her spending habits and her close, and she turned around and dressed in plastic boots and mismatched

clothing, it came out and saying to the tune of second hand rose, about secondhand clothes edges complete turned it around. she was able to laugh at herself and somehow diffuse, you know, the pressure and the constant haranguing. and it's so interesting, actually years later, a number of years later by before we left the white house, laura bush went to go visit the reagan library in 2008. and it was the unveiling of a red dress exhibit can which is about women's heart disease. and nancy reagan had put in one of her red dress the. a number of first ladies did. and mrs. reagan said even at that time, she said, you know, for all of the controversy about my clothes, now they are lining up to see what i wore it and it was very, just a very funny. a good sense of humor about. >> host: and it was not expected which was one of the keys. >> guest: absolutely. no one would have thought that

nancy reagan would have dared be seen in anything other than perfect clothing. and so she did by poking fun at herself and nobody expected it. it was a lot about. >> host: april 2005, white house correspondents dinner table expecting president bush to do what he normally does, have a sense of humor, perform before the audience. we're going to show just a portion of this in the moment but set up that night, how did laura bush and that doing the performance? >> guest: she was not expected to do this performance and it was not the plan. she was expected to deliver the speech in the clip your students will see at the radio and television correspondents dinner, which was earlier than the white house correspondents dinner. but what happened was pope john paul ii had died, and we had to switch plans of course and went to rome for the funeral of the pope. and so the radio and television

correspondents dinner didn't have mrs. bush, which was still going to be a surprise. so the idea had come up, well, maybe she should do the white house correspondents dinner and she didn't really want to do it thinking this would be a lot of pressure, a big venue, but the speech was great and it was funny and we all convinced her, particularly president bush convinced her. go ahead and do it. >> host: here is a small portion of laura bush from 2005. >> i am married to the president of the united states. and here's our typical evening. 9:00, mr. excitement here is sound asleep. w [laughter] and i am watching desperate housewives. [laughter] [applause] >> with lynne cheney. a

[laughter]e. >> ladies and gentlemen, i am a desperate housewife. [laughter], [applause] i mean, if those women on that show think they are desperate, they out to be with george. [laughter] one night -- [cheers and applause] georg one night after george went to,e bed, lynne cheney, condi rice, karen hughes and i went to chippendale's. i would [laughter] swouldn't evenn' mention it, except ruth ginsburg and sandra day o'connor saw us there. [applause]u what hpened. i won't tell you what happened, but lynne's secret service code name is now dollar bill. >> host: did that work, and if

so, why? >> guest: you know, that is, that event as you know is meant to be a lighthearted evening where all year long these sites are bombarding each other. this is the night everybody does have fun and laugh. and yes, i think, you know, it shows the humor side of laura bush, which he is a very funny and witty person, showed a different humor side of the president, too. but yeah, it did work and it was very fun to actually work with her passing some of that speech. she didn't need a lot of practice. thing she needed practice on was the pronunciation of don corleone in come for the description of her mother-in-law and being an italian american. i practice at peace with her, but otherwise it was a lot of fun for. it was fun for the audience because they didn't expect it, again going back to what was said at the very beginning of this classroom, there was a

typecast, a role for laura bush as a shy, retiring librarian that never spoke a word. and here you have it. >> host: let me conclude with an open ended question. you're part of a panel at american university. you put it together. what happens when the first lady is the first spouse and we have a woman president? how do you define the role? >> guest: i think the role hopefully will be defines the same way. having a maximum flexibility to engaging issues that you care to be engaged in, and that you can help raise visibility and shine a light on things that are important and work collaboratively with the president of the united states on those issues that are important to the nation, and important to you as the president and spouse of the president. so i think, again, i think the white house handles transitions and changes very well. and it's coming. there's no question that it is

coming, and you know what? i wish him well. >> host: on behalf of the students join us at purdue university and george mason university and university of denver, on behalf of c-span class, we appreciate your time. >> guest: thank you. i appreciate doing it. thank you so much. [applause] >> may 1, and death, your questions for chapman university professor and cofounder of reason magazine.

>> last week japanese officials raised the severity rating of the nuclear crisis to a level on par with the 1986 chernobyl disaster in the former soviet union. considered the worst nuclear disaster in history. now the chairman of the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission tells a senate committee about

the prospects for long-term stability at the japanese facility, and what the u.s. can learn from the crisis. he is joined at this three-hour hearing by epa administrator lisa jackson and other state regulatory and emergency management officials. >> the meeting will come to order. i want us to get started because we have a number of witnesses today, and i want to say welcome to my distinguished ranking member. just over one month ago today, japan was hit by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that measured roughly 30 feet high. the devastation brought on by these catastrophic events is heartbreaking, and our deepest condolences go out to the victims and their families. and today we are hearing that this event now in terms of radiation leaked is equal to that of chernobyl.

so the news isn't good coming out of japan. the tragedy serves as an important wakeup call for us. we can't ignore it. i think one thing we all would agree to is we must plan for t e unexpected, and when we know ofo threatsne we must act quickly te address them. what can we learn from theknow f tragic situation in japan?y to the u.s. has 100 for commercial nuclear power reactors the u.s. has 104 commercial nuclear power reactors operating at 65 sites in 31 states. 23 reactors are boiling water reactors with mark one containment systems with like the ones at the daiichi plant. it is true that the nrc has instituted an improvement program for this type of reactor. however, the lessons from the tragedy in japan demonstrate the importance of reassessing the safety of the reactors. the kpromgsed reactors in japan

were set on the set of assumptions regarding the magnitude of natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis. we know some u.s. have a couple of those the situation in japan has shown us we must look at the risk assumptions that were made bh the reactors were designed. we know in japan they designed it for a lower magnitude quake. as a result of the catastrophic situation in japan, senator tom carper, who is going to chair this hearing as soon as i complete my remarks, tom carper and i have called in the nrc to conduct a comprehensive review of all nuclear facilities in the united states to assess their capacity to respond to natural or manmade disasters. senator feinstein and i also requested that immediate and special attention be given to those u.s. reactors subject to

significant seismic activity or located near a coastline. the nrc has identified two plants in california as being located in high seismicity zones. the commission found nine other plantses in illinois, north carolina, south carolina, georgia, virginia and tennessee, that they're in moderate size rickity zones. both in california are located in high-density areas, 424,000 people live within 50 miles of diablo, 7.4 million live within 50 miles of san anofre. other nuclear facilities in the united states are also located in highly pop late laited areas. if you look at the one in new york, it's about 17 million people live within that 50-mile

radius. although evacuation plans are generally a state and local concern, there have been calls for more involvement from fema to assess those plans. today we'll hear testimony from a number of our colleagues as well as the chairman of the nrc, greg gasco, who's been so helpful to us as we move forward, and also we'll hear frommed administrator of the epa lisa jackson. i'm very interesting to hear how the epa is monitoring the radiation in the u.s. we have, lisa and i, talked over the weeks just making sure we have accurate, up-to-date information on the radioactivity. we know that low levels of radiation have been detected in the u.s. from the compromised reactors in japan. we can only imagine what the potential impacts on health and environment would be if, god fosh forbid, we ever experienced the same type of accidents that occurred in japan.

a small but elevated of radiation have been detected in milk and other food. wear we're going to talk about that. experts say that we're okay right now. i want to probe that, make sure of that. and whether it's the nrc's review process of our reactors or epa's monitoring of our drinking water, complete transparency and prompt disclosure are vital in maintaining the government's credibility, our credibility, frankly, as this oversight committee. the federal government must heed the wake-up call from the catastrophe in japan. as chairman of this committee, working with everybody on both sides of the aisle, particularly my subcommittee chair, i will continue to provide vigorous oversigh tsteps to make our nation's nuclear facilities as safe as possible. i know chair man yausco and

administrator jackson share my concerns. our common goal is to show we're prepared and obviously taking a hard look at what's going on in our country at a time when we need every bit of energy we can get. there's no question about that. but as looking at what's going on over there, it's the unthinkable and we have to avoid it. so with that, i'm going to turn the gavel over to senator carper. >> thank you, madam chairman. first of all, senator joe in answer -- nance was going to be here today and couldn't be. he asked me if i would put in a statement which i enter into the record right now, ms. chairman. chairman yasco, i appreciate your efforts to ensure the nation that we are -- that the

nuclear plants here in the united states are safe, and i appreciate very much, admin strar -- administrator jackson, your reassurance that the materials that have drifted here from japan will not impact public health. i'm sure we all agree that we need to study the accident in fukushima and learn from it. as chairman yasco frequently reminds us, we can't be complacent with regard to nuclear safety, and at the same time we can't allow us to be paralyzed by fear. harnessing any energy source carries some level of risk, and we need to be sure we can safely manage that risk. ensuring the safety of nuclear energy is a very serious job. in 2004, congress charged five individuals with the responsibility to protect public health and safety. the public is best served by a commission that functio

functiofunction functions collectively with their expertise. i'm afraid the country may be getting less than it deserves. i was surprised to learn from my staff that chairman yasco has invoked emergency authority in transitioning himself in the wake of the tragedy in japan, especially a by phone and in front of this committee. leet get our dates straight. first of all, it took place on the 11th. our phone call took place on the 14th, the hearing took place on the 16th and never was this mentioned that this was going to be invoked. the law confers emergency authority on the chairman in the wake of an emergency at a particular facility or materials regulated by the nrc. at present, i am not aware of an emergency condition that exists in the united states facility.

chairman yasco, i want to work with you as the nrc tries to understand what happened in japan, what the united states can learn from it, but our collaboration indeed, collaboration with all of us in congress, with only proceed fruitfully if we have openness and fairness and a transparency. that applies to your office. as we move forward, i hope you'll provide us with full and complete information about your activities and that you will work with your fellow commissioners in the same spirit. and in that vein, i look forward to your testimony and to yours, administrator jackson, and to working with both of you on gaining full understanding of the impact of the fukushima action. and before i yield to my colleague, i think it's significant that i get my request in here. i'm anxious to see progress on the nominations of commissioners which i hope the president obama sends us soon. given the scope of issues before the commission, it's important

we have our commission full with all the members appointed and confirmed. thank you, mr. chairman. >> first of all, madam chair, thank you so much for holding this hearing and for giving the opportunity to co-chair with you. our thoughts and prayers go out to all the citizens of japan, especially those families of the thousands of disaster victims and those that are going through a very, very difficult time. as this tragedy unfolds, i encourage the regulatory commission and other u.s. agencies to continue to coordinate with the japanese government to provide any assistance they need to recover. the incident that struck japan reminds us we are all vulnerable to disasters, whether it's an act of nature or a terrorist attack. while we cannot predict when and where the next major disaster will occur, we know that it will occur, and we also know that

adequate protection, adequate preparation and response planning are vital to minimize both the injury and death when it does happen. today's hearing is one of many i hope this committee will have to ensure that our nation has prepared for the worst in order to prevent any lies lost from nuclear power in this country. in the united states we have, as you know, 104 nuclear power plants in 31 states which generates about a fifth of our state's total nuclear consumption. nuclear power has relied on dir dirty fossil fuels for global warming. over the years, we have relative safety in the administration and we've worked hard to reinforce those efforts. as a result we have seen or not seen any direct result of nuclear par exposure in this

country in over 50 years. as part of this culture of sa t safety, nrc requires nuclear facilities to be designed to withstand disasters and terrorist attacks. after september 11, the nrc took a closer look at the nuclear industry, put in place additional safety and nuclear requirements. despite all the protections that are in place, the krcrisis in japan and a clear reminder that we cannot become complacent when it comes to safety. my colleague in japan says, make it safer, make it better. that's why i ask the nrc for a conference of review of our nuclear fleet. we want to make sure that every precaution is being taken to safeguard the american people from a similar nuclear accident. the nrc is just getting started on this review, and i anxiously await their results.

today i look forward to hearing from our witnesses an update on fukushima diachi, a nuclear plant and an update to our response on that crisis. i also look forward to hearing what we can learn of the ongoing crisis to prevent similar things from occurring right here. i'm particularly interested in hearing about the state of emergency planning process from the delaware safety and homeland security. as chairman of the subcommittee on nuclear safety, i take seriously my responsibility, our responsibility, to make certain we are taking the appropriate measures to make the nuclear industry as safe as they can possibly be. as i said before, while i'm a proponent of clean energy, my top priority of nuclear power industry remains public safety. and with that having been said, i look over to my right and i see senator lamar alexander of tennessee. we await your comment. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i want to thank you and senator

boxer for -- >> senator, i did not notice senator brosler slipped in. are you sure? thank you. >> go ahead, sir. >> thanks, senator brasso. i thank senator carpenter for having this hearing. i think nuclear reactors is something we ought to have m >> i remember back when i was governor of tennessee in the 1980s, we hadut a question presented to me when tva was building a nuclear power plant, and the issue was whether to issue iodine tablets to peoplew in the area of the plant. and some people said, oh, don't do that, because you'll scare people to death.dide and the other argument, of course, was, well, if it would, if people understand what they're for and they're only to be used in the event of an

emergency, then it's better to go ahead and talk about the process that we're using and let people know what we're dealing with. so i made the decision then let's go ahead and let people who live within the area of a nuclear power plant have access to iodine tablets in case there was a problem. i feel the same way today aboute our nuclear power program in the unitednu states and what happend in japan. i can't imagine a future for th or united states that doesn't include nuclear power to create electricity. i mean, it's only 20% of ourunit electricity, but it's 70% of our clean electricity. senator carper's been veryicit consistent, he cares deeply about climate change. this is one way to deal with it. he and i have worked hard on clean air in the mochi mountai s and the east coast. thisy is one way to deal with s so it's hard to imagine that. but on the other hand, i think those of us who find it especially important to have maybe a special responsibility to see that there is clear

oversight and publicof understanding of this complex system of science andresp engineering so people are comfortable with whatever risks there are. and as we look at our own he's ri, actually, we've done a fair they are. and as we will history, actually, we've done a fair job of that. at three-mile island spawned several improvements such as the institute for nuclear power operations which have improved safety. that's important for americans to know that while three-mile island was a significant accident and a big problem that no one was hurt at three-mile island. that's important to know. september 11, that had nothing to do with nuclear power but it caused nuclear power operators around the country to take a look at what would happen if there were a terrorist attack, and you can go on youtube and see what happens when an f4 phantom jet runs into a concrete wall at 500 miles an hour.

the jet vaporizes but the plant is still there. hurricane katrina had nothing to do with nuclear power, but it caused operators in the 104 nuclear plants around the country to think, what would happen if we had a horrific event like the size of hurricane katrina? so i think we still have a lot to learn from what happened in japan. for example, on spent fuel storage, a lot of talk about that. it helps us think about, is it proper to -- how long should it be in pools? how soon could it go to dry casts? it's also important to know, as dr. chu has said, the president's nobel prize winning chief, that it's okay to store fuel on-site for more than 100 years. and it's important to know that

all the fuel we've stored would fit on one football field to a depth of about 20 feet. that's the mass that beer tawe' talking about. that's important to ask. what about yucca mountain? we do need to dispose of it. we have invested millions of dollars to dispose of it. why shouldn't we do it? we have been thinking of new reactors. . we have a watched bar. how do we know it's even safer as senator carper said we have not had one single fatality relatd to a reactor in the history of those facilities. so there are important questions to ask. there is a lot of information to learn from the japan disaster, but it's important at the same

time to recognize the safety record that we have for this form of energy production in the united states and keep it all in perspective. senator carper and senator boxer, i welcome these hearings. the more of them the better. i believe the more we understand and talk about this complex of city energy protection, the safest we're likely to be, and the more useful it will be to propose clean air in our country. >> excuse me, i am going to senator udall and back to you. >> thank you. i thank my clients in the house and certainly look guaforward t hearing their testimony. as senator carper has said, our thoughts and prayers really do go out to the japanese people for this tragedy and what has happened to them. i know when i talked the other day with japan's ambassador to

the united states, he was very, very appreciative of the level of scientific support that we were giving japan. i know many scientists have come from california, new mexico and from our national labs, so that's something they appreciate and i think we're all very proud of. this is a three-part disaster, an earthquake, i sue nauchl i, and it tragic. americans should focus on their six kids, the japanese. nuclear accidents are rare but their consequences can be severe. safety must be the top priority for government regulators and it should be the top priority for the industry as well. the japanese crisis underscores the need for information fchl transparency.

nuclear energy will gulf of mexico be terribly important to. we have 400 reactors today, and more will be built. but it's hard to build reactors if the public remains in fear of them. >> my jop is to ensure that the epa and the prc safety standards are of the utmost important and we should be careful to, quote, unquote, stream dline or cut corners on safety standards. it will be up to the bank and local community on whether to invest in community projects compared to the other options out there. nations like france which rely heavily on nuclear power also have taxpayers picking up most of the tab. and that is not realistic for

the united states' current budget situation. so i prech appreciate this length of witnesses today, and i'm going to yield back my time so we can get quickly to the soccer yard. >> senator grasso, thank you for your patience. >> we appreciate our guests for being here to testify, and i want to associate myself with the opening remarks of senator udall regarding his concerns for the people of japan, absolutely. incredible chal lepgz, incredible loss. i think -- the tsunami and the earthquake occurred in japan, not the united states. the machine that preceded the u 'nam i and earthquake occurred in japan. the emergency response is occurring in japan with the help from the united states.

but that's not the case. the chairman of the regulatory commission is acting on his emergency powers since the disaster first occurred. the reason why these emergency ropz, doesn't have implications for the united states nuclear safety response. this is one of the reasons that i believe the hearing today is so important. someone to use this in japan to help wipe out nuclear reaction in the united states. the article states that, quote, environmentalists are stepping up efforts to push the epa to

overmine operations in light of the nuclear disaster, targeting the processing of metal because its distraction marks the first step in the nuclear fuel cycle that its proponents tout as an alternative to fossil fuels, closed quote. how uranium mining is tied to a nuclear emergency is beyond me. i wish they would not ignore these type of stops which would occur if the japanese catastrophe had occurred or not. we heard testimony from those who want to stop hydraulic fracturing. this is a process where we can tap the hydraulic reserves. these people don't want natural gas, either. by tapping all energy sources, including nuclear and natural gas, activists are driving up the cost of energy. they are raising the cost of running a factory, or a minor a small business. they are raising the fact of

cooling homes in this country. this will cost thousands of jobs during our economic downturn. we cannot reach a clean energy future without natural gas or some power. that means cole, solar, hydro -- power. the cheapest energy is energy that's not used. we need the type of thing that keeps factories running and homes heated. places like germany who are phasing out nuclear power are recognizing this fact. there was a press story on april 6 entitled "utilities: it goes on and chants, state angela merkle's attempts to take power lines off line of japan's

disaster means they are no longer counting on their neighbors. it ppz about 30-gigabyte hours from france and the czech republic every day. so this same pattern we're seeing in germany will occur in the united states. american states that declare themselves nuclear free, whether california or elsewhere, whatever states declare themselves nuclear free and shut down nuclear plants will have to have power shipped in from neighboring states. it's an energy shell game and it will not hide america's foreign need to power this gain. let's not try to sut down another energy source. let's try and be as clean as we can and as fast as we can without interrupting other jobs.

>> as we said, we all agree that our sympathies, our concern, and our desire to be of help to the people in japan who are affected as a result of the earthquake tsunami and the nuclear emergency. but we want to learn from it, and we want to make sure that we're doing whag we can for people in our country. do americans think of vlg time. what do we have here? soon after the meltdown in ja n japan, i asked them to perform a comprehensive review which provide our state with about half of its electricity. i also requested the the chief

executives of new jersey power companies to join me in my office where they agreed with a thorough, shaky review of each of the four reactors. the people of new jersey need to know that if our plants are safe, then we're determined to see that they get the peace of mind that they deserve, of the reality of being protected. this isn't the only concern in new jersey, a nuclear reactor provides 20% of america's electricity, so we have to make nuclear safety a national priority. the united states has a good track record of keeping our plants safe. there have been few accidents and few fatalities, but we've got to remain vigilant if we want to maintain this record. japan, the world leader of technology, but as we know, it wasn't enough. so here in the united states, we can't take anything for granted. keep americans safe.

we also need to make sure we give our citizens a clear guide in steering emergencies. and i was trucked. when american citizens in japan were told to stay at least 50 miles away from the site of the emergency. in our country, guidelines require people to only stay within 10 miles away from a nuclear emergency. make no mistake, nuclear power demonstrations make energy and they will be part of our energy future. but we cannot ever trade people's safety for the sake of meeting our energy demands. we saw chernobyl a quarter century ago. the effects of a single nuclear accident that will linger for generations. so i look forward to hearing from today's witnesses. i thank our colleagues from the house about how we can learn from past mistakes and make sure the nuclear power remains a safe, clean energy source.

that we heard talked about this morning, and that is, well, costs. costs. nuclear power does so much for us, but has risks. when we think of the contribution that nuclear power brings to our energy needs, we know that we're going to keep on having nuclear power created. but burning fossil fuel has an aftercost. it has a lasting effect on our environment and on the health and well-being of our citizens. so when we look at the cost for energy, we have to look at the cost of -- on fedair for those who have asthma and otherwise and pollution generally. so we have to look at the whole picture. i assure you that we'd like to do just that. i thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. senator markland?

>> thank you, mr. chair, and i express my deep sympathies to the families of japan, victims of the triple tragedy, the earthquake, tsunami and certainly the nuclear disaster. and i thank all the heroes in japan who raced to the scene to provide assistance to victims of the earthquake and tsunami, and those who are working around the clock to cool the nuclear reactors and contain the radiation that is being released. it is very much our worst nightmare that a natural disaster of some kind should cause a similar tragedy in the united states, and that's why it's certainly appropriate and important that we do everything possible to take and look at the lessons in japan and apply them to our own system just as we applied a stress test to the banks and the financial crisis, we need to apply a stress test to our nuclear plants and understand what the weaknesses

are. when the disaster happened in japan, certainly a lot of discussion was around the cooling pools for rods. i was taken back to when i was traveling through hanford many years ago, about 14 years ago, and was looking at the cooling pool at hanford, and you had that kind of eerie blue glow down in the pool, and i asked the question, if a nuclear reactor broke, what happens to the water if it rushes out? the answer was basically a blank look that said, that would be bad. certainly we have to be prepared in far better ways than simply saying something would be bad. in the last two decades, we've built only three new nuclear reactors and by the time we account for a nuclear disaster

and by the time we account for terrorist attack. we have to take it seriously because the risk is substantial. that is certainly a factor. we have strategies that have been put forth by groups like new stale in oregon. owe patterns that have fail-safe mechanisms or passive protections that i think certainly should be -- we should look into and understand that part of this conversation whether fundamentally different designs would greatly mitigate the risks. these disasters occur because we lose the heating transfer medium and plants overheat. but they are designs intended to make sure there is no meltdown even when that happens, whether the medium be water or the medium be helium. that needs to be part of the discussion. so the with that, thank you very much, madam chair, and i yield back the balance of my time.

>> thank you, so much, mr. chairman, for holding the hearing. madam chairwoman, i appreciate you holding this hearing as well. this is obviously an issue we share great passion for, and in light of the disaster in january, i'm really just thanksing you both to drawing our attention to such a serious issue. thank you for spending time and answering questions. i may not have the time to mans questions, but i want to highlight my areas for concern and i will hand them in for review. in any planlt which is the one that serves about 30% of new york's electricity right now, it was within a 50-mile radius. it hit 16 million people. so we have significant concern to focus on that, and all the plants in new york to make sure it's safe.

at indian point, there has been a number of waivers given. are you going to relook at the. if she should be reconsidered and perhaps withdrawn. so the issue of waivers and evacuation. the plans with regard to indian point is a ten-miley evacuation plant. i would like to know the reason why there is a difference in evacuation plans. to do a 10-miley evacuation for indian point takes nine hours. i understand there is a different type of redundancy, and another sl to back up a vehicle. how do you reconcile evacuations and how trivial they care about

these items. obviously, we are looming on the anniversary of 2011, and one recommendation was to steer clear of all they stand and what kind of investigations are you doing with regard to employees with regard to i mark and vulnerable structure issues. and the last issue is the pool and dry storage issues. are these pools designed to be long-term storage? what do you intend to do to move them from a fuel pool to dry cast storage facilities, as a general matter, for safety. obviously, that's a long list of concerns and issues. if you do get a chance to look at them, i would appreciate your opinion. thank you for your time. >> introducing congresswoman caps and congressman bill gates.

>> congresswoman caps, thank you so much for sharing with us. she's gifted to the people down there. so we're grateful for that. in fact, we'd like to recognize congresswoman lois caps, 23rd district of california, and followed by congressman brian laray. >> we're glad you hear, roadways you and have mercy. thank you. thank you for joipg ut rocky mountain chairman and members of the committee, thank you for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify. we could bblg essential focus in the weeks following the japanese

and a -- we believe it kenla and other potential threats. yesterday, pg&e asked the nca to delay its license renewal while it still completes studies. here today, in light of the pg&e action, i'm renewing mine in light of the process. i do not take this lightly. last month i toured the power plant. i left with two things. first, that employees are meant to do it right. i want to be joined by california state senator robert blaxly. state senator blakesly will testify today along with a p

hrngs d. i'm sure the information will offer the committee valuable on-the-ground site. the bottom line is this. we do not have the answers we need to comfort believely move forward. and because the reactors do not need to be licensed for more than a dozen years, we have plenty of time to find those answers. mr. chairman, what happened so tragically in japan offers us the opportunity to question and question again, whether we're rea ready. they have said there could be a multiple catastrophe such as an earthquake and a meltdown at diablo nuclear plant. a quote: something nuclear

happening is fairly small. the unthinkable did happen in japan. an earthquake, a tsunami and a nuclear accident could occur, truly. we know the plant exist. they discovered the falls less than three miles away, forcing a major resign and pushing the project billions of dollars over budget. 2008 they basically discovered another site. it lies offshore about an hour from the plant. diablo was considered one of the two largest power plants for a high risk area.

can this plant, -- can this plant be sustained for a long time? many of us on the coast of central california remain concerned that the nrc has not taken action to address these questions or address these warnings. so much so that the california commission is said and they have directed that peer-reviewed reactor place should be studied. i agree with that. we need to take some time to get all the answers. it's important to note that i'm not talking about diablo. i'm asking that you can be haunted until updated siz mick

303 studies be completed in light of the process and that they be done by a third party with their sin tis. it will cause taxpayers billions of dollars to, once again, belatedly address issues that should have been dealt with beforehand. that's why i'm hopeful the nrc will work with all stakeholders. if we get to this point, remain steady and remain unresolved. i thank you for the opportunity to testify today. >> congressman bill bray, welcome. >> it's an honor to be here. life-long resident of san jose county.

i have the concerns that everyone has after seeing what happened in japan. every one of my children and grandchildren except to those who have been exiled to helen in montana not only live down wind. the state nocches but someone who the evacuation and response to not just the nuclear issue but also the tsunami issue. and also as a privilege of serving on the california coastal commission, an agency that has oversight and review of the nuclear power plants in california. this issue really did bring back memories of all the hearings and processes we've had the frankly there are still the facts to be taken, still research that needs to be done, but i think there are some indications that are

very, very enlightening. one is the fact that even though the japanese plant was not designed to those engineered in our california plants, that it did survive an earthquake that's well over what our plants ever perceived to be. in fact, the point that we're talking about that has struck this plant, we're looking at 7 maximum or 7.2 maximum in california. that frequency of 7.2, as pointed out by secretary chu, occurs every 7 to 10,000 years. so it gives you an idea of the engineering. the japanese were hit with a ground motion of .52. our california santa nofra to a point .2 to a 1.7.

it will not get over a 7.2 and that will be no sooner than seven years. it was not an earthquake as we get the information now. it was a tsunami. and as a surfer, let me tell you this is one thing that is not joking in any manner, but it is one that's very disconcerting. the fact is that japan had a 10-foot surge wall. they're sitting on a possibility in an area where the experts said the tidal waves would never reach that level, but if they did, the difference between the california facilities and the japanese facilities is the california facilities have gravity feed cooling built into their systems and they have their pump systems totally protected which the japanese did not have. they didn't even have their fuel

tanks protected, which was a major flaw. i think that's where good assessment can really be made on this issue. remember, as we talk about nuclear, ladies and gentlemen, as a former member of six years on the resources board, we're talking about the amount of energy that a voids emissions, including 86% of all automobiles that are driving on american soil. i think we have to recognizes the challenges, especially those with the u.s. have to be part of any plan to address climate change. i think one of the things we need to get out of this, madam chair and mr. chairman, is where are we today, have we overengineered, and was that overengineering proof? i think one thing it looks like in california is that we have, and that should be lereassuring.

my biggest concern is we're not just talking san ofrio and san diego but relative numbers of yards that the government owns. those are issues we ignore and i think it's one we address. the biggest issue i'd like to agree with you strongly on, senator, is how do we address the technology that's 40 years old that we have on the ground operating today, but how do we move to technology that's there, but also creates the opportunity to address that waste problem, that 100 yard by 20 foot which now it could not only be a fuel, it could be burned in the technology that's not safe but also a technology which could used up that .

>> thank you so much for your contributions. look forward to seeing you soon. thank you. with that we're going to invite our second panel, jim yasco, administrator jackson, to join us at the table, please. neither of our members on the second panel are strangers to us. we appreciate your hardship and your response to the disasters in japan. first we'll hear from lisa jackson, who the administrator of the environmental protection agency, and following her testimony, we'll hear from greg yasco, who is chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission. we'll ask you to use about five minutes for your statement and

then we'll have some questions. thank you so much for coming. your statement will be made part of the record. >> thank you, all the members of this committee, thank you for inviting me to testify on epa's role in responding to the tragedy in japan. i do want to begin by expressing my sympathy for those who have lost loved ones from the earthquake in sand tsunami and support for those trying to control the radiation at the fukushima nuclear plant in japan. their efforts are truly heroic. as japan tries to control their reactors, many americans are worried about what the many releases to the atmosphere may mean to them, and what the government is doing to make sure they are safe here in the united states. let me begin by speaking directly to those who are concerned about radiation detection, that monitoring and sampling from the epa and other federal agencies are picking up throughout the united states.

let me be clear. the epa does not expect to see radiation in our air or water reaching harmful levels in the united states. all the data we have seen, which we continue to be making public on our web site, indicates that while the levels are radiated in some places, they are significantly below moderate levels. in the days before the tsunami struck, we detected radioactive isotopes. these numbers were so miniscule, that they were 100 times the exposure we all receive. we're exposed to radiation every day, such as resources in the ground and manmade sources, such as x-rays. we will continue to monitor the event for radiation. we'll explain what the data mean to the people and families that

we serve. as i've said in this community, transparency will guide all of our actions. if you remain, a response to this role is very important. using a variety of techniques, we expose releases into the environment in the united states. these radioactive releases are ones that disappear from the environment within days, such as iodine, and those such as plutonium. let me speak for a moment about those monitoring efforts. a monitoring effort called rad net, involve long-term trends and allows them to detect miniscule increases. it's held up to create detexz.

they're sending real-time data to our laboratory. in response to the japanese nuclear incident, we responded by quickly deploying local air monitors to far off destinations, including alaska and islands in the pacific, to detect radiation it as slowly moved away from japan. we can find even miniscule amounts of radioactivity in the air. monitoring stations across the country submit precipitation samples to epa lakts as ra arka rain, fall, snow and sleet occur. under this response we are analyzing precipitation samples as they come into the laboratory and quickly post the results on our public web site. also, epa routinely samples milk

and drinking water from sooilit across the nation. like rainwater, these sites are collected and analyzed on a quarterly basis, but in response to the nuclear activity in japan, we measure the level. the information is all available on epa's website. this web site was quickly expanded after this sue sue, especially ones that are not into physics, could easily tell what the monitors were indicating. it r -- madam chairman, thank you for your leadership on these issues. both of our chairmen, excuse me. we will continue our outreach to the public and the elected

officials to provide authorization on our results. thank you. >> before you testify, i just want to say to you, to the other commissioners, to members on the staff of the regulatory commission that we appreciate the way you stepped up and tried to be as helpful as you can to the people of -- this wasn't just to encourage you to let up. thank you. please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman, madam chairman, and ranking member brosso. i also appreciate the opportunity tragic events across japan. people who have been touched around the country and along the world are following this in japan and many country around the world. as indicated, our hearts go out

to those dealing with the aftermath of these national disasters. about two weeks ago, i made a brief visit to japan and made a message and discuss the ongoing situation. as part of that visit, i meant with senior japanese government and tetco officials. just to briefly recap, on friday, march 11, when the earthquake and tsunami struck, the nrc's headposition. under the reorganization act of 1980. for the past few weeks, they have been monitoring event in japan. despite the efforts, the nths

still have reactors for facilities here in the united states. i, needless to say, am incredibly proud of their work. as regards the current situation of the reactors in japan, from the information we have, we believe the situation currently is static. we don't see significant changes on a day-to-day basis with the reactors. it is not yet, however, what we believe to be stable. namely, that giving additional events or other circumstances that there would not be the potential for significant additional problems at the reactors. so the efforts continue to be on these efforts to transition from static to stable to ensure a long term, ultimately, ability to provide cooling for the spent fuel pools. looking forward to the work that we have as an negative dealing with fugitives in this country, on monday, march 21st, the

commission acted quickly to move and explore to determine whether the agency should make improvements to our regulatory system. this i this iss an invitation to take a systematic review of our own facilities in light of the japan situation. this review will be conducted in a short term and longer term time frame. the short term review, which will take approximately 90 days, has already begun and will identify potential or preliminary near term operational or regulatory issues. a long term review will begin as soon as we have sufficient information from japan. but we expect that review to be completed within six months of the good it in that time. as we move forward with these lessons learned than other

counterparts around the world. i recently returned from the fifth review meeting on nuclear safety which provided an important opportunity for nations to address the issue in japan, and begin the terms for short and long-term cooperation. in conclusion, i want to reiterate that we ton to take licenses and oversight with the u.s. license sees. based on the 90-day review and under -- on behalf of the commission, i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. thank you. >> thanks to both of you for testifying. madam chairman? >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. first i want to thank both of you because you have been available to those of us on both

sides of the aisle here to answer our questions. i appreciate that so much. i want to put in the record something i golt from usgs, because it happened in japan, it didn't happen here, obviously. but how many earthquakes, i would say to my friend, have we had in america that they have managed to document, and it's 157 earthquakes all over this great nation and in every part of this country. these are over 6.0. 157 earthquakes over 6.0. i also asked for the documentation on tsunamis, and what i do have is the areas where the highest risks are. that would be alaska, hawaii

very high, west coast high, puerto rico, virgin islands high, the others low to very low. so i'm going to put those both in the record. >> no objection. >> thank you. mr. yasco, i know you've been very involved, mr. chairman, in helping the people in japan. every one of us on both sides are grateful, because i think america is at its best when we're there for our friends and we certainly are. right now you described -- you said it's a static situation not a stable situation. so let me ask you, what's the best thing that could happen right now with those reactors, and what's the worst thing that could happen? >> i'm reluctant to speculate on the worst thing that can happen because there is always something. >> well, i think it's important.

what's the best thing that can happen, what's the worst? we all hope for the best, but what's the worst thing that can happen? >> right now what our focus is on is that it ensures to provide or that the japanese can continue to provide cooling to the reactor and water into the spent fuel pools, and that is a process that is working right now. as i said, it's not necessarily the most stable configuration. for instance, there was an aftershock last night, so they had to remove some of the individuals, they lost some of the power, so some of the pumps they were using were not able to work for about 15 minutes. what we want is to move into a situation where that kind of situation would be dealt with in a more predictable manner and less for the possibility of the loss of the cooling systems. every day the reactors continue to have cooling and continue to

receive water and other types of cooling, the likelihood of a similar event goes down. >> so the cooling, obviously, here is key, and there's nothing else that could go wrong, in your mind? >> that's correct. the primary focus is to maintain cooling. if you lose the ability to cool the reactors, then you have the possibility of a further degradation in the fuel which could lead to a greater release than what's going on. >> is a leak still going on in the ocean? >> we believe now that some of them have been stopped, but there is the possibility that there are other leaks and other material being released. >> how radioactive is that water? >> right now the japanese are surveying the water that's going

out into the ocean. i haven't seen figures of that. >> will you let me know how much contamination is flowing into the ocean? >> absolutely. >> your board found that epa fixed monitors had a tampering bias against larger particles, which could include hot particles. have you taken any actions to address the concerns? >> yes. yes, chairman, we have. that report was done several kwheerz ago, and since that report was done, epa responded to do an additional study on the ef sassy ficacy of monitoring et in catching all sizes of particles. the real traumatic ones are the smaller ones, and what we found was through that study, our six monitors can collect the very smallest particles reasonably

effectively. i do want to say, having newer monitors, there are newer monitors out there that get even greater capture, but if you look at the purpose of the system, which is to give broad levels of background for events that are known, the current system is certainly effective. >> my time is expired, i just want to say to chairman jaszko, i've got these two nuclear plants that were built a very long time ago, and now apparently pg&e and central california have dropped their relicensing personally now. i guess i want to talk to you about -- and nobody has to respond to this. i'm thinking common sense. . >> you've got more that live within 50 miles of one of my

clients and about half the radius that live within 50 miles of the other. about half of these are near earthquake faults. so what i'd like to say to you and the others when we get to speak to them, and i think we will, to my mind, i think the commission when you're relicensing, has to look at this as though it's a new opportunity. would you license a plant that came to you now with that circumstance right by or near earthquake faults, studies that is there will be more frequent earthquakes and both involve tsunamis though one is the more vulnerable. i just hope that you -- again, i'm not asking you to think lopg a and hard about this, but if you would say no to a new operator, i hope you'll think about how it makes any sense to just keep on

going. unless there is a major reinforcement and hardening of some of these buildings and the rest. so i just leave you with that thought that those are my concerns. >> thanks, madam chair. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate both of you being here today and chairman i appreciate the time you've been available to me, visiting by office and addressing these various concerns that are critical, questions that need toto be answered. i noticed last week the california coastal commission concluded that a nuclear emergency such as is occurring in japan is extremely unlikely at the state's two operating nuclear power plants. would you agree with that california coastal commission's conclusion? >> we think it's very unlikely to see a large earthquake and a tsunami. >> they went on to say, the combination of a strong ground motion and massive tsunami that occurred in japan can't be

generated by the kinds of faults that exist in the vicinity of the two plants in nuclear plants in california. you agree with the assessment there? >> it's my understanding the type of fault in japan was a different type of fault that doesn't exist off the coast of california. >> thank you. i mentioned in my opening statement that on april 6th, activist, strengthen and oversight on uranian recovery and i noticed how they are using that in japan when approving uranian mines domestically in the united states. do you see a japaneconnection we uranian mining in the united states? >> no direct connections. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, when we last had an opportunity to visit my office, i discussed my concerns about the delay in approving

permits for uranian mines and you mentioned the delay was working things out with the epa and we finally achieved the resolution necessary. you thought you now had a template to move forward approving additional mines. do you believe you worked out of those issues so we can now proceed with a faster permitting process? >> i believe we worked out -- come to a good understanding of how we deal with our environmental impact statements. we are, however, continuing to work through issues that are our responsibilities under two consult with tribal governments as part of other requirements and that is the last activity that we're working on as we finalize our efforts on these uranian recovery operations. >> administrator, you are comfortable with and any issues

in a timely manner. >> i remain committed to resolve any issues we might have with respect to wyoming. i don't believe the article referenced sites in wyoming. >> the overall approval. thank you. i wanted to get back, mr. chairman, with the nrc response in japan and you have 250 staff both function s and working hard on this. given the commitment to the resources to japan, if we had any sort of emergency in the united states, would you be able to redeploy in a way we would not put ourselves in a disadvantage? >> absolutely. as this event has gone forward we have looked at our staffing levels and actually we've transitioned our approach to the staff in our operations center to have a smaller team there who can respond quickly but then would reach back to our larger agency to get information requests as they need.

it allows us to respond but in away that allows us to continue with our other important responsibilities. >> senator inhofe raised the issue about you invoking an emergency powers as a result of this. could you describe to me how you interacted with your fellow commissioners during this nuclear incident and how you relied on them on making decisions as well? >> there's not so much invoking of the emergency authorities. that's an authority that the chairman has. most of the activities that i'm engaged in as part of this response have been normal super advisory and communication responsibilities. i would note and we can provide this information for the record, but immediately after we entered our monitoring mode on march 11th. an e-mail was sent down indicating we had done that. within the first 24 hours we had

four briefings of the assistance of the commissioners. over the last several weeks, i've done at least 26 briefings to my colleagues on the commission, including one public commission meeting that was held about a week after the event started. there's been about overall, about 60 briefings to staff of the commission assistance and about 80 products have been provided to the commission indicating the status to the response efforts and activities that are ongoing. i think there's been good communication with the commission about what we're doing and how we're dealing with response. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> miss chairman, as a point of personal privilege as the senator mentioned, the plants in my state, i appreciate his concern. let me put into the record two letters by the california coastal commission, they want new earthquake studies, number one. number two, what my friends said about the fact it would be unlikely we would have such an

accident in california absolutely very unlikely. it's unlikely. that's exactly what they said about japan. to the word. so we've got to move beyond talk. and get to this serious question of what do we do to do everything in our power to make it safe. >> is there an objection to the unanimous request? so ordered. my first question of the chairman, if i could, i would like to quote albert in steen, in adversity lies opportunity. when asked the question, what is the worst that can happen following up on this tragedy? one of the worst things that could happen, we wouldn't learn anything from it. that's one of worst things that could happen. we have had not a whole lot of time but some time has passed since this sad chapter began unfolding. talk to us about the lessons we

have learned in the past weeks. and let's -- maybe that would suggest that what we're doing is appropriate, good, smart, safe and maybe some things we learned that we can do better. >> i think one of the issues we've really come to recognize is that the station event is a very serious event. the good aspect is that we've always known that is a very serious type of event and type of situation which you lose the ability to have electrical power to the site. fundamentally we think that's the primary cause of the problem. what we're really working to establish is why exactly they got into the station with the station blackout and what were the lead factors affecting that. i think we've seen the importance of emergency planning in having the ability to respond and provide emergency guidance to the population around the nuclear power plant and we've

seen that that -- carries out its intended function, it moves people out of an area they can be exposed to harmful levels of radiation. if we look at the kinds of things we've seen right now, those are the big lessons we've learned. we have this 90-day task force that will look at very specific things in the next two months, two and a half months. i don't want to get too far in front of the work they are doing because they put together talented people at the agency. we're going to do a good thorough look. i want them to start giving the answers that they hear me say at a hearing. i think that if there's any one other lesson we've learned, after three mile island, we learned it is important to go about this kind of review in a system being and method callaway. i think that's what we're doing. that will be the continued focus i have with the agency. because we want to make sure we

put in place the kind of changes that make safety better and not the kind of changes that in the end wind up undermining safety. >> i think what senator alexander said, if you took the spent fuel and stacked it up on a football field it would be 20, to 25-feet high. we have a blue ribbon commission working at the direction of the president to consider what we should be doing with that spent fuel. and give us some idea when we expect to hear back from that commission, i think they what they recommend may tie in closely with what they are facing in japan. >> we're anticipating an interim report from the commission sometime this summer and then with final report sometime later by the end of the year. when we look at the issues of spent fuel, this is something, again, that the agency, the commission has put a strong focus on making sure the spent

fuel can be stored safely and securely, the structures, whether in pools or -- are designed to deal with a large earthquake that are designed to deal with natural disasters, significant security related events. we have a kind of a multitiered system of protection that exists in all of our plants, and that includes these unlikely events like these natural disasters and then a layer of protection on that to look at if that kind of unlikely event happens and all of the systems don't function well, we have additional procedures in place to address that kind of situation and ultimately equipment put in the plants to kind of do that last line of defense in terms of providing cooling to the pools or ultimately to the reactor core. >> we have 104 nuclear power plants. the first one was built 50 years ago, i think it was 42 years ago, not 50. a number of plants up for re

licenseure. new technology and new design, how do the events from japan, how do they figure in the re-licensing plans and how do lessons learned figure into the approval process, renewal process for the new design? >> fundamentally we think about these issues not necessarily for a plant that's 41 years old or 42 years old or 1 year old and 10 years old. we think about this in terms of the plants there now in the safety of existing fleet of reactors. the reviews we're doing, the first review is to identify any issues we need to address immediately. we wouldn't wait for rely sen re-licensing to make changes to the plants.

fundamentally the kinds of changes we're looking at would be applicable to all of the plants in the country, whether they are getting license extended or not. in addition, we have a very robust process of reviewing the license applications and the renewed license applications that gives the public an opportunity for input that gives an opportunity to raise issue. and we think those procedures and processes are robust enough to deal with the new issues that come about from the japan situation. fundamentally these changes may take time to implement. in the interim, we'll evaluate every situation as it comes up. if there's something we need to do to slow down, we'll slow down. if we can move forward appropriately, we'll move forward appropriately. we'll be in a better position after the 90-day review is done to see if there are any remedial actions that need to be taken. >> senator alexander, you're next. >> thank you both for your

testimony. as we look at electricity produced in the united states, we use about 25% of all electricity in the world in our country. i believe about 44% is produced by coal, 20% by nuclear power, 23% by natural gas, 7% by hydroelectric power. we think of those as base load electricity, electricity that's reliable over long periods of time, about 2% is wind, much less than 1% is solar. what would be the effect on our country's ability to comply with epas clean air standards if we didn't -- if we replaced nuclear power with either coal plants or natural gas plants? >> well, nuclear power emissions are low to zero for the pollutants that epa regulates so there would be presumably an

increase in pollution, even with the best pollution control technology fossil fuel plants are going to have higher emissions, including greenhouse gas pollution, which nuclear power does not have. >> but probably half of our coal plants don't have that -- >> about half of our coal plants in the country are not controlled for air toxics like mercury, arsenic, cadmium. we recently proposed a rule to address that issue. when it comes to carbon pollution, of course, it's quite different. >> we have a live discussion, senator carpenter and i worked a long time on the mercury issue. the point is, to keep it in perspective, nuclear power provides about 20% of our electricity but 70% of our emissions free electricity which is important as we think about clean air and climate change.

mr. jacksco, for how long can the 104 reactors we have safely store spent fuel on site? >> well the commission recently re-stated what we refer to as our waste kpency finding, that we believe at least about 40 years beyond the expected lifetime -- 60 years beyond the expected lifetime of the plant we can safely store spent fuel. that gets you generally to about 100 years of time that you could store the fuel safely and securely. we as part of this recent decision asked the staff to go back and look longer than that and see are there -- if there are any issues right now that would make it challenging to store that fuel for 200 or 300 years or longer time frame. we expect to begin looking at that in the next year and have an answer in probably a couple of years about that question. right now we don't see any major

issues that would present a significant challenge for the longer term storage of the fuel. >> for purposes of understanding what we're trying to store, does it sound about right to say as i did earlier, that all used nuclear fuel that's been produced in the last 35 years would fill a football field about and then about 20 foot high. >> i've heard that statistic many times but never sat down and calculated and made sure it's right but it sounds reasonable as an approximatation. >> the nuclear waste policy act of 1982 established a fund into which rate payers, those of us who pay electric bills, pay about $30 billion to build a finding resting place for used nuclear fuel. a second step of the obama's administration plan for used nuclear fuel which i hardly endorse, not just to store it

safely on site, but then to do advanced research to find a way to reuse nuclear fuel which will greatly reduce the mass of it so that -- and permit it to be used over and over again. in the end, aren't we still going to have some stuff left that needs to be stored over a long period of time? and we still have this football field full of nuclear fuel spread around at 104 sites. where are we going to put that? we've got $23 billion sitting in a fund we've collected from electric bills. shouldn't we be using it to try to find a way to put them out since it doesn't seem to be going anywhere? >> from the nrc's perspective, our job is to make sure the fuel, regardless of how it's being reused or stored or processed, is done safely and securely. that's our number one focus. we, of course, work with the

industry. we communicate with the rest of the federal government. as approaches are being developed to look at ways to deal with that in the long-term. the blue ribbon commission in providing them about information about our approach to safety and security as they work to farm late their opinions about ultimately what could be done with this fuel in the long term. >> you are welcome. thank you. senator lautenberg. >> thanks to each of you for the knowledge and energy you bring and i use that term directly. we feel pretty comfortable, however, the long history that japan had with nuclear power and established nuclear regular tri system looked like japanese

installations were absolutely safe. but clearly they weren't. now what assurances do we have that our nuclear plants are prepared as they might -- we could get for our worst case scenario. >> well, senator, i would say there's really three or four levels of protection that we have at the plants. first and foremost, the plants are designed for the unlikely events of what we think the maximum historical natural phenomenon is. like a hurricane or an earthquake or a tsunami, so we start with that and we design the plants to be able to deal with that kind of situation. then on top of that, all of the plants have a set of procedures and guidelines for what you would do in the situation, all of those systems you built in to deal with the situation failed.

and those what we refer to as our severe accident management guidelines. and those give you the procedures, the approaches to dealing with the very severe events if they were ever to occur. for that to occur, a lot of safety systems that are redundant and have a lot of backups would have to fail and not work properly. even beyond that, if all of those systems were to fail, we required all plants in in country to have an additional set of procedures to deal with very extreme damage conditions at the plant, much like what you're seeing in japan. and we required all of the utilities to put equipment in place to respond and ultimately to be able to provide cooling to the reactors and spent fuel pool. we have a robust system to ensure that we can minimize or mitigate any potential releases to the public. >> the -- what we see is rather

frightening in scope because almost no matter what you do, you can't guarantee that there will be zero risk in the production of nuclear energy and nuclear facilities. so we keep on developing new policies as a result of unfortunately terrible experiences and we have -- we hope we have no further terrible incidents. miss jackson, new jersey is home to four nuclear reactors, including the oldest nuclear plant in the country, the oyster creek station. two years older than the damaged japanese plant. now, with your long experience in protecting health and environment in new jersey, how confident can we be that the nuclear plants at our state are

sufficiently safe to protect all of our people at all times? >> well, i would defer to the chairman on the safety issue except to say obviously, what was recently announced, which was that that plant was voluntarily -- the owners have agreed to shut it down, i think is part of the solution with respect to that particular facility. >> well, we're -- little reassurance honestly because if they said okay, we'll even cut short the period that the license covers, which means that there's an element of worry out there. there can't be -- >> senator, if i could just comment and my understanding of the part of the reason for not extending the plant operation was motivated by the cost and some of the economic factors.

certainly from the nrc's perspective, we didn't see a safety reason to not operate beyond 2019 when the plant would operate. again, when we do license renewal. what we do is add on additional requirements to the license sees for them to monitor the plant to make sure the plant equipment and systems important for safety get older but they have a way to monitor and make sure the aging does not have any adverse impacts on safety. in addition to the standard and regular strong safety program we have, we add on top of that the additional requirements to make sure that as the plants age they do it in a way that's protective of the public health and safety. >> one last question. the rest beyond that i'll send to you for the record and look for response. the nrc requires evacuation plants only within ten miles of

a plant. but the american government has warned americans in japan to stay at least 50 miles away from the damaged reactor. we confirmed that when we turned our ships around about 50 or 60 miles. i guess when all else fails, we have to be absolutely certain that a way to evacuate these areas is foolproof in terms of its ability and its durability. and would it make sense to require evacuation plans in our country to address the same distance to u.s. facilities for new plants? >> well, that's something we're going to look at as part of the reviews we're doing. the ten-mile evacuation zones that we currently have are designed to be the region in which you pre-stage and prepare evacuations. if conditions were to warrant

some additional reaction beyond that, those actions could aulsz be taken. as we've seen in japan, nuclear events tend to develop over a long period of time. this is three weeks into this event. and we've had the time and ability to make protective action recommendations and update those and modify them as conditions of the plant change. so that ten miles is really based upon the idea of what you need to have prepared right away so you have an event that develops quickly, you can address that and have pre-staged and pre-prepared what to do. there's always the ability to go farther or modify the plans to deal with the existing conditions and exact conditions on the ground. but i also want to stress, this is something we're going to take a look at as part of the review to see if there are changes to the emergency preparedness. >> thanks very much. thanks to each much you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you all for your

testimony. the first question i wanted to ask about is the venting system to release the hydrogen in the japanese plants succeeded in venting the hydrogen outside of the core only to have it explode outside. the u.s. went through in the 1980s a hardening of our vent systems on our reactors and the japanese plants went through the upgrade. why the venting system didn't succeed in venting the hydrogen that it wouldn't explode after it left the core and is there a difference in the venting system between the japanese plants and u.s. plants that would give us similar problems? >> it's not exactly clear what the source of the hydrogen was. obviously we saw hydrogen or some fires in the unit four reactor as well. that likely came from the spent fuel pools.

the spent fuel pool in that building because of the reacting core there did not have fuel in it. so at this point, we don't have definitive information about the source of the hydrogen. it's possible it came from the spent fuel pools and not necessarily from the venting operation, that's something that we'll look into as we get some more -- really as we get past the more emerge ent crisis in japan, we'll get the detailed information about that effort. and i would say that really the fundamental issue we see is the station black joult event. in the united states when we're talking about a station blackout event, we require each plant toch at least two diesel generators for each reactor. if there's a multiple reactor site we'll have four diesel generators on the site. they have to have the fuel in an area that's protected so that it

can be -- it can supply the diesel generators for in the event of some type of natural hazard. then beyond that, we have something that we call our coping requirements, which requires the utilities to be able to deal with the loss of offsite power until they are able to restore their offsite power. >> i only have a limited amount of time. you dodged the basic question, is our venting system different from the japanese system? it is fairly understand that a fair amount of hydrogen came from the splitting of water molecules and probably explosion of the clouding. in that situation and understanding that scenario, why did the hydrogen explode after it was vented rather than being disbursed safely into the atmosphere. if we have no insight, that's fine. is our venting system different? >> at this point we don't have the detailed information to know

if it's -- >> let me go on to a second question. >> in at least one of the reactors, believe it's number two, that the there was discussion of plugs in the bottom of the reactor vessel, the core that were used for loading fuel in. and concern that that design left a vulnerability and that the plugs inserted after fuel was put in melted at a lower temperature than the rest of the core containment vehicle and could have been a flaw that would allow fuel to escape. is that just specific to that one reactor or is that a common design and has that been discussed concern in the past? do we have that design in the united states? >> we can get you specific information on that design, but again, i would stress right now the information about the condition of all of the reactors is very preliminary and very uncertain. you indicated the hydrogen

explosion. again, it is correct that that is a result of usually of exposure of fuel but that can of course, occur both in the spent fuel pools and as well as the reactor core. the exact source at this point is not clearly understand and probably will be some time before we know definitively where it came from, whether it was interaction with the clouding in the spent fuel pool or the reactor core itself. and that's where there's a bit of uncertainty. >> you didn't answer my core question. the plugs that are apparently in the design of at least one reactors on the bottom side, do we have a similar design? >> we can get you that information. i don't have that off the top of my head right now, but again, i don't want to speculate necessarily that that was a contributing cause to any of the condition of reactor two at this point. >> another issue is the containment vessel itself. in the 1972, there was a report from the predecessor organization atomic energy

commission that recommended the mark one system be discontinued because of unacceptable safety risk because of the smaller containment design and more susceptible to a buildup of hydrogen, obviously something that seems like was an interesting insight given what we have now witnessed. indeed, apparently the reason for the smaller and lighter containment vehicle was the cost of a heavier and stronger containment vehicle. there was later in the 1980s, discussion of a nrc official, they had a 90% probability of bursting it fuel rods overheat and melt. there has been in changes to the containment vehicles. do we feel we've satisfactorily addressed the weakness issues raised in the 1970s and '80s.

>> fundamentally the actions that were taken as you indicated, one was to provide the hardened venting which provides a release path to release material as pressure builds up to release that pressure and do it in a way that you prevent as much of the release as possible when you do that process. the other thing that was done were efforts to do was called a night droe general inerting, you introduce nitrogen into the atmosphere and reduce the likelihood of a hydrogen combustion. >> we had a series of follow-up studlies that looked at how do you ultimate litigate them. for the mark one containments those were the change that's were made to address that. again, we're going to look at the information from japan to

see how similar or different their designs were at the time of the accident to see if there are additional lessons we'll learn. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. thank you. madam chair? >> thanks. i want to follow-up on earthquake faults because we had written a commission and asked you for an explanation of how many of our reactors or let's just say or plants are located on or near seismically active faults. >> the number in your initial statement, generally we would say two plants that are near -- in high seismic areas and nine plants in more medium areas. again, i want to stress, we require all plants in the united states to be designed to deal with seismic events, as all of us here in washington know, it was only a couple months ago we

felt an earthquake here in washington. so they are all designed to deal with seismic events and we design them, again, based on the accelerations that the plant itself would feel or actions and motions that the plant would feel at the actual site of the plant, rather than based on the magnitudes of the earthquake. >> before you get into all that, i don't have a lot of time. in japan, they would give the same answer. they gave the same answer. tepco said we're proud of the robustness of our containment vessels and in a case of an earthquake everything would safely stop and put it in the record, if i could. not the blah blah but the actual -- >> but the point is it's eerie to me because i don't sense

enough humility from all of us here as some great scientist once said, we think we have all of the answers but mother nature may not agree with us. so a lot of what you're saying is the same thing that they said and you're right, you are being conservative because even though plants don't sit on or near, you're thinking ahead. but the fact is, if you take one of my -- we have the two plants that are high intensity seismic areas. you know, one is built to -- they are both built to withstand a certain level of earthquake and yet so is japanese plant was i believe 7.5 built withstand and they had a 9.0. you can't know for sure what's going to happen. i guess, are you doing a major

inspection as senator feinstein and asked you two, of the two plants that are in high propennsylvanpro pensty earthquake zones. >> we are looking at all plants in the country to see if tler lessons learned from japan. >> you said there are two plants that are in the highest risk and you're not treating them any differently. that's a little worry some to me. >> senator, i wouldn't necessarily say they are in the highest risk. >> there were two plants on the highest seismic activity areas and those two are our plants in our state. >> what we look at ultimately are the consequences, the plants that are in california are designed to deal with much, much higher seismic activity than any other plants in the country. so they -- >> there may be a reason for that, mr. chairman because they

are more risk -- look, we just have a new report that says that they are not built to high enough earthquake proof standards because we have reports of a new fault at deab blow, we'll hear that from senator lakesly. and there are reports that say there will be much more frequent activity than was suspected both in perhaps tsunami and earthquake. i'm asking you again, i don't know if we got the letter back from them. if you could just -- you know how senator feinstein and i feel. it's on our watch. i don't know how many people are? the states -- delaware, how many people in delaware? >> almost a million. >> how many in your state? >> half a million. >> i've got half a million people who live within 50 miles of one of my plants and 7.4

million who live within 50 miles of my other. so this isn't about you know, some theoretical capacity if something went wrong. i know you feel you do ongoing inspections but some of those found safety culture problems too. so let me just press you. i know senator blakesly is coming up and we're working together on this. that's an important point. nothing to do with partisanship. if i won't be here for his testimony, can i send you his testimony and ask you to take another look because we have both these plants are up for renewal. although their licenses run to about 2022, something like that, 2027. 2022. so they are not going anywhere but they are up -- they are both now going to undertake new 3-d

earthquake study, which is great. i praised both operators for doing that. but it means to me that while that's happening you know, as -- correct me in i'm wrong, bill gray said, tell me if i heard him right, the chance of something like this happening an event like this is between 7 and 10,000? >> i think he said frequently of about 7 imagimagnitude earthquas every seven years. i don't want to speak for the congressman. >> i would say to you, take a look at the record and 157 earthquakes we've had over 6. so as we know, listen, when i was a county supervisor they head 100-year flood, we have to plan for a 100-year flood and i was a lot younger then. do we really need to do this?

doesn't mean it's going to happen in 100 years. could happen several times within ten years then not happen again. we've got to respond in a much different way and i don't feel the humility from all sides here. i don't think we're humble enough in the face of what mother nature could do. and i think that's although i have to admit that the statements made by all parties here were revery reasoned. we need to inject more humility, look what happened in japan, they are bragging how this could never happen. arrogantly boasted of the world's best nuclear technology, now they can't figure out how to keep the thing from leaking and all of the rest. enough said. thank you. >> thank you. >> administrator jackson, i don't want you to feel like

you're being ignored here. >> very much appreciated. >> i can barely see her lip move when you speak, mr. chairman. administrator, we were talking earlier, i don't know if it was senator alexander or someone else, who said we were talking about the number of people who have died in the 41, 42 year history of nuclear power plants in this country because of the radiation. folks either who worked in the plants or lived in the area around those. i think i asked this question of the chairman last time he was here, i think he said, to the best of his knowledge, no one has died of radiation poisoning or sickness. that was the quote you said, right in the. >> at nuclear power plants, there have been in related power, plants themselves there haven't been

any. >> you've been great to work with us on any wide range of clear air issues, including mercury admissions and i don't know -- no want to put you on the spot. i would like to get a sense for the range of injures, death that have brain damaged children born, babies born because of emissions from fossil fuel plants that put out not only co2 but mercury. can you give us a sense for that? we're talking about the loss of not just tens of lives or hundreds of lives but far greater. can you give us a sense of that over the 40 years? give us a sense of the imaginefy tud? are we talking thousands of folks whose lives have been shortened?

>> thank you for your leadership on clean air issues. long and outstanding record so thank you. why don't i simply say we recently released a proposed rule to deal with mercury and toxic emissions from power plants that burn coal. and the estimates were annual estimates of tens of thousands of fewer bronchitis incidents and 150,000 i believe the number one, fewer visits to asthma related doctor or hospital visits. when it comes to fine part cal pollution, there are -- it's not just sickness, it's death. so literally, tens of thousands a year of avoided deaths, prematures deaths. i don't have a number for 40 years that accumulate, but of course the clean air act has been around for 40 years and has a long and proud history of i

think the most recent estimate was $2 trillion in avoided health cost and benefits just from 1990 to 2012, 2020 alone. money isn't the same as lives saved and the tragedy of a sick child but it has quite -- those emissions have real impacts on public health. >> one of our colleagues earlier in the hearing made the point that for almost any source of electricity in this country, there are risks concerns related to them and obviously we have the kind of concern of risk born in japan that we need to be mindful of to learn as much as we can to make sure that tragedy doesn't occur here. whether it's coal fired plants. in other states we wanted to play off wind mill farm, but there are people who think they are unsightly and complain about

the loss of lives of birds. we have concerns with respect to tapping the great reserves of natural gas that we're happy, concerns raised about solar panels and some of the materials that we use to create that. all kinds of concerns. what we have to have here at the end is be as vigilant for all of them. i would ask there to be as mindful as concerned about air pollution problems that relate to fossil fuel plants as we are the potential loss of life or in danger of health from nuclear power plants. sometimes we lose our sense of balance. let me ask you as a follow-up to that, about the epa radiation monitoring and in the next panel we have several state and local officials and let me ask, how did the epa inform state and local officials about potentially high levels of radiation in milk or water in

their community and what actions would be taken in high levels of radiation are found by epa monitoring? >> let me first start every model we've seen and we agree with the inputs don't show we'll see any high levels and we have not seen high levels. if anything i would character them as trace increases from background. one of the interesting things is we have decades of background. we have a good understanding of what's normal for these monitors. and what we have done is set up a system where we do post the data for rain water and drinking water and milk. we'll post those on the website along with the air monitoring data, near real time, 4 to 6-hour as well as those with the cart ridge data which can take a longer time. even when we see trace levels, we alert the state entities that

are affected by those monitors where the states are. we work very closely with our partners at health and human services. through cdc and fda, depending whether we're talking food stuffs like milk or other issues, it's very important that the health officials in those states are not surprised by even trace increases because we want them to be able to feel comfortable that they know what the data say and what they mean and context you'llize that for citizens. most aren't speaking of radiation or understanding the units coming at them. we haven't gotten it perfect every time. we also work with ee leked officials. >> i'm going to stop there and some colleagues who are here and some not will have questions to submit in writing. how long do they have to submit those? >> they have two weeks to submit their questions in writing and

we ask that you promptly respond. thank you so much for being here and for testifying today. again, our thanks to you and the teams you lead at epa. at the nrc for the continued vigilance being demonstrated in response to this disaster. thanks so much. with that, we'll envit our second panel, actually, third panel. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> as our third panel participants take their seats, om going to go ahead and begin the introductions. the first introduction is thatta of california state senator sam blakesley of the 15th districtf of california. next we have mr. james wholy of serves as vice chair of theth california energy commission e h serves a vice chair of the california energy commission. next we have familiar face and friend from delaware, lou scherr ril lo. delaware's department of safety and homeland security. lou, welcome. great of you to come. next we have mr. curtis s. somerhof and director of the miami-dade department of emergency management and charles pardy is quite a notable citizen

in the state of delaware. a name's sake to be proud of. he is the chief operating officer of exelon generation and we have dr. thomas cochran, initials are the same as my colleagues and me. he is a senior scientist with the program of natural resources defense council. all right, your statements -- use about five minutes, try not to go too much over that. five minutes and your statements will be included in the record. we'll start with senator blakesly. how many state senators are there in california? we know we have 53 u.s. representatives. >> we have 40 state senators in california representing about 37 million people. a little over a million constituents per senator. >> how many state reps? >> 53 members of congress and 80 members of the lower house. >> great.

please proceed. >> thank you, chair, my fame is sam blakeslee, i'm a california state senator as chairman boxer indicated, i am a republican. the former minority leader in the lower house. i'm a former research scientist earned his doctorate from u.c. santa barbara. i worked in the oil and gas industry for exxon and now live with my wife and two young dirlz ten miles from deab blow canyon. the seismic can none has been a site of controversy for four decades. they stated in their initial permit application the site had only quote, insignificant fault that's have shown know moment for 100 million years. four years later researchers discovery the fault under three miles offshore which the usgs has estimated is capable of

producing a magnitude 7.3 ernl quake. in the end it took 15 years major retrofits and $4.4 billion in cost overruns before the plant became operational. upon being elected to the california legislature in 2005, i called on pacific gas and electric to use more sophisticated oil and gas to assess the complex seismic setting just off the coast. pg and e response was written by a vice president stating, fresh marn assemblyman blakeslee to conduct another assessment is unnecessary and bad policy. unquote. in 2006, governor schwarzenegger signed the legislation to assess the potential seismic vulener anlt of the state's nuclear power plants and provide recommendations. that same year, pg and e moved to re-license the facility.

the current license lasted through 2024 and 2025. then in twefrn while the energy commission was being performed a. a magnitude 6.8 struck japan in the largest nuclear power plant in the world was damaged with three reactors still shut down. in 2008, the energy commission issued their report saying uncertainties did in fact exist near the plant and seismic studies were recommended. the written response was and i quote, we believe there's no uncertainty regarding the seismic setting and hazard at the diablo canyon site. weeks later they discovered the active shoreline fault running within hundred of yards from the power plant and it could intercept with the larger and very powerful fault. within mere days, pg and e

rushed to declare, we don't see anything that exceeds the plant's design basis. it is made for collecting the data necessary to determine the relationship of the shoreline fault to the nearby. fast forward to the events of one month ago when a magnitude 9 earthquake struck offshore japan on a fault system believed capable of only a 7.9. like the 2007 japanese earthquake, the 2011 earthquake far exceeded the utility seismic and engineering assumptions. three weeks ago i asked pg and e if they still continue to maintain that they believe the previous assertion that there was no uncertainty in the sis miss setting near the plant. this time they responded by saying, although there's always some uncertainty, they were quote, not concerned. i asked them to suspend or withdraw the license application until the seismic data is in hand to allow regulators to make

informed decisions. although pg and e may not be concerned about the seismic uncertainty my community was very concerned. yesterday one day before this hearing pg and e began to take this action. after six years of calling for the seismic studies. state legislation, recommendations by the energy commission, direction from the california public utility commission. two devastating japanese earthquakes, chernobyl proportions, finally willing to slow the re-licensing effort. in closing i have two questions for federal regulators. first in the aftermath of the japan crisis, will the nrc strengthen its and own procedures conducted during the re-licensing process for these two facilities that the nrc has identified as being located in

the highest seismic hazard area? and second, given the longstanding reluctant of pg and e to accept the need for such studies, what procedures will the nrc put in place to ensure there's envelope peer review analysis so we have accurate robust conclusions that are drawn by those who have looked at the data independently rather than relying solely upon the utility and inhouse and rc staff. >> thank you for coming here to testify. very good testimony, thank you. >> mr. boyd, please, welcome. >> thank you, senator. and to senator thank you for being here. i'm jim boyd, energy commissioner and happen to be the stay's liaison to the u.s. regulatory commission which may indicate why i'm here. i appreciate you having this hearing. >> quick question, are you appointed by the governor? >> yes. >> how long have you served?

>> i'm in my tenth year. >> thanks very much. please proceed. >> this tragic 9 magnitude earthquake and its impacts upon the japanese people certainly underscore importance relating to seismic understandings in a state like california. you've heard all about our two plants. you've heard from senator blakeslee and detailed the difficulties we have had of the operator for seismic studies and we have another plant which the recommendations apply equally. the 2008 study found there are seismic concerns there that effect tsunami potential as well. subsequently, you heard from actually senator boxer who referenced that my agency and the puc directed the two agencies, the operators of these plants to undertake the studies. but that resulted in a race by pg and e to file for

re-licensing well in advance of what anyone thought would be necessary. the use of these -- this new technology is technology that senator blake dz lee has been used by the oil industry for years. pg and e has done some studies because they were ordered to have ap seismic study and need to redesign the plant. unfortunately while we have been pushing for this, the nrc has indicated the renew process does not include an assessment of seismic vulnerabilities and does not require the advanced studies be included within a scope of their review. until yesterday, when we learned pg and e has changed their mind and announced they want to hold up their license, we felt that the nrc was going to finish the review in 2002 or 2012 and the

studies wouldn't be done until 2013. i thank you for having a hearing. it may have had an impact on pg and e. we still need a concession from the southern california edison operator that they'll do the same type tud study and they are reconsidering their position. we're looking to the nrc to carry out the short-term and long-term events on japan. we expect a lot of positive recommendations and results, we need to i am plor the congress to not only ease efforts but implementing that follow-up actions are taken at all u.s. reangt actors after they finish their studies. not only should they include the lessons learned from japan, but we have some thoughts we would like to pass onto the nrc and

have in previous correspondence, that we have underway with regard to seismic. first is in the waste confidence decision, the nrc waste confidence decisions that spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely on site, should be 100 y should be re-examineded, are specifically those in seismically active coastal areas. the safety of needs to be re-evaluated in light of what happened in japan. secondly u spent fuel management. the nation's spent fuel management system should be re-evaluated including the current practice of storing spent fuel in pools in tighter configurations than original plans designed for. the energy commission in 2008 recommended the utilities return their spent fuel pools as soon as possible, storing more spent fuel and pools in closer configuration creates greater

heat load increasing the risk of fire and other possible problems. as more and more spent fuel accumulates, they've had to rerack their pools multiple times to increase their on site spent fuel storage capacity. this is an increasing safety issue at california's two plants and the station blackout issue is another one that effects the operation of spent fuel pools. in closing, i would say we would like to see the two utilities in clachlt undertake the studies recommended. we'd like to have the studies included in nrc's license renewal of these plants because they've given no support in routine oversight of the plant license for the activities and the recommendations that have been made. we need to assure ourselves that when these studies are done, all the activity that is need to be taken with regard to quip. and process operations should be taken into account. thank you for this opportunity. >> thank you, mr. boyd.

next we want to introduce secretary schrillo. how long have you been secretary now? >> just over two years. >> before that i know you spent a few years in the fbi. how many? >> 25 years, sir. >> thank you for your service. please be proceed. >> good afternoon, chairman. i am lieu schirilo and the secretary of delaware's department of safety and homeland security. on behalf of governor jack markell i'm honored to be here today to address the important issue of homeland security as it relates to radiological security plans and preparedness. i would like to thank you for the attention and focus on this most important topics. in the days and weeks that followed the nuclear energy crisis in japan, many citizens raised concerns about radiological emergency preparedness in united states. in delaware, citizens concerns about safety of nuclear energy facilities and the state's ability to handle radiological emergency were directed to our

department. our department is comprised of sefrlt public safety divisions including the delaware state police, capital police, office of highway safety and most importantly the delaware emergency management agency which we refer to as dema. while our divisions often work during a public safety emergency, dema is primarily responsible for the state's radiological emergency plan and activity. i would like to open my statement with the information on the nuclear energy located off our state's shore and our state's radiological emergency plan. i will then share insight into our experiences with the utility. our state's location along the east coast puts it within 50 miles of four nuclear generating stations. they are limb bert in peach bottom, atomic energy commission station bth in pennsylvania. calvert cliffs in maryland and the salem hope nuclear generating station in new jersey. of these four stations salem hope which is a 740-acre site

operated by pse&g is the close, located 2 dmafl miles from the delaware shoreline. together these plants comprise the second largest nuclear generating facility in the united states and generate enough electricity for three million homes each day. according to the 2010 census there are approximately 41,000 people in delaware that currently live within a ten-mile radius of this utility. the area is more commonly known as the emergencies planning zone or epz. it should be known that within the last ten years delaware's population in the epz increased by over 17,000 citizens according to the recent census. this increase necessitates a mandatory evaluation of our evacuation routes and times. the close proximity of salem hope makes it the most potential threat to our state and as such, dema's radiological staff continue to work closely with the nuclear people at pse&g and

the new jersey state emergency management officials to maintain and update the state's radiological plan. this comprehensive plan which is approved by fema is dema's roadmap to provide command, control and coordination for any potential nuclear plant incident impacting our state. as required by the nuclear regulatory commission and fema, within a six-year cycle dema conducts three plume exercises which really test the state's emergency response capability within the epc and one injection exercise which tests the state's readiness to address needs within the 50-mile radius of the utility. historically delaware's federally graded exercise received very my marks from fema, and these are graded exercises that are quite thorough and exhaustive inasmuch as they test each and every state emergency response resource that could potentially have a role in any radiological emergency incident. they involve our first

responders, our evacuation plans, reception centers which are registration and contamination sites, traffic control access points, shelters, schools, hospitals an emergency worker decontamination centers. and in addition to that, dema conducts quarterly radiological drills with pse&g that specifically focus on the epz and our responder resources. in 2010, 821 people received training specific to the rep plan and emergency worker equipment. i'm going to cut some of this short, senator, but we have absolutely an excellent relationship with pse&g and the emergency response officials in new jersey. i welcome the opportunity as this goes on to answer any questions that you may have regarding those plans. thank you. >> thank you, very much, mr. secretary. welcome gn. mr. sal land. >> i wanted to thank chairman

boxer, ranking member inhoff, chairman carper, ranking member burr ras sew and the distinguished -- i'm curtis summer half. the community i serve spans nearly 2,000 square miles, includes 35 municipalities and has a population of more than 2.5 million. we're a coastal community vulnerable to a number of natural and man-made disasters. including the threat of hurricanes, flooding, fires, mass migration, oil spills and radiological events. miami-dade county's response to emergencies and disasters is guided by a comprehensive emergency management plan and all hazards approach which supports the county's ability to respond to any type of emergency. within our comprehensive plan, we have a number of hazards specific annexes including a radiological emergency preparedness plan. our plan to regularly assess and assumptions analyzed revised and ultimately certified by the