administration, there are a number of people who have concerns about things like the whole body scanners. also a number of people in favor of that. when you look at something like funding in the coast guard, which is any data you need a new ships. it can be a completely different set of people who are for spending a lot more in a completely different site who are against it. >> when can we expect a vote on final passage? you know, because it's an unlimited rule it's hard to suggest this plan. >> rob margetta, we thank you for your time. >> thank you so much for having me.

..

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon everyone. we had i think a very productive meeting with the president today. we appreciate the opportunity to be here. at the presidents request. we had a conversation about jobs and the deficit and the debt that is facing our country. this morning i released a letter signed by the 150th congress who agreed that if we are going to get serious about creating jobs in america we have got to reduce some of the uncertainty. sum of that uncertainty is caused by the giant debts facing our country, and the fact that

we are going to raise the debt limit, the spending cuts should exceed the increase in the debt limit. otherwise, it will serve to cost us jobs in the country. that is not what the american people want. we had a very frank conversation and i thought it was productive. i am looking forward to more serious conversations about how we reduce the deficit in the and the debt and begin our economy going again and creating jobs. >> today's meeting gave us an opportunity to express some concerns that we have surrounding the current situation in the economy. adp issued a report today estimating that private-sector job creation amounted to 38,000 new jobs in may. woefully short of the amount needed for us -- for the economy to get back on track and people to get back to work. i said to the president today it is really important for us to focus on growth in this economy and as we go through these

discussions and try to get the fiscal house in order surrounding the debt limit, very very important for us to look at growth is part of the fix. we can bring the deficit down through adding jobs but we can also people -- get people back to work. we know are chairman of the ways & means committee is hard at work at putting together a tax reform plan. hopefully the president will work with us to do so and to keep out of the discussion surrounding the debt limit and in the talks any notion we are going to increase taxes. is counterintuitive to believe that you increase taxes on those individuals and entities you are expecting to create jobs. >> a unique opportunity where the entire conference got to convey what they were listening to across america. the president laid out a debt discussion but from the conference he heard about jobs. he heard about unshackling the burden of regulation on the small business to get them working again.

from wisconsin to west virginia to members across the way. what i heard from this president is he wanted to sit down real cuts now. he said there needs to be entitlement reform and we will work with him towards those ends to direct what we create new jobs and put us on a new path to pay off the budget on a balanced budget and pay down the debt as well. >> i want to thank the president of the speaker for bringing us together today for this important discussion. you know every generation of americans has been proud to pass on a better country to the next generation and yet for a lot of americans right now there is a question in their gut as to whether or not our children and our grandchildren are going to have more opportunities and the foundation that we lay for them is so important and we can't take for granted we are just going to continue to have that strong foundation from which opportunity and innovation and ingenuity take place. our tax policy matters. our debt batters. our energy policy matters and

whether it was her vote last night on the debt ceiling or the conversation today with the president about job creation, we are committed to take the steps necessary to ensure that next generation has more opportunity. >> and a day republicans and democrats are actually having a dialogue, this is a good thing. what the president heard from republican members of the house is that jobs are jobs number one. that is our job. and unfortunately, the greatest impediment we have have to jobs today is the lack of confidence in the future. republican house members were able to share with the president that the job creators in our district feel that the regulatory burden, much of it coming from the presidents administration, creates a lack of confidence in the future. tax policy that is not competitive, a tax burden that is too high creates a lack of

confidence. and then last but not least, a debt burden. the president heard from the republican members of the house and we know that the debt burden is going to lead to hike taxes which leads to low unemployment. unfortunately what we did not hear from the president is a specific plan of his to deal with the debt crisis that could actually be scored by the congressional budget office. we hope they're still an opportunity to work on the drivers of this debt that is costing us jobs because republicans know that until we have the confidence that we can solve this debt crisis by dealing with the drivers, our entitlement spending that we are not going to get the kind of jobs the american people want and demand. >> a couple of questions. the president have her response to that? did he respond to your concerns? >> the president admitted that we have got to look at growing

this economy and the discussion really focused on the philosophical difference on whether washington should continue to pump money into the economy or we should provide an incentive for entrepreneurs and small businesses to grow. i think the president was well aware and it netted the fact that private-sector job creation is not enough. he did mention that a lot of the lawsuits were in the public sector. again our message is to focus on growth in the private sector. >> the president talk about disparate spending? >> the president talk about a need for us to continue to "invest some "from washington standpoint and to a lot of us that is code for more washington spending, something we can't afford right now. >> did you see the president -- [inaudible] >> not exactly. [laughing] it wasn't exactly what i said.

i just said we have got to take on this debt and if we demagogue each other at the leadership level we are never going to take on art that. we have a debt crisis coming and we want to deal with this. if we want to grow jobs in the economy we have to get our spending under control and get our debt under control and if we try to demagogue each other's attempts to do that, then we are not applying the kind of political leadership need to get the economy growing and get the debt under control is basically what we are saying. [inaudible] >> i should explain what our plan is. it has been described by the president and many others and we simply described to him precisely what it is we have been proposing so that he hears from us how our proposal works so that in the future he won't mischaracterize it. >> it was not about your plan? >> he didn't mention one way or the other. >> mr. cantor? >> what was appointed a meeting

the point of the meeting today? it? was its negotiating,, was it. >> it was an opportunity for clearly our members to communicate directly with the president about our ideas about how to get the government going again, how to create jobs and our idea of how we solve the debt problem facing our country. i told the president one more time, this is the moment. this is the window of opportunity where we can deal with us on our terms. we can work together and solve this problem. we know what the problems are. let's not kick the can down the road one more time. now is the time to deal with it. >> speaker and a discussion of the --. >> now will you get reaction from the white house spokesman jake carney and today's meeting with president obama and house republicans. this portion of the briefing is 15 minutes.

>> i will start with a brief readout of the president's meeting earlier today with the house republican caucus, the conference rather. the meeting lasted about 75 minutes and was held in the east room, and they think the president's assessment of the meeting echoes the assessment provided by a couple members of the house republican leadership. the conference chairman representative hensarling said any day republicans and democrats are actually having a dialogue, this is a good day. the president would agree with that. that is why he looked forward to and enjoyed and thought it was a productive meeting he held today with house republicans, just as he felt the way about them meeting he had with senate republicans. speaker boehner said we had a frank conversation. i thought it was productive and i'm looking forward to more serious conversations about how we reduce the deficit and the debt and to get our economy

going and creating jobs. again the president agrees with that assessment of the meeting and also of the need in future conversations to move forward with the plan to significantly reduce the deficit, dresser long-term debt and get our economy going and create jobs. those negotiations as i've noted before the president believes have been making progress and participants in those negotiations believe the same thing and we are optimistic that it will produce those talks will produce an agreement, a bipartisan agreement that will reduce the deficit and in a bipartisan way because participants will find common ground. i can announce all so that the next round of those negotiations will take place on thursday, june 9. probably the blair house but as

you noted scheduling apparently on the hill. they are going to be on the hill so we move them around to keep you guessing. and with that i will take your questions. >> thanks jay. i heard the comment from lawmakers out there and your comments about the meeting and i guess i'm still wondering whether any specific concrete progress came out of this meeting today and i ask in particular because it seems like both sides went in with philosophical differences about how to reason the dead and came out with the same stance. was there any specific driver is? >> well, two points. one this is a large meeting and this is not the forum for specific advances in the negotiations that have been conducted by the vice president with members of the parties of both houses. and yet it was productive. the reason that i think i mentioned before that the

conference chairman mentioned it is always good in washington in this day and age when republicans and democrats sit down and listen to each other in a constructive member demint and nonconfrontational environment and i think that is a good thing. obviously, there are long-term disagreements between republicans and democrats, between this president and republicans on the ideas about how we should address our long-term deficit problems, the debt problems and those, all of those disagreements will not be resolved in the next several weeks as these negotiations moved forward. but, there is common ground and work on the ground can be found to significantly reduce our deficit and the president believes that, with both sides negotiating in good faith, that a compromise can be achieved and that is what the american people want. so, again i think this is part

of a process that is very productive and helps reduce i think some of the confrontational atmosphere that surrounds some of these discussions. it doesn't mean that we don't disagree on some fundamental issues. of course we do and we have big very clear and we haven't papered over our differences and neither have they, but i think the american people understand we have differences and yet they still expect us to get things done. >> i understand the point about reducing the temperature in the value of that. the think a discussion offers the two sides. >> i think it helps and allows everyone in the room to look each other in the eye as one member makes a case and the president answers questions to understand that each side holds very strong opinions about

certain issues, that there is a lot of overlap in terms terms of what the goals are here and that there is overlap in terms of what some of the solutions are, and sometimes you miss that when you only hear the monologue and passage of the dialog when each side is talking to each other through the process. so, the president feels very strongly that this is a useful thing to do. >> last question. representative ryan made the case in hands terms for his medicare plan and he doesn't want the president to be missed describing it. is that what the president thinks he is doing? >> no. he doesn't and look, as i said there are no questions there are differences. there's no question on the issue of medicare, we have significant differences. and what the president made clear is he doesn't believe that we need to and medicare as we

know it, to dismantle the programmed as it currently exists in order to achieve significant deficit reduction. he believes that congressman ryan the author of to plan and the members who voted for it are sincere in believing they think that is the preferred solution. we simply disagree and we don't think that is a matter of demagoguery. it is a matter fundamental differences of opinion and a different assessment of the facts and we think the facts in this case are on our side. one of the reasons that the problems we have with it is that in order to achieve the reductions that they seek in the house republican plan and to pay for the extent of tax cuts for the wealthy with that plan calls for, they need to do things in medicare that are necessary, and it produces an unbalanced plan, puts too much of the burden of deficit reduction on the shoulders of seniors, low-income children and the disabled and the president just feels that is

unacceptable. >> what specifically did the president tell the republicans about the debt limit and republicans who came out of the meeting said it was discussed at the beginning of the meeting and it didn't necessarily pick up a lot of. >> the president made clear that he believes that there is no margin here for in any way casting doubt on the possibility that the debt ceiling would be raised, that the fact of even suggesting it won't happen could be highly negative and could have dire consequences for our economy and the global economy. but it is accurate to say that was not the focus of the discussion. >> and i understand secretary geithner was in the meeting. i don't think he said anything. at least that is what i heard. >> i know he was in the meeting. my understanding is the president did most of the talking for the white house and

administration. >> secretary geithner is going to capitol hill tomorrow. does that indicate that you are worried that message isn't getting across to republicans about the debt limit? >> i think it indicates how seriously we take this issue and that the treasury secretary in particular can address the particulars and the substance of why it is so essential to raise the debt ceiling, the consequences of not doing it and the impact it would have on global markets, on interest rates, on economic growth and job creation. so i think we, as they do consistently from here and others do from other venues need to simply reiterate the absolute necessity -- necessity of making that vote and raising the debt ceiling so we do not reverse the very important and substantial progress that's been made since we emerged from the worst recession since the great depression. >> a number of republicans though argue they are not unwilling to raise the debt limit they agree that it needs

the race but there needs to be in agreement on how to cut the debt. and they think it's unhelpful for the administration to keep saying it would be calamitous and that it would be better to focus on the cuts and how to get the debt down. >> what we have said is we are doing both. and i think the president's leadership on this is very clear. not only did he lay out his plan and his vision for how to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 to 12 years. he then passed the vice president of the united states to leave these very serious and so far productive negotiations with congress with both parties in both houses to achieve a compromise on significant deficit reduction. within the same timeframe that we need to address the vote on raising the debt ceiling. i think that demonstrates his commitment to both necessities. what we have said all along is that it sends the wrong signal and it would be a mistake to directly link, tire hold hostage

one to the other because of the absolute necessity of raising the debt ceiling. it is not an option if you want to maintain full faith and credit of the united states and if you don't want to send this economy back into recession. >> conker ms.-- congressman ryan in a meeting today according to attendees and according to ryan at the stakeout camera made the point to the president that has been mentioned demagogue in the ryan plan for medicare is not helpful to this process. and while i understand the president doesn't believe that he has done so, does he think that the democratic party has done so? has he seen the ads showing the paul ryan look-alike pushing grandma off the cliff? has he seen any of these ways the democrats are using the ryan plan to win elections and score political points and does he have any issue without? >> i don't know what he may or

may not have seen jake. what i will say is a substantive differences over medicare are real. and the facts about whatever you call the system that is in the house republican proposal, premium support or privatization or voucher is nation of the program, it has the impact of shifting the cost burden for ever-growing medical costs onto beneficiaries in large large numbers, $6400 per senior. that is just an inescapable fact in our argument is you don't need to do that. you can find savings in medicare and entitlements as the president has already do the affordable care act and as he is propose further in his future your oriented proposal. and you can get waste fraud and abuse and reduce the cost of medical care while still protecting our seniors. that is what he believes we have to do. and one of the fundamental

problems and i think why people around the country have reacted poorly to the republican proposal is that it not only eliminates or changes the medicare program to the point where it is no longer the program we know and does not provide the guarantees that it used to, but it does so in part in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthy americans who have already benefited significantly at a time when the middle class and others have been squeezed so tightly. so those are just the assessment of priorities. >> have you seen grandma going over the cliff, jay? >> i haven't, no. >> understand there's a philosophical, legitimate philosophical difference. >> we need a bipartisan solution and we need to work together and find common ground. >> so does this party fretting at showing paul ryan pushing

grandma over the cliff help that bipartisan process? >> i think the decision and the negotiation that will produce a result and demonstrate that demonstrate this president's commitment to significant deficit reduction as well as democrats in congress and republicans in congress occur here in washington. and the fact is that we can achieve that in a way that the american people can feel that each side moved off its starting position, accepted that it wasn't going to get 100% of what it wanted, that no absolutist positions prevail in washington and that's the nature of our system. and he feels that he has demonstrated his commitment to that. his commitment to taking the position that often are at odds with members of his own party repeatedly. and he's been willing to do that in the past and he's willing to do that in the future because he is committed to finding solutions that work for the american people.

>> so should the democratic party stopped running those ads? >> you have an answer the question. you have said the president is conducting himself an appropriate way. >> you are asking if there has been a negative reaction to the aspects of the republican plan. i think it is because of the incontrovertible facts about what is in the plan. and our opposition to those elements of the house republican proposal have, we have not at all paper to over. but we are not -- we are interested in bipartisan compromise. the president has made that clear again and again and he has walked the walk, not just talk the talk when it comes to making those tough choices and he has shown his willingness to do that. >> can i ask a question about libya? de facto spokesman jay carney talking to reporters about today's meeting with president obama and house republicans on

the debt ceiling. you can watch this news briefing in its entirety and our web site, c-span.org. >> space shuttle endeavour mack returned for its final landing at the kennedy space center in cape canaveral florida. endeavour is nasa's fifth they shuttle conducted as a replacement for challenger. endeavor flew its first mission in may 1992. nasa's 30 years they shuttle program is scheduled to end the summer but the final mission of the space shuttle atlantis targeted july 8. >> touchdown. chute deployed by greg johnson. touchdown. after a journey of six and half

million miles endeavour landing in darkness illuminated by the ingenuity dedication of every astronaut and scientist engineer flight comptroller mechanic that helps it slide. the fleetcenter ships completing its 120 -- 122 million-mile after sifting through the cosmic darkness for years to come. >> endeavor will stop. >> 122 million miles flown during 25 challenging space fights. your landing is a vibrant legacy for this amazing vehicle that will long be remembered. welcome home, endeavour. >> thank you easton. you know this they shuttle is an amazing vehicle flying through the atmosphere. mach 25, and landed on the runway it is really an incredible ship. on behalf of my entire crew i want to thank every person that has worked for to get this

mission going and every person has worked on endeavour. it is sad to see your land for the last time, but she really has a great legacy. >> great words. tenney mark and we will meet your and your crew on 5-3. >> 5-3. >> after the landing, stay shuttle endeavour commander mark kelly and crewmembers spoke to reporters. this briefing is 20 minutes. >> good morning and thank you for joining us at nasa kennedy space center in florida for space shuttle endeavour sts 134 post-landing crew news conference. is my pleasure to introduce to you the sts 134 crew and commander, commander mark kelly.

>> hello everyone. thanks for coming out very early in the morning at 2:30 when we landed if you were there and thanks for waiting. sorry it took us so long. we were doing some medical tests and some medical experiments. one of our crewmembers is still in the process of doing that so he will not be with us today. i would first like to introduce the rest of my crew. to my left, greg johnson our pilot, former air force colonel pilot. this is his second flight. second flight on endeavour and second landing at night. mike fincke u.s. air force colonel as well. mike is now the u.s. recordholder for time in space. he previously did two long duration flights flying up and down on the russian soyuz. and then colonel roberto vitorri

of the italian air force who is with aussie but on a mission for the european space agency. roberto and i actually have known each other the longest, having served at the naval test center in the tuscan river at the u.s. naval test pilot school. probably 15 years ago now. and andrew feustel who led three of the space walks during this mission and supervise all four of them. a really critical member of this crew. we did for eda's which are very, as many of you know, are buried very high risk things to do and they went flawlessly. we got everything done we plan to do. we installed the alpha magnetic spectrometer on flight day four of the mission which was a

pretty exciting milestone for us. it will be a new day for astrophysics in space to have a very high-tech cosmic particle detector outside the earth's atmosphere. dr. king and his team of over 600 scientists and engineers are now really really busy analyzing 50 million particles a day. i have no idea how they do that. how do you sort through 50 million of anything? but he is managing to do that and hopefully people see some amazing discoveries. but now i guess we will just go around the room and take your questions. do i get to pick? [laughter] >> we have a few moments -- [inaudible]

>> commander kelly, peter king from cbs news radio. we will get this one hopefully out of the way. did you truly say to your wife in your first conversation, i am back and how did that first conversation go and how did she sound you? >> i haven't spoken to her yet. she is probably still sleeping. it is is 8:30 in the morning here, and she is in the hospital and i don't want to wake her up so i said -- sent her mother in e-mail and said the first thing i do when i leave this press conference, let me know if she is awake and i will call her. >> marsha dennis with "associated press" and i'm sorry to continue on this same thread but what are you going to tell her and you know, do you think she got up to watch on tv? what are you thinking? >> i don't know. one of the reasons we didn't have her come down here is because it was really late in the night and what she is going through now is very physically challenging and difficult thing,

very busy schedule. it certainly would be disruptive. we all have kids right now that are just crashed from being up all night and for anybody you know anybody in this room, for us it is kind of easy because we have the sleeper shifted over long period of time but for you folks out on the runway you are probably pretty tired right now. what i'm going to say to her? i really miss her and can't wait to get back there tomorrow to see her. so we are all looking forward to spending time with their families. >> evan brown, "fox news" radio. colonel vitorri you are the last non-nasa astronaut to fly on the space shuttle. how important as the shuttle been to the non-nasa programs or the european space agency and so on and so forth? >> everything that we have done,

we have continuously been using -- on the shuttle. i don't recall exactly when was the first year but since the very beginning of the shuttle and obviously for me it is a privilege to be the last one on board the shuttle. the flight has been spectacular and i was very pleased to see the space station almost double the size that i've seen in 2005. i was very pleased to see the cupola and everything else that one way or the other went through the european space agency and industry. so i am very honored and privileged to have this opportunity with nasa. >> mark. >> mark with talking space.

question for commander kelly. ifrs are you in your truth here on this 26 shuttle landing facility when amos came over from geneva switzerland. i remember thinking how committed and focused you were on that hot august day and what duke spec that you will always remember about sts 134's crew and mission? >> will certainly in a 16 day flight we have got a lot of great stories that we will be telling for a long time. many that we certainly can't share with you, but what i will remember most you know are the four guys here and greg chamitoff. this is an incredible group. these bytes are really hard to do. it is very tiring, very long days technically difficult stuff. space walks are very hard and they were vatican arm operations

our pilot greg johnson here is probably one of the most experienced robotic arm operators the space station has now. even though he has not done a long duration flight from his two missions. this stuff is really really difficult and to do it with a group of people that are just so accomplished and so experienced and you know it makes it very easy for me. it makes my job a lot easier to have guys like this on this crew. so i will remember them more than anything. >> todd helgerson of florida today. i guess for mark kelly. i think you came in to the core in the mid-1990s and it is kind of fascinating to me to see how the content in these missions has grown and complexity over the years and i'm wondering if you could comment on what your perception

is on how much more complex these missions have become and whether or not it is possible, humanly possible to squeeze any more into a mission then you guys have done this time around? >> well, it is a good question. they have become more complex and you know, a lot of times you hear crews say this is the most complex shuttle mission ever. you wouldn't hear that out of me at this point. they are all really hard so i have never said that. they are really really difficult to do. they are all completely jampacked. but you know, i think you know to address, can you pack more and? it doesn't really matter. we are going to fly one more flight and six weeks. it is a crew of four. they are going to have an equally challenging time. it is atlanta's. the mission will have to be shorter because they can

transfer power from the space station to the space shuttle. so i think you know, they will have a challenging flight and these are really hard, but they should be. it is really expensive to fly the space shuttle or any spacecraft for that matter. so the fact that our days, that we wake up and we go to work and we do not stop until we fall asleep is appropriate. it is the way it should be. fortunately we are able to do this without generally without making mistakes and thankfully without hurting people as we go about that day on the space station. >> gina from abc news for joe and mike. you both pulled off an eight hour plus space what. that was exhausting for us down here. how was it for you up there on that night? >> was not planned. it was exhausting for us as

well. i was lucky to have mike there. we are. we sort of talk about a preflight about what her plans were. we know it was her longest and most difficult epa. and we knew that going into it so we had a plan that hey we are going to do what it takes and also because that was the day we knew we had to finish the task and see it through to completion. it was tough. i think mike will use a few fingernails over this and i certainly have some beat-up peta pants but we both -- i was fortunate that mark supported us being out there getting the job done. we knew we had a day off ahead of us the next day so everything sort of came together and sometimes looking forward you don't see the path but looking back i see how it was almost fortuitous that we have the day off and we were able to have eva to land on that day.

i'm just happy we were able to see it through and really overall we only left one thing out on the table which was a cable that we didn't deploy and that is a fairly straightforward task that can be left for others to do. the content was packed. we planned it that way and trained for your and i have to make sure that we optimized every moment of the eva's and they think luckily we were successful in doing that with the teamwork tween the whole crew, the support of crew and the three space walks so it worked out. >> i agree with drew. >> james dean and i was wondering if any of you guys got to see the soyuz the part, so how in need of an experience was bad or how eager are you to see that photo that hopefully will come out with you guys there are on the outpost, the only time

that picture with the shuttle there will ever be seen? >> if they did, they were not following the commander's orders. [laughter] we were asleep. that was her sleep time. it was right in the middle of our sleep time and we didn't have a chance to watch it as much as we wanted to. we just had to get our rest because it was a sprint, the whole mission was a spring that we needed a rest and we are definitely looking forward to that photo coming out. we also took a similar photo through some careful preplanning. we took a very nice fisheye lens on the last part of our last eva. greg chamitoff was able to sit on top of the world, top of the space station and look back and we have a couple of really nice shots where we can see and to into the space station, the shuttle on one side, the european automated transfer vehicle on the other side, the americans segment and the european japanese and it is just really a stunning picture and i

think greg said some nice words. we got to see that for real. it is not the only picture we are going to see but i think when apollo took the shots from the soyuz they would be spectacular. i think you you'll be impressed how magnificent that space station is. we saw it on the rendezvous, excuse me undocking and the re-rendezvous for the storm and we were just, we are kind of easily impressed. we have been there done that. we were impressed. we were excited like 5-year-olds at a rollercoaster park. it was pretty impressive. >> the if the shuttle program was winding down, endeavour did so well with the problems. do you feel that there would be more years left in the shuttle that remained? >> well, we made a decision sometime ago some time ago to retire the space shuttle on this

schedule to use -- to use the nasa budget to build a new vehicle, to go on into exploration, to have a simpler, safer spacecraft echo ecoi love the space shuttle. i fly it just like jerry here, flight as much as i could. i would probably go out there every couple of months but could to have the opportunity fly on the space shuttle but it is 30 years old and you know we have got to unocal and adapt and build new things and it is going to be probably five or six years, maybe seven, before we have a new u.s. spacecraft to take crewmembers to and from the international space station and station and then hopefully outside of lower orbit but we will get there. so this is the plan, but personally, kent i would love to. to fly the space shuttle every week if i could.

>> a question for mike fincke. you are an experienced space fire and obviously you set the new record for the most number of days the u.s. has been a space but this is your first space shuttle mission and i wonder if he could you could describe what that experience was like a specially in the fact that it was endeavour's last? >> both myself and roberto, we both flew twice on the soyuz and that was pretty spectacular, pretty amazing going through the russian program and both of us served as flight engineers, got to push a lot of buttons. that was pretty magnificent and we definitely treasure that, but getting a chance to fly on the space shuttle was the dream of mine and i could have asked to do it with a better group of guys here on our crew and

couldn't have asked for a better ground support team. so it was everything i dreamed of when i was an eight or 9-year-old kid that wanted to fly in this new space shuttle that was even built yet. and it was still in the planning. that is all i wanted to do. i made a t-shirt with the spatial on it with markers because they weren't out of the stores yet and i still have the t-shirt. childhood dreams don't always come true and sometimes your life comes in, but man, this dream, the reality was better than the dream. can you believe that? it was so incredible and we just landed a few hours ago and i'm still just basking in i can't believe it. was so surreal how wonderful that was so i'm thankful to my crewmates were supporting me and helping get through these really difficult and tough missions. we got through it and did it really well. was really amazing. >> we have time for one last question. >> kent kramer for spaceflight

magazine for drew. you worked on shuttle missions with the hubble space -- hubble space telescope. can you compare and contrast the excitement of those very different missions? >> the space station is quite a bit bigger than hubble and that is for sure. i guess i would talk about the eva experience of that was for hubble we parked it in the trunk, the payload bay of the space shuttle and we worked in close quarters. a feeling of being they are working on hubble although the tasks were intense and very detailed and very technical, and we did five walks back-to-back that made this schedule very hectic. however on space station, space station is very large and there is a long distance to move over so that is a lot of effort in and of itself, spending their time moving across the space station and doing that work. they are both very challenging in different ways, very

fatiguing. and he eva you do any work done outside in a space suit is fatiguing and so to compare them is to compare the relative size of the two spacecraft, the satellite versus the telescope versus the space station. but the work still wears you out after six or eight hours. the feeling is the same when you come back in the door. you were said it is over but happy to be done. >> this will conclude continuing coverage of the sts 134 mission. for more information as ts 134 or space shuttle endeavour visit www.nasa.gov/shuttle. thank you.

the federal reserve has made to disclosures of its lending practices in the past six months to comply with provisions in the

new financial regulations law. it is the first time in the federal reserve's almost 100 year history it has made such disclosures. next to house financial services subcommittee looks at the lending practices of the federal reserve. texas republican congressman ron paul chairs the hearing. >> the leader once again, apologized your phone for the inconvenience. i apologize to myself because nobody likes to be inconvenienced but it looks like we have a system set up here that we can pursue with our hearings. and without objection, all members opening statements will remain part of the record. the chair note some members may have additional questions or this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. without it there's -- objection the hearing will remain open for 30 days. these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. also, i would like to emphasize at this time that this hearing

deals with a very complex matter and it is a large amount of material and therefore written questions i am sure will be followed up so i ask for is much corporation and see you can give is because there are times when questions are sent in and they sort of get lost but because there is so much and it is competition in our time looks like it is going to be shortened, we may have to depend a lot on our written questions, so we ask for your cooperation there. but i will go ahead with opening statements and offer time for anybody else who wants to have an opening statement. i want to emphasize that these

hearings i consider very very important. they have come about because of many things that happened over the last several years. there has been a lot of movement into countries for more transparency in general as well as with the federal reserve system and i think i position on this is fairly well-known. but also there has been legislation passed, the dodd-frank bill has stipulations about more information coming to us by that legislation passed last year. there is also been to court cases that has required under the freedom of information act that we will be dealing with a lot of that today and also the provisions in the law that was language put in by basically senator sanders that has required some additional information. but you know what is referred to today so often on hearings and

the materials that came out of the freedom of information act is called the dump and i find that rather interesting to call it that, because it sounds like a lot of the material was dumped and when you think of 29,000 pages of technical information, it is very large and a lot of people have been working very hard and quite frankly it isn't all that easy. you know it reminds me of a story that was told and supposedly a true story that an individual was being audited by the federal reserve and they came to him and they said we want five years of everything that you have ever done, every receipt you have ever had. and of course that made him very unhappy so he put them all together and it was a basket and he dumped them and i will tell you what it didn't go over very well. he got into a lot of trouble.

i'm not suggesting this is similar but it is a story that reminds me when i try to figure out really what we have is a lot of material that is not easy. you know, the one argument and understand the argument very clearly on the hesitancy of the federal reserve not to give out too much information too early with the idea that it might be proprietary if i set the stage for concerns in the market. but you know, i think of this in contrast to what the purpose of the sec is. the sec has a purpose to investigate the reports and get them information out immediately and that is their responsibility and if a company doesn't let us know exactly what they are doing and what they're accounting procedures are they get into a lot of difficulty. the argument seems to be different for the federal reserve data oh if we have information about a bank that might be you know in difficulty,

in a market situation that information should be available to it. so i think i take the position that information shouldn't eat that detrimental to us. and that the more we can get the better. i am hopeful that today we will be able to ask pertinent questions to get more information and members can follow up with more questions later on, and that there will be more transparency without ever answering anybody. that certainly would be my goal. so i would like now to yield five minutes to mr. clay. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you so much for holding this hearing to examine the information disclosed by the federal reserve in compliance with the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act and the freedom of information act.

also i want to thank the witnesses for appearing today. due to the u.s. financial crisis, the congress passed the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act of 2010. this legislation was crafted as a response to the financial crisis which has caused nearly 10 million american jobs and over $10 trillion in household wealth. nearly 4 million families have lost their homes to foreclosure and an additional 4.5 million have slipped into the foreclosure process or are seriously behind on their mortgage payment. according to the financial crisis inquiry report, combination of excessive borrowing risky investments and the lack of transparency put the financial system on a collision course of self-destruction.

in the years leading up to the crisis, too many financial institutions as well as to many households borrowed too much, leaving them vulnerable to financial distress if the value of the investment declined even modestly. for example as of 2007, the five major investment banks were operating with extraordinarily thin capital. by one measure their leverage ratios were as high as 421. meaning for every $40 in assets, there was only 1 dollar capital to cover losses. less than a 3% drop in asset value could wipe out a company. leverage was often hidden in off-balance sheet entities and drifted his positions and window dressing of financial reports available to the investing public. within the financial system, the danger of this debt was

increased because transparency was not required or desired. undercover corporate dealings assisted in the financial meltdown which still plagues us today. in order for democracy and capitalism to exist correctly, transparency must be at the core and trust and transparency and the rule of law are fundamental to this nation's success. business depends in some way on trust. trust in business produces good products and addressed it does this well deliver good services. democracy depends in some way on trust. transparency promotes government accountability, free and fair elections, competition and free markets and the rule of law are critical to it. the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act addresses these issues by

reforming the federal reserve. one, and limits the federal reserve's 13 -- 3 emergency lending authority by prohibiting emergency lending to an individual entity. the secretary secretary of treasury must approve any lending program and the program must be broad-based and loans cannot be made to insolvent firms. collateral must be sufficient to protect taxpayers from losses. and two it requires the federal reserve to disclose counterparties and information about amounts, terms and conditions of 13-3 and discount window lending and open market transactions on an ongoing basis with specified time delays. these are just a few examples of the importance of the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act.

thank you mr. chairman and i look forward to the witnesses comments. >> i thank the gentleman. do you care for an opening statement? no more opening statement so we will go on and introduce our witnesses. first we have mr. scott alvarez as general counsel with the board of governors since 2004. he has been with the board for 30 years. also we have mr. thomas baxter jr. and the general counter and executive vice president of the legal group that the federal reserve thank new york since 1995. he also served as deputy general counsel of the fomc. mr. baxter has been with the new york fed for more than 30 years. without objection, your written statements will be made a part of the record. it has been agreed upon by the witnesses, ranking member clay of myself and mr. alvarez will

deliver the oral remarks for the joint written testimony of mr. alvarez and mr. baxter. this testimony may run longer than the customary five minutes and i yield now to mr. alvarez. >> chairman paul, ranking member clay members of the subcommittee, thomas baxter the general counsel of the federal reserve tank and i appreciate that part our tendency to discuss the way the federal reserve informs the congress and the american people about its his policies and actions. ..

lost to date on an discount window lending. a federal reserve regular larry releases sycophant detailed information about its operations in order to promote the understanding of how the federal reserve foster's financial stability and economic stability and facilitate an evaluation of our actions while preserving the ability to effectively fulfill the responsibilities that the congress has given the federal reserve. since 1914 the federal reserve has published its balance sheet every week. we also publish full financial statements annually that are audited by an independent public accounting firm which for the last four years has been delayed. these audits covered mainly in the tool and iii as well as the transactions conducted through the discount window and with foreign central banks. the federal reserve publishes a special monthly report to

congress posted on the web site the details the federal reserve's emergency lending program including providing informational on the amount of the lending on each program, the type and level of collateral associated with those loans and information about the borrowers under the surface of these. in addition the federal reserve bank of new york maintains a web site that includes schedules of purchases and sales of securities as part of open market operations with information describing the security involved. fully cooperating with the gao in an extensive review with each of the special lending facilities developed during the crisis of this review will assess operational integrity, internal controls, security and collateral policies, policies governing third-party contractors and the existence of any conflict of interest or inappropriate favoritism in the establishment or operation of the facilities. as provided by the dodd-frank act on december 1st, 2010, the

board published detailed information on its lid web site about the actions during the financial crisis. this includes the names of far worse, the amount borrowed, the date credit was extended, the interest rate charged, information about collateral and the description of the credit terms under each facility. similar information was provided for the foreign central banks on the dollar liquidity swap lines with the federal research. for the agency transactions details included the name of the counterparty, the security purchase are sold and the date, amount and price of the transaction. on march 31st, 2011, the federal reserve released documents related to the discount window in response to requests filed on the freedom of information act. the march 31st release include the documents containing information related to borrowers of the discount window between

august 8th, 2007 and march 1st, 2010. there wasn't required to be disclosed under the dodd-frank act. going forward, the dodd-frank act provides for the release of information on any broad based emergency landing facilities one year after the termination of the facility as well as the gao audit of the facility. the act also provides for the release of information regarding discount lending and open market operations conducted after july 21st, 2010 with a two-year lag. for lending facilities including both emergency landing facilities and the discount window and for open market operations the federal reserve will publish information disclosing the identity of the bar were or counterparty, transaction amount, interest rate or discount and the collateral pledged. the federal reserve believes the lag provided by the dodd-frank act with the release of transaction level information established an important balance between the public interest and information about participation

ads and transactions in the federal reserve and the need to ensure the system can effectively use its congressionally authorized power to maintain stability in the financial system and implement monetary policy. we will carefully monitor development and the use of the discount window and other federal reserve facilities and keep congress informed about their effectiveness. the federal reserve has worked and will continue to work with congress to ensure our operations from both the highest standards of accountability, stewardship and policy effectiveness consistent with meeting our statutory responsibilities. we appreciate the opportunity to describe the federal reserve efforts on this subject and are happy to answer any questions you may have and will be responsive to any written questions you may submit as well. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. i will yield myself five minutes but announced we will likely be able to have repeated

questioning. i think the time will permit that, but i will start off with five minutes. i first want to ask unanimous consent to admit an article for the record from bloomberg on the $80 billion secret of loan without objection. i want to refer to one document, and this document from the material that we got from the federal reserve is called a chart pack of monitoring metrics for fed facilities, and i'm sure you know all 29,000 pages as you know exactly what i'm talking about. but it tells you about the problem that we have in trying to find out information, and this particular document has 327 pages to it. but in this particular document it had some interesting material that i did not know about and i want to ask about it, and it

reveals there was a previously undisclosed fed lending program known as the open market operations and its referred to as stomo. this is something new and it allows us to give .01% as free money to companies like goldman sachs and was a free loan to these well-connected businesses. but also the problem we had in analyzing this to find out information that we are looking for is it turns out that just in this particular area, 81% of the content has been redacted. so, we end up with a lot of pages and then we end up with 19% has information that we have to sort through. the question is why were these

details not mentioned? is it that everything has to be done in secret? we would like to know, the people would like to know, we didn't see any evidence until this was dug out of here, and maybe it was mistakenly not redacted or something like that. it makes us wonder why we don't know about this and that is one of my beefs with the federal reserve is that there's so much power, so much financial power you literally can have transactions greater than what we can do with our own budget, and that's why it's a deep concern to me but many other people as well. but, why was this not published and are these and other programs that have yet to be disclosed are there others? why were so many pages redacted and can you claim it to be in compliance with the freedom of

information act when we don't know what has been excluded, and i would like to get your reaction from this and talk specifically about this one program and what's been going on with it. >> mr. chairman, the program that you are referring to was not a secret program. it was actually publicly announced by the federal reserve on march 7, 2008 when the program began. it was a short-term program that ended in january, 2009, and transactions that were conducted as part of our open market operations were reported along with other open market operations on the new york federal reserve bank website very quickly after the transactions occurred. the document you have before you are from the response for the

freedom of information act request, and so that it sells should explain why there are reductions, the way the freedom of information act works is it is a request for certain types of information and documents, so reductions are first the agency collects all documents than the have any information that relates to the request. the information that is not requested is taken out of the documents, redacted from the documents simply because it's not responsive to the request. so it's not desired to keep things secret, it is a desire to be responsive to the request, though often when a requesters asks for documents word is information that is extraneous or not the kind of information the was requested, not relevant to the request, that's taken out of the documentation and that's why you see so much reduction in the documents before you. the documents were reviewed by the court and released by the court in accordance with the

freedom of information act. >> does that mean that somebody would follow up and brought in not request that all that material would become available, would they just have to change the freedom of information act request? >> if another request for made for a broad range of information we would review the information, determine what is confidential and what could be released and a decision would then be made on that request. >> would be made so broad to turn over everything? >> i'm not sure there are enough people in the world to look at everything we have to turn over everything, but we would do the best we could. >> wi-fi if minutes up and i now yield to mr. clay. >> thank you. just one question. has the undramatic and i believe welcome the increase in transparency, including your own initiatives and those called for

in the wall street reform act of 2010 had any adverse or troubling consequences either from policy making at the fed or for the financial institutions that you regularly interacted with? >> we think the increase in transfer into particularly around monetary policy that we've taken them in the last few years have been very helpful and responsive and have an improved understanding of the federal reserve than the actions, policy actions we are trying to take. we provided a lot of detailed information about credit transactions we engaged in during the crisis. there have been congress we think struck a very important balance between the need for access to that information and providing a delay so that participants in the transactions don't experience stigma that often occurs when there's an immediate release of

information, allowing their for an explanation for why institutions have participated in the facility's. we are monitoring whether there will be any effect. we of course won't know until we see how the facilities operate in the future. we will keep the congress informed on the effectiveness if there is any to that effect we will let you know. >> so you will inform the congress as to if their needs to be changes and -- okay, thank you for the response. at this time i would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman of new york. >> thank the gentleman for yielding, and i thank the chairman for holding this important hearing and i welcome both of our witnesses and i think we all have to remember that we were on the verge of collapse, we had the great recession instead of the depression because the monetary policy and the steps we took.

one of the steps we've taken to stabilize the markets and move forward is the dodd-frank bill and require the gao to conduct an audit the federal reserve and we also required the fed to make information of the transactions through emergency landing facilities from december, 2008 to march, 2010 available to the public. in addition dodd-frank required the fed to disclose information about the entities that accused the discount window or under i believe it was section 133 lending facilities. but in addition to what we required in dodd-frank, the federal reserve is subject to the congressional oversight, and i would like to ask the two

witnesses can you give the committee some examples of the type of congressional oversight that you are already required to do even before dodd-frank. >> to what the most important types of oversight are of the chairman of the federal reserve and the fomc provide testimony on the economy, twice each year on the call of the house and senate and that's an important check on the monetary policy and the state of the economy. another important method is this hearing in hearings like this that we are going through this stuff and the governor and chairman of the reserve, presidents of the reserve bank have often been called to congress to report on every aspect of our duties and how we implement various policies and we use those as oversight and we

explain the positions be taken for which the interaction between the testimony in particular that have been effective form of oversight. >> my time is about to expire but as you know there's a gao audit authority now. was their anything excluded from the auditor? >> the gao is authorized to audit a full range of the federal reserve responsibilities that include all of the emergency transactions, the discount window, the supervisory authority, to reassess specks of authority and an area congress reserved for the reserve is an implementation of the policy. the actual policy-making decision process. the gao does look at how we implement a policy and the far

left making sure that transactions actually occur and therefore on the balance sheet that when they are fully disclosed the decision making process for the monetary policy is the one thing outside of the scope of authority. >> mr. chairman, may i follow up with one brief question on what are the arguments for excluding it, why was the excluded, was the argument for it? >> the importance of allowing the federal reserve and the fomc to conduct monetary policy independently is demonstrated throughout the world in both actions, the other central banks and a variety of studies of monetary policy. the point i think is the congress wanted to reserve to the fomc the ability to have

discussions foley and free and frank and to explore possible alternatives for the monetary policy to reach the best monitor policy decision. moreover, if the gao doesn't do audits in the sense of the technical audit like a financial auditor might do but those performance reviews and policy reviews so that would mean that schiavo would review the alternatives considered for monetary policy, how the decisions were made, whether they were actually appropriate that the because second-guessing of the fomc casting into doubt whether the fomc was actually making the policy decision or whether the gao was making policy decisions and monetary policy and make it more difficult for the monetary policy to be done effectively by the federal reserve. thank you. stomachs before mr. chairman. i yield five minutes to the vice chairman from north carolina. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much, and i appreciate you holding these hearings and all

that's been said. i'm going to give little different approach. i represent the third district of northeastern carolina. it's a great district to represent and the air station banks, and the frustration of the average business person down in my district is deepened severe, and we've had numerous inquiries from the district, the citizens of the third district about the federal reserve and how the decisions are made and i know you cannot go into some of the backroom negotiations i'm not even asking that, but how do you say to the small business owner the crisis situation we seem to find ways to help foreign banks find into these,

and i'm looking here at the note that my staff prepared for me that harley-davidson, mcdonald's, ge, verizon, toyota, and yet, i've got people in my district saying that i go to the local banks and i can't get any loans and my credit has always been good. ye and how does the federal reserve seem to be able to find a way to hold these entities that are gigantic and full of greed and manipulation. the cheated and they get bailed out. they get the help when the average business person down in eastern north carolina and probably across america they can't even go to a bank based in banking with 15 or 20 years and get a loan, and yet here we are at the federal reserve looking

at those foreign banks who might need some help for these corporations who might need some help. that's why the hearing is important. the transparency, the trust, that's a big word for me, trust is not there with the average citizen when it comes to the federal reserve, and if it hadn't been for the pushback, i won't name of the entities that pushed to tell you to show the bottom line, to show what was in the closet of the decisions, we never would have known it, and yet i know you gentlemen of attorneys and you're probably not get the position where the person not to be here that ought to have taken on the bible to tell the truth to the american people, that's my concern is how do we build to see what has happened at the federal reserve? >> so congressman, we understand that and feel the same

frustration. the programs designed and implemented by the federal reserve and the financial crisis were not designed to aid big companies for the sake of 18 big companies. the program we designed for example but talf program we designed was designed to pass money and credit liquidity on to the american people. so flexible talf resulted in 3 million more auto loans during the crisis than would have occurred. a million more student loans, almost a million small business loans. the programs you're talking about that aided harley-davidson and tokyo that and other companies for the commercial paper facilities which provide short-term funding so they could continue to keep employment and manufacturing up in the united states so they could continue to provide jobs and provided

opportunities in the united states. it was our efforts world designed to try to keep the economy moving in order to help individuals and small businesses , not for the sake of helping the larger institutions. and i understand that there is a different perception. part of the perception i think comes from the fact that most of the financial tools that were given are designed to work through banks or large markets and it's working through so we use the tools the best we can to have the funding aid the broadest range of people possible. >> i guess mr. chairman i know my time is about up but i guess in a way that if it had not been for these bloomberg and wall street always raising the questions to investigations, i don't know if we would be having this hearing today. i don't know.

>> thank the gentleman. i yield five minutes to mr. maloney of new york. >> i thank the chairman for yielding and on friday the jobs numbers come out into the economy has been improving, not as fast as we would like but we are digging our way out of that hole, and now that we have the benefit of hindsight, and we are slowly recovering from the financial crisis of 2008i know that some have taken the position that i do not agree with that they've taken the position that the fed lending during this time actually help contribute to the crisis and some have argued that the fed didn't need to take the actions that it took because the situation would have stabilized on its own and would like to ask our panelists today isn't it

true without the actions the fed took that by not setting up the facilities it did, by not giving institutions access to the discount window to provide additional liquidity to the economy that the crisis would have been far worse so your comments, please mr. oliver is and mr. baxter. >> thank you, congressman. we do believe that the facilities the staff of the federal reserve established did ease the crisis and they certainly were designed to do that. the studies that are beginning to come forward now are starting to show that they actually were successful in unfreezing various markets, commercial markets, the asset backed securities markets providing liquidity to the financial system that was important for the financial system to continue to operate. it was provided without any

losses to the taxpayer and the emergency landing facilities resulted in $9 billion worth of interest in the fees that were passed on to the treasury. as was explained to congressman jones, the facilities were designed and a -- to provide a real relief to american consumers and small businesses in the form of student loans and in the form of auto loans, small business loans, credit card loans, as well as allowing the operation of companies relied on the paper market which had frozen up to continue to find a source of funding to keep their operations going so we think the surface of these were successful and a good use of the taxpayers' funds. >> i would say that there is an oppression and i hear it and other members of congress here

it all of the actions the fed took during the crisis served only to help financial institutions. but i want to make it clear the point and i want to make sure people understand that all of these actions were in the form of loans, and in fact over 125 billion has been returned to the treasury over and above what was loaned out. that's what i read and i want to know if that's true. >> in the last two years we've provided about $127 billion of earnings to the treasury. >> can you give the committee members and the general public some examples of how the lending helped not only stabilize the economy and keep our financial institutions in place and literally help mainstream and working men and women i would

like to return to the talf program that was specifically designed to make sure like loans were made in the united states to help students obtain educational loans for college to help small businesses help sba loans, credit card loans to provide all the lending, to provide equipment leasing and a variety of other kind of loans that were not being made during the financial crisis because the liquidity shortages. that program was extraordinarily successful. >> does it still operate? >> it has closed, but there are still about $14 billion of loans outstanding there were $70 billion of credit extended through the program through its life. much of it has been repaid. >> i would like to ask about a number of programs that the fed engages in including holding

gold for foreign countries, account services, liquidity programs. in your experience, are these common activities for central banks? >> yes, congresswoman they are common for central banks around the world to hold reserves, and as you know, the dollar is the principal reserve currency, and the federal reserve of new york we hold over $3 trillion on behalf of foreign central banks in countries. it is a very important to hold those sizable reserves because those sizable reserves are principally invested in treasury securities which helps to finance the debt of the united states so holding the dollar reserves is a very important function of the federal reserve and we do that at the new york

fed and other financial banks performer around the world. >> i yield five minutes to mr. greene from texas. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> i'm interested in the central banks of other countries as compared to our country, and the disclosure they compare to our country, and i know that of the systems are not going to be the same but with reference to disclosure can you give some indication so we can have some sort of a comparison with? >> the practices of disclosure very quite a bit around the world but i believe the federal reserve is one of the, if not the most transparent central bank. many of the central bank in the developed countries do not

comfortable, announced their policy decisions or the votes that are taken, the federal reserve does both of those. they do not announce or provide minutes for the meetings, federal reserve does provide minutes three weeks after each meeting. any foreign central banks do not publish at all the transcripts of their meetings, and the federal reserve publishes the transcript five years after each meeting on the discount window lending that is a common power that each foreign bank has but they are much less transparent in that area as well. he made a call that in the start of a crisis it was a leak about the discount window loans made by the bank of england to northern iraq that resulted in the run on a northern rock. so the foreign countries tend to be more circumspect about the information they need to

disclose about the discount window lending operations. yes, sir? >> with respect to the incident that mr. alvarez to script, the british parliament has written the report which is titled the run on the rock, and it has a section that describes how that fund began, and that was triggered by public reports about a borrowing by northern rocket the bank of england, and with the permission of the chair we could submit the report for the benefit of the subcommittee. thank you. >> i know the you've probably gone through this, but explain to those who are viewing why it's important to have disclosure and why you try to achieve this balance you have with reference to disclosure. for example, why not just have

the cpa come in and all that everything all the time every day. what is the downside? >> we do have the cpa come in to an audit of our financial statements include in all of our transactions and discount window lending and open market transactions. the thought on disclosure is disclosing the names of borrowers and the amount they borrow provide the american people with more information to make sure the federal reserve is acting in a responsible way in its lending facilities. the balance on the other side is that the discount window is a very important tool for but in good times and in bad times and in good times for providing a short-term liquidity to institutions when they needed and also as a monetary policy tool to help reduce the volatility of interest rates and in the emergency times to

provide liquidity when it's to institutions that are generally healthy but where panic has caused asset values to be out of lack so the institution can't find itself in the appropriate way so it's a very important tool. the concern is that because it is often used by both calfee and troubled institutions the public will be confused as it seems the names of a borrower the discount window and not be certain of that institution is healthy or not and if a healthy institution is wrong we thought to be troubled because its access to the discount window, then that could cause problems for the institution. the causes institutions to back away from using the discount window and that makes it a much less effective tool both in good times and bad times for a dressing of a liquidity crisis so it's important to have a balance in the disclosure and that is why we think the lag time, the two

[cheering] between the actual loan and the announcement of the bar were is important, and i believe the institution has a pergola time to explain itself and demonstrate itself and not be tied to troubled transaction at a difficult time. >> i think my time is up. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'd like to direct this question to mr. baxter and i want to fall upon mr. jones question about how some of these decisions are made and how sometimes the big guys seem to benefit they lose their homes and their jobs and quite frankly it's very difficult and it seems like people are too little to save to forget about them, too big to let them fail i'd like to

direct you about the foreign loans and it seems the figures i look at that nearly one-third all the loans during this period of time went to foreign banks, and at one time at the peak of this 88% of the discount window loans went to foreign banks but than at the new york fed essentially 100% of the loans were going to foreign banks, and the answer i get is foreign banks that have subsidiaries and they qualify under the rules, wouldn't say the law but under rules that they tend to go to the discount window but it seems to go way out of proportion when you think of that tremendous amount of loan that went to the foreign banks, and this is not easy for the average american citizen to understand.

could you enlighten us on why it seems to be disproportionate, ensure they don't represent the percentage the financial problems that exist, you know, a one-third of the problems didn't deal with foreign banks surely but what is the explanation for that? >> first, the starting point is federal statutory law in section 13, paragraph 14 of the federal reserve act says to the federal reserve that with respect to discount window borrowings we are to treat the branch or the agency of a foreign banker just like we treat our own a u.s. chartered depository institutions. so there's a principal of the national treatment that we start with and it's a principle that is embedded in the federal reserve act itself. and so we must create the branch and agency of foreign bank in the same matter we treat our own. so that's the starting point. second is new york is the money center of the united states, and

with respect to foreign banks that intend to come to the country and invest in people and form branches and agencies in the united states, many of the foreign banking organizations look to the foremost organizations and the money center which is in new york. so the short answer to your question is the law requires us to land to branches and agencies with respect to new york in particular, that tends to be the place when the foreign banking organizations to enter the country. when the system invites foreign banks they are making most of their money overseas just open up the subsidiary and in new york and therefore they get the line of credit and the protection of the bank and it's sort of almost like free insurance for them. do you think this is a good idea

that a foreign bank all you have to do is open up and get these bailouts? it just doesn't seem fair at all. >> fees for loans, chairman paul, they were not tiffs in any way and they have to repaid just like everyone else, principal and interest. second, if a foreign bank, and some do decide they would prefer not to form a branch or an agency but to start a subsidiary bank in the united states, that is their option and some foreign banks do just that and of course the subsidiary bank which would have a u.s. charter that has access to the discount window as well. >> one more thing there is a limit on the amount they can borrow. they are limited by the amount of collateral that they have that they can boost the discount window so that's a dollar collateral and the united states. that doesn't allow the foreign central bank and in the foreign bank to borrow to the full extent of its assets worldwide.

barbosa in order to support its dollar activities and those dollar activities are largely not exclusively a point there but largely in the united states. >> to the argument be made that maybe the banks should have had a lot more subsidiaries in new york may be greece wouldn't be in so much trouble with that would have bailed them out too. >> the assets are increase and they would go to the greek central bank to borrow, not to the united states. >> do you care for another series? >> mr. chairman, thank you. i, you know, looking through a lot of these reports, and i want to go to libya and see if you can help me understand the

rationale by the treasury at the research i will just read one paragraph, zero banking corporation part owned by the central bank of libya in new york branch to get 73 loans from the u.s. federal reserve in the 18 months after lehman brothers holdings collapsed. help me understand so i can explain to the people back in my district that here we are in an undeclared war any time i think we haven't lost in the military at this point but we fired a barrage of missiles and we're spending millions of dollars probably billions by now and helping other countries what does the protection if libya is gaddhafi and gaddhafi as libya

or has been free perk of time and we made these loans to the affiliate to libya relationships what happens in a wartime situation where we are trying to drive gaddhafi out of business, and we have made these loans to him or libya, how do you explain that to that person that each and everyone of us both sides of the political aisle talk about today they can't get the loans. how do you explain this to walter jones who happens to be a member of congress so he can explain it to his people back home? >> the arab banking corporation is a bank is located in bahrain. it's not located in libya work

with the treasury and the state department though the of responsibility for identifying banks that the united states should not deal with because of foreign policy reasons, the responsibility for designating the banks rest with the treasury and state department. we consult with them to make sure we don't lend to institutions to the torment we shouldn't be lending to. at that time our credits were extended, the banking corporation was not identified by treasury or state department as a bank that were of concern. it was a foreign bank that had in operation in the united states that was well traded in all of the respect is like another foreign bank from a foreign country.

>> mr. chairman, i tell you, knowing that you for many years picked up more and more support for your legislation to audit the federal reserve i wish truthfully it has nothing to do with you, gentlemen today i tell you that the distrust out here by the american people is as deep and sincere as i've ever seen and it does not only congress itself, not only the administration, but the federal reserve is just at this point at a very low image as it relates to trust, and i'm not talking about you personally. you are men of high integrity, i know that, but right now the federal reserve is not held in high esteem by many people in this country. i will yield back. >> thank you. i have a few short questions and then i will finish up. one thing i want to follow on

mr. jones said is the confidence is very low when you speak of independence and i understand your terms. when people hear when you say independent they hear secrecy you're going to keep it from us. like the point i made at the beginning, to the pressure companies to reveal information where the federal reserve does the opposite know, we can't tell anything because it might disturb the markets. during the crisis or any time that you are aware of has the federal reserve or the federal reserve participating gold swap arrangements? >> the federal research doesn't own any gold at all, we haven't owned gold since 1934 s we haven't engaged in any gold swaps so it appears on the balance sheet that you hold

gold. >> appears on balance sheet is gold certificates. when we turn in before 1934 we did the federal reserve did our gold we turned over by all to the treasury we've received an term for that gold certificate of the treasury entered into because under the exchange fund i would assume they probably had the legal authority they didn't do it then because you have the securities for essentially ought gold owned by the treasury. >> we have a document called gold certificates that represents the value at a statutory rate and still we gave to the treasury in 19 -- >> still measured $42 an ounce which makes no sense whatsoever but the conventional wisdom today says that gold is really not money.

if you're for the gold standard there's something wrong with you, and yet we hold the gold, and there have been suggestions made in a sort of encourage the suggestion gold is not money. it's an asset because it on your balance sheets, would you have a position on this question in the treasury just give it back to the people, the people added at one time would you have any of objection to that, would you advise us and say no, that's not good, we ought to hold the gold or do you think holding the gold is a good idea or a bad idea? >> i have no position on that. >> no position. >> it's a matter for the treasury. it's not in the purview of the -- >> what you have an opinion? >> i would agree with mr. alvarez. >> it's amazing because i ask questions and the federal

reserve. >> i asked mr. bernanke but it's always know, we have to hold on to these assets. but if it's not money and we don't need it we aren't going on the gold standard, i mean, i would think that they shouldn't be holding it. the reason i ask that is the truth is gold is money and people don't throw it away and people to cling on to it, but i would be -- really there's a lot of people who suspect because the lack of transparency that there's going to be a tremendous amount of gold and loans made and central banks sold a lot of gold to us after the last ten years, a lot of the gold has left the west and has gone to the east and the central banks that now have positive trade balance by of the gold. there has to be a message in there and a significant and significance even for those who want the restraints of gold

there has to be a message out there that we should look at it because we are in a financial mess it has to do with our monetary system is being reflected today in rising prices and weak economies and just putting all this money isn't doing any good. all this stuff that's been done for three years and deal with the economic statistics to your portable, and these people who lost their jobs are still unemployed, the people who bought stocks in the year 2000, if they held on they probably haven't even broken even. they probably lost purchasing power. so eventually i think -- i know this is off the subject a little bit, but is this reflected only in that we don't know exactly what goes on, and when they don't know then they get suspicious and say it's kept secret from us why aren't we allowed to know, and we just march on, and the tide of

dollars we are talking about and when we hear about this going to the central banks and the banks that gaddhafi was part owner this stuff is it really stirs up the demotion of a lot of people. but i do appreciate you being here, and i know that there will be a lot of questions. there will be written questions submitted and we would appreciate your cooperation and send our answers back and i think you. >> thank you, chairman. >> this hearing is adjourned. >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

the energy department shut down nv's yucca mountain's nuclear waste site located approximately 90 miles from las vegas. next a house energy subcommittee examines the federal management of the facility in the area. illinois republican congressman john shimkus chairs this to our subcommittee hearing. >> [inaudible conversations] >> i'm going to call the hearing

to order, and the plan is since we do about -- mr. waxman is here, since we do about ten minutes each opening statements we can start doing those, and then we can wait for doc hastings and then go to the tradition. the committee is that we go to members for their opening statements after hours and then because of our schedules we will just move to the second panel after that. so, with that, i'm going to begin in recognizing myself for five minutes for an opening statement to recycle the hearing to order to recognize myself. this is a part of our ongoing effort to the committee to make certain we are providing safe and sustainable long-term storage of high-level nuclear fuel. specifically today we focus our attention on the part of the department of energy play and the process by which decisions have been made when it comes to the long-term repository. the matter if you support the continued use of nuclear energy

or if you don't, we have a responsibility to deal with the existing spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste material from the nation's defense complex. as we sit in this room, spent nuclear fuel from commercial power plants is piling up and remains scattered around the country in two-thirds of the state. it was always a determination that the federal government not the individual states for the utility companies would take responsibility for the safe storage of spent fuel and other nuclear materials. after a careful search we found a scientifically proven geologically ideal site to store these materials. it is on secure federal property in a remote desert deep under yucca mountain. now we are at a crossroads. politics, not science, is driving the debate. it's time to decide if we will keep our end of the deal with the nation's citizen by delivering exactly what they've been paying for all these years. or if a ratepayer and taxpayer

money by failing to deliver on our end of a contract recently the government accountability office report the obama administration withdraw of the yucca mountain license application. what the gao found is the unilateral decision comes at a cost of $15 billion so far, 9.5 billion directly collected from every american's electricity bill. but they won't end there. the gao estimates taxpayers are on the hook for 15 billion a and additional $500 million for each year the project is delayed beyond 2020. meanwhile, the u.s. treasury will be paying tax payer dollars, not to read page dollars in utility for the doe's breach of contract. billions of dollars and over 30 years of research from the nation's top scientists were jettisoned, not for technical or safety reasons, but as the gao report stated, social and

political opposition to the permanent repository, not technical issues is the key obstacle. when i visited yucca mountain last month i heard first hand the overwhelming support from local residents and officials from the surrounding counties. we would hear first hand of that support today from those representing the locals closest to yucca mountain. locals to raise families in that area and those that are directly affected the most took upon themselves to ensure the safety of their children and grandchildren to an independent scientific investigative program, and what they found is high-level nuclear fuel could be stored at yucca mountain while keeping their water supply safe. a major concern particularly for locals. they also know that it has the ability to infuse desperately needed jobs both directly and indirectly related to the yucca mountain site. we must not let the political and stop us from keeping a promise to tax payers. the licensing process for yucca mountain must legally continue so that we can give the american

people the escher a state, centralized per minute storage site for spent nuclear fuel. i want to think all of our witnesses for being here today. i look for to their verbal testimony and willingness to answer any questions members may have. with that, i will yield back the balance of my time and recognize the ranking member from georgia. >> i appreciate the participation of all the witnesses today. mr. green asked me to fill his chair in his absence and i like to think in part that's because he knows about my district that makes this hearing particularly important to me considering both commercial and defense applications i probably represent as many people touched by the nuclear industry as anyone else in congress. i am proud to represent the expanding plan and the georgia and i also represent a large percentage of the people who worked at the savannah river site just across the river and south carolina.

those attachment number of thousands and other positive economic impacts are very high. for example, burt county collects about 75% of all of its tax revenues and a lot of school books, police cars and trash pickups and one corporate citizen. however the benefits for intelligence. nuclear industry is only as safe as we may get we manage the process easier at the waist and had a very safe industry. however, as the industry grows as in georgia and a couple of other places around the country, and as the waste accumulates, we need to have a concerted waste management strategy. believe we are too far down the yucca mountain road in time and money to turn back now. but if we aren't going to pursue yucca mountain, then we need to be working together on another strategy coming and we need to stick with it. that's one reason why i am disappointed that the blue ribbon commission was unable to príncipe today.

the blue ribbon commission was recently in my district at the savannah river site. i'm hopeful they will have some concrete consensus solutions to offer and suggested in the committee's best interest to have them back as soon as possible. i know the witnesses to people have good inside on the way forward. i want to thank them for their time and the chairman and i yield back. ..

of spent nuclear fuel for commercial nuclear power plants and 75 sites in 33 states. 70,000 tons and over edc, 85 and over 33 states. it was approved by the previous administration as a repository for nuclear waste. as you well know, spent over $15 billion in taxpayer funds through 2009. it is clear the safe and permanent storage of nuclear waste is a critical element of a long-term energy strategy.

study after study has shown the mountain is suitable for storage of that waste. we are not here today to discuss the department of energy's decision to terminate the yak about repository. the administration decided to ignore the science into god. this administration has what i think our political reasons to determine it is not a workable option and is proposing millions of taxpayer dollars be spent in other studies. it is unsettling the d.o.e. step short of characterizing unsuitable and chose unworkable. it is clear the administration does this to circumvent the law as defined by the nuclear waste policy act to the basis for their determination. we know the economic impact is no guarantee it is more acceptable or less costly

alternative can be identified, which will only prolong the need for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel existing reactor sites. delays and repositories have been created and estimated $15.6 billion taxpayer liability plus an additional $500 million each year beyond 2020. this is not only financial issue but a financial security issue. we cannot have over 70,000 tons of radioactive waste scattered across 75 sites. we need a central repository and it is my opinion that is the mountain. at this point i would like to yield to the distinguished subcommittee chairman, mr. whitney. >> thank you, mr. barton. this is my view a perfect example of a wasteful federal government on a very important project. verity heard about the amount of money that is spent spent,

$15 billion treaty for it about 65,000 tons located in 33 states, 75 sites. you've heard about the legal liability being sued by nuclear power plants and not taking responsibility for this material and doctors an ongoing viability. that is already 15 billion of up to 50 billion it's no wonder the americans people are frustrated with the federal government and the federal debt we have. so i want to thank chairman shimkus for having this hearing to finally find a solution and i would yield. >> i'm supposed to yield to mr. barton. >> chairman emeritus yield to mr. murphy. >> i will yield the remaining

time. >> thank you very much. retirement is saving the waste in a yukiya mountain. simply put the administration is acting in violation of law. you've heard from other members about the 65,000 fuel and 75 different type story each. what nuclear provide 20% of electricity in this country with advanced technology like small modular truce has points for renaissance. but only the administration gave tax here's an explanation offers congress a workable resolution to apply the law not to select elite force it. >> chairman yells back his time. the chair now recognizes the chairman for five minutes.

thank you, mr. chairman. i am a strong advocate for serious oversight here throughout my service on the committee on oversight and led numerous and entire industrial site thursday take the role of congressional director seriously. this committee is holding a second committee to shut down the yucca mountain and waste repository budget. questions have been raised about the position and i support a fair and impartial inquiry, but that does not appear to be with this committee is doing. even before the committee launched an investigation, chairman shimkus in january they told the hill that he wanted to ask questions about whether the decision to quote pull the plug, unquote on yucca mountain was on politics.

he stated he fat people already knew the answer to that question, but we should go through the process of asking questions. then last night he called the decision to halt the yucca mountain application and review politics at its highest levels. the full committee chairman made similar comments. a congressional investigation should be a genuine inquiry, not a process of asking questions at a predetermined conclusions. under first-year income in the chairman try to prevent vendors from asking relevant and important questions and i believe is off base with his criticism of my right to question the nrc chairman, yes co. it will prevent this staff from interviews of the fact witnesses. ranking member green and i read a letter today to chairman upton and shimkus testing the new policy, which i ask be made part

of the record. >> without objection sorted. >> staff from committee interviews is an appropriate name consisting of what the precipice. it denies nearly half the members of the committee all access to relevant information about the investigation. they waste taxpayers resources by necessitating duplicate if interviews and calls into questions the basic fairness and credibility of the committee's inquiry. our job should be to keep an open mind in the investigation and follow the facts where they lead. if the evidence shows the department of energy decided to close the yucca mountain for invalid reasons, we should not hesitate to be critical, but we should also not prejudge the facts or use unfair and partisan procedures and conduct in this investigation. mr. chairman, we are still at the early stages of this

investigation. i hope we can resolve the procedural differences so we can focus on the work of the investigation and do it together and i think that is the best goal of an oversight investigation, to work together and see if we can get the facts and follow them wherever they may lead. i hope this hearing and the witnesses we hear from today will get us back on track. >> agenda manuals by the time. before we go to the witnesses, afghanistan sent for one minute to respond to the comment. is there objection? >> reserving the right to respond effectively as appropriate. >> i would commissary. >> thank you. first of all, the issue raised is not timely with this hearing, but the point we want to raise is that the majority of staff has been in discussion with this issue in good faith with the minority staff, but we also raised the issue that you're asking for a doubles dander.

it is i understand the minority has had meetings with other witnesses during a session of congress and is not included the majority are provided notice to the majority. if we have a rule about this comment has to apply to allow us on your questioning, your votes, we can reciprocate by having you with errors. i think it would be a good way to resolve the conflict. it is my understanding that you will rent control in the last congress republicans for not in all the discussions of potential witnesses and conducted interviews without notifying members on our side. having put that on the table, i i would just see if they can come to an agreement where if you're interviewing witnesses who invite us, we'll invite you when we interview and will resolve conflict. i yield back my time. >> thank you for yielding. it's important to distinguish between consulting that agency experts to understand policy issues and bringing witnesses to

obtain information relating to investigation of alleged wrongdoing. there's no question that the interviews that the nrc employees for which the minority were excluded were in fact fact witnesses. regarding our investigation. i think if we agree that when we interview anyone who has pertinent information on the facts of the investigation by staff has spoken with three of the individuals who were interviewed and each of them spent several hours in these interviews. some factors in reality what we did is spend more time that should've been there together. the investigation relating to the investigation process is not conduct any fact witness interviews either with or without the majority with extended focus on reviewing and understanding documents to the committee on this matter.

we identified a fact witness we believe it the important to do the interview will discuss with you. i think you lay out a compromise that should help those reach an agreement with the investigation and give us facts that we want to know about justice we should document this witness today. >> the gentleman would yield. i would just say as he knows her well, i am not the chairman of the full committee. so i am speaking as chairman of the senate to many, but i will have to run us all through upton. >> obviously have to run it through my committee. >> my last point is the point is if we identified, we think the full committee chairman shares

the position that you put out that i suggested response to. >> the gentleman yield spec time. now we welcome our colleagues. that's okay with my colleagues, will start from the left and go to the right ladies are scum and not politically correct, but with that we play to recognize the honorable shelley berkley from the great state of nevada and you're recognized for five minutes. the full statement will be submitted into the record and the time is yours. >> thank you, shimming shimkus, ranking member barton. let's get right to the point. we have said no to yucca mountain for decades and will continue shouting know until this effort is that nuclear waste has ended. i don't know who you met with, but i can tell you the latest

polls show that 77% of the people in a state of nevada don't want nuclear waste storage at yucca mountain because we don't honor home turned as we waste more spending on the nevada desert that should've gone extinct years ago. i know members of the committee will hear from others who us say that that assessors is all political and it's nothing to do with science. hogwash. the truth is nevada's opposition has always been based on our state and nation and nevada's result with new efforts to force us to accept the true risk it represents. make no mistake the yucca mountain project was born of politics starting with the infamous 1987 nevada bill and why these politics? the state of nevada had a very small delegation and we were unable to protect the state from

the 49 others. you want to talk about diets? is that radiation standard that exists because there's no way to create radiation standards to protect the public from nuclear waste with the 300,000 year shelf life and the gao report shows thousands of e-mails that make a mockery of so-called scientific studies. i'd be glad to present this to you as well. originally they were going to restore nuclear waste to yucca mountain. then they realized they were groundwater problems are going to store up a titanium shield to protect it from dripping water. then they realized that wasn't enough. then they were going to build country bunkers to contain a titanium shield that contained and then the last secretary of energy in the bush administration actually said he was going to create an army of

progress that we're going to go down to yucca not because man can't go down there and be able to protect us but the nuclear waste leakage. this legislation did away with any pretense of science that eliminated any other site under consideration. at the same time, the nuclear industry and allies have worked for years to silent nevada's criticism and minimize the fact the proposed located in earthquake zone. this is an area rocked by violent earthquakes in the recent past that we know the risk it creates. proponents have also sought to dismiss scientific advice in showing what are willing to yucca mountain with dangerous radioactive materials and factors have worked tirelessly to downplay the risk of millions of americans living below the transportation route from decades of a shipment barely down her nation's roads and railways with each canister of potential terrorist target is an

accident waiting to happen. what caused by deliberate 9/11 style, a massive relief of materials threatens to kill or injure americans to relieve radioactive contamination and shut down major portions of the highway system in rail system. when it comes to plans, the fact remains you can never eliminate the risk that a company shipping nuclear waste across more than 40 states or communities utterly unprepared to deal with radioactive contamination. were talking about shipments passing homes, hospitals, every single day for four decades and even more credible the end of those 40 years they will be more waste in the cooling pots than when the shipments began and that's because as long as the plant is operating the nuclear waste will always remain at the nuclear facility and that is why the are posed by yucca mountain of dry storage is an affordable

solution and is available today, using this method we can to cure existing sites to cars, containers for the remain for the next 100 years until we figure out what to do with this garbage. the nuclear industry is already utilizing dry storage in various locations around the u.s. there's a reason we should not require plans to begin moving waste right now from cooling pools into hardened containers. this would also give her nation time to find the true solution to addressing the nuclear waste issue that does not about dumping $100 billion down a hole in the nevada desert, particularly time we can afford it. surely we can do better than a planned incredibly dangerous, decades behind schedule and with every passing year to a staggering sum even by washington standards. at the end of the day the cost to operate yucca mountain will exceed the amount it would cost to settle lawsuits because of moving waste into dry cabs. it's also extremely important to

remember moving ahead on yucca mountain will eat savings. instead they will continue to pave the mountain path each and every month. at a time in our nation is debating spending cut, i am truly amazed that those in favorite yucca mountain continue to demand we open the floodgates to let tens of billions of dollars in additional spending comes pouring out. the good news is we do not have to go down to is fiscally irresponsible path. earlier this year, congress passed a package that eliminates yucca mountain projects to the time has come to let the boondoggle died in permanently and efforts to breathe life back into a program is too dangerous and costly for a nation. in conclusion, nevada remains in case you don't birdie now opposed to more wasteful spending on a failed $100 million project that threatens lives, the environment and economy of my community and others across the nation.

i will lay my body down on those railroad tracks to prevent any train that has nuclear waste in it from going to yucca mountain. and make that pledge to you in the people i represent. nuclear waste remains on existing site for the next century, giving us time to find an actual solution to replace the sale of yucca mountain project and if anybody watches what was happening to japan's still has the active city to suggest people of our country, shame on us all. germany just announced they were ending their nuclear program because they have no way to safely store nuclear waste. if germany can figure it out, the united states of america should be able to figure it out too. i yield back the balance of my time. >> good thing i've got a great relationship the trucking industry. thank you and obviously all members will have as much time as they need for the statements. we do appreciate your passion

and opponents on this issue for many, many years. >> i'm hoping to bring you want to the right side of this issue. >> i think i am. [laughter] now i'd like to recognize the chairman of the interior committee, doc hastings for as much time for round six. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for inviting me back yet. thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the importance of yucca mountain project into the nation as a whole. my concerns regarding the department of energy's action to illegally dismantle this program. first and foremost there should be no disputing that yucca mountain is a national repository for high-level face and commercial spent nuclear fuel. congress has voted to reaffirm this decision several times. billions of dollars in many years have been spent studying what to do with nuclear ways

would yucca that was the answer. it is allowed. some may disagree with the loud, but it is the law. for more than 16 months the obama administration has backed it outside the scopes in order to pursue a purity driven mission to shut down the project. time and time again, d.o.e. has been asked to provide technical scientific evidence to justify reasons for yucca mountain. they've been unable to provide reason to state that yucca mountain is workable. it is truly the uncertainty that faces our nuclear power industries to how spent nuclear fuel for decades because there's no geological repository ready to accept it. the same is true across the nation that carter cleaned up high-level defense waste as

legacy of our country's nuclear program. commercial spent fuel and high level defense waste are to be stored alongside each other and make sense to talk about them together. the state of washington, say this out airliner in my hometown community file a lawsuit challenging the department of energy's ability to withdraw the yucca mt. license application, yet the administration continues to terminate the project refer the court's rule or before the nuclear regulatory commission's boat is released on this matter. in addition, the gao recently released a report to determine the decision to dismantle the project was political and not based on sound science. my district in central washington is home to the hanford nuclear site. part of the top-secret manhattan project have constructed the atomic bomb it later provided to nuclear terrorists and end the

cold war. today, hanford is the world's largest environmental cleanup project in the high-level defense nuclear waste. right now the department is building a critical $12 billion plant that will treat 53 million gallons of high-level defense waste currently stored in hands and turning into stable class blogs that are scheduled to be stored at yucca mountain. the waste treatment plant which is the $12 billion plant is over halfway done is being built to meet specifications designed to match the geological structure and makeup both yucca mountain. the department of energy is requesting increased funds and complete the waste treatment plant sooner than the expected 2016 timeframe.

changing the goalposts at halftime will unnecessarily address to the project and has potential to waste limited cleanup dollars that are already difficult to secure. the waste treatment plant must move forward, but that requires more than proper funding. it requires yucca mountain. i have an article is like to submit for the record detailing this article on the issue. >> is there objection? hearing none come as a worker. >> thank you had also meant that. delaying means that hanford will be home to high-level defense waste even longer. the federal government's legal commitment to a state will be kept in progress and hanford will be jeopardized. the stakes from my state of washington could not be higher than the risk could be not for real. in addition to richmond which is south is the home to specific northwest nuclear power plant.

the nuclear fuel is also inflated to go to yucca mountain. the spent fuel has to be kept on-site for an unknown amount of time and great expense to taxpayers and ratepayers. in my district we understand nuclear power is safe and provide good paying jobs, but all of this is being jeopardized by the administration's decision to shut down yucca mountain. at a time of record our country cannot afford to waste billions of dollars going back to the drawing board on a national repository. it's time for the administration to follow the letter aloud as i pointed out my opening remarks to bring the yucca mountain project online and accept shipments of the spent nuclear fuel and high-level defense waste. thank you for the opportunity to be here with that i yield back anytime. >> thank you very much. i'd like to recognize

appropriation cardinal from the great state of idaho. >> before i start, i have been questioned by the majority and minority staff. >> i'm not sure you'd want to be. >> mr. chairman, i thank you for the opportunity to testify specifically on yucca mountain. i've been in congress are told and not tears. i served on the appropriations subcommittee on energy water developments, which funds the d.o.e., including the nuclear energy. in my short time in congress, there've been three administrations come up or pay secretaries of energy in numerous nuclear and undersecretaries. each administration as some parties concerning the direction with respect to the energy needs of our country, particularly nuclear energy. i live to the ifr potable, gina bubble in the current smr

bubble. the most frustrating dilemma i face to face. after spending billions of dollars going into ever-changing directions, how do you sustain a program with a 20 to 30 years later timeframe in an impairment of ever-changing policies? will commission the taxpayers for investments? to make it clear, it's not a problem i blame on the d.o.e. new administrations and secretaries are like as an appointed to enact her vision of the future, but it is a reality the short-term nature of our political cycles does not lend itself to solving long-term problems. one of the ways we address this dilemma is by enacting statutes passed by congress and signed by the president. these become the law of the land, binding on future congresses and administrations. note or congress can unilaterally decide it doesn't apply to them. if the administration or congress decides it doesn't like her about, there ways to changes at. the current law binds us all.

one of the most clearing decisions by the administration to ignore the fundamental principle for is the attempt by the administration's unilaterally withdraw the license application for yucca mountain for the nrc and two mothball yucca mountain. let me be perfectly clear. we all know why the decision was made. it wasn't about science or suitability for the need for geological repository for high-level nuclear waste. it's a promise made during the heat of a presidential campaign. it was peer politics. we could spend days debating suitability of yucca mountain as a geological waste repository or the over 50 scientific studies that have been done on yucca mountain. we know more than probably any other in the world. we can talk about $15,000,000,000.30 on yucca mountain, 9.5 billion collected from utility consumers for the nuclear waste fund and whether that should be paid back to

consumers as well as the 956 million paid out as a result of the 74 lawsuits resulting from the government spending to receive spent fuel for the gao investigation which concluded d.o.e.'s decision to terminate yucca mountain repository program is made from policy reasons, not technical or safety reasons. or the fact this interpretation is supported by volume three of the nrc evaluation report. all of this really isn't the point. the point is the president is obligated to follow the law of the land as enacted by congress and signed by previous resident. the nuclear waste policy act was amended in 1987 to designate yucca mountain as repository for high-level nuclear waste for whatever reason. i was on a member of congress at the time, but the law passed in yucca mountain became the law of the land. following the vetoed by the governor, the house voted to override governor spitzer by 306 2117 boats in the senate followed suit by 60 to 36 boat.

yucca mountain is still the law of the land. congress has reaffirmed its position. i have with me here and what's put them in the record because they are available 34 recorded votes and just recent years assembled by the crs in which congress has reaffirmed his support for yucca mountain. i can't follow the secretary chew for secretary lyons for this decision. they work for the president and they made this decision to ignore the law. based on these facts the nrc licensing board reviewed the administration request to lift drop the licensing application and denied the request nearly one year ago. june 29, 2010. the commission reviewed and voted on the licensing and released its ruling a year later. the nrc assesses independent watchdog, which is driven by science not politics.

it has lost sight of its mission it is the reputation of the nrc at a time when the competencies needed us and he should be replaced. the issue of setting the nation's nuclear waste repository is a matter of law, not politics. it serves as the clearest example of an ever-changing policy which is costing taxpayers billions of dollars in diminishing ability to advance the long-term energy policy for our country in a thank you, mr. chairman for inviting us here today. >> i want to thank my colleague, mr. simpson for joining us. not to follow with questions, but to move. we have tumor panels we have to meet with them so we went to thank you for your time and we'll see you on the floor for vote. without objection, the vote totals will allow it to the

record. having no objections to what are. i'd like to place the first panel, mr. gaffigan, mystery train for and mr. lyons. [inaudible conversations] sima so we want to thank you for joining us. we'll do as per the previous panels start from my left, you're right in each of you will be recognized in your full statement will be submitted for the record. to begin with, i'd like to ask

mr. mark has again become a manager and director of natural resources and environment for the accountability office. thank you for your attendance and you're recognized for five minutes. [inaudible] >> can you hold for a minute? >> i'm so pleased to be here. first of all, want to summarize my remarks in three areas. basically the current address of yucca mountain in the nation's waste policy. the nuclear waste policy alternatives have been discussed and lastly lessons learned from past experiences that may help inform our future as we go forward. the nation's policy for disposal

in 1957, the national academy of sciences to endorse nuclear waste disposal and a geological repository as a means for permanently disposing nuclear waste. however, achieving a permanent policy leading to an acceptable repository has proven to be both costly and difficult. for the nuclear waste policy act from the 19 d.o.e. has been investigating yucca mountain as a permanent repository, culminating a license application to the year 2008. however, after decades of work and expenditures of about 15 billion in today's dollars, d.o.e. is now taking to withdraw its application. d.o.e. has not paid technical or safety issues but has stated that yucca mountain is not a workable option. in large part because of the lack of public acceptance by the people of nevada. this decision is being challenged both in the court and

by a ruling that the nuclear waste policy that requires d.o.e. to continue with the application. while these matters remain unresolved, d.o.e. has receded to terminate yucca mountain in a definitive manner that will make it more difficult to reprise should they be compelled to do so. the louvre pursuing yucca mountain, d.o.e. establish a blue ribbon commission to consider alternative waste disposal strategies. a stunned passport, we've identified three categories of alternatives. the first alternative is keeping the waste on site at about 80 different types, both commercial and defense sites in the u.s. this is the path of least resistance option since it is their current policy for disposal. however, it does not address commitment to the u.s. government to take session of the waste as has been pointed out, taxpayers have paid nearly

a billion and legal judgments because of the government's inability to meet its obligation. estimates are that another teen billion dollars will be paid out by 2020 with the bill estimated to be 25 billion a year after that coming from the taxpayers to department of justices find. also with continued on-site storage, d.o.e. may not be able to meet commitments to state stream of defense-related states. this could have negative impacts such as jeopardizing navy shipments of spent fuel and the feeling of warships. a second alternative to centralized interim storage. while this may offer some relief from a story, such a facility faces the same saving challenges and do you it does not have authority to implement such a facility. finally, the third option remains a geological repository, the goal of the yucca mt. project geared despite the promise of future technology that they reduce demands on a

geological repository, and the best thinking of experts today is that no matter what, there'll be some some amount of waste in permanent disposal and a geological repository is the only feasible option for permanently disposing of nuclear waste. lastly, by two addressed lessons learnt that might be instructed for future nuclear waste policy. d.o.e.'s recent policy decision to terminate yucca mountain dew to lack of public acceptance has been criticized because he was not based on technical reasons. if we are to learn anything from the nation struggle to implement waste policy, and as for less than the public acceptance is just as important as any technical or safety issues. transparency, economic and in tears and are important tools in achieving public acceptance of any future nuclear waste policy. a second broad lesson is consistent policies, funding and leadership will be crucial in successful nuclear waste

management. many stakeholders have suggested an independent organization not subject to political changes with the predictable funding stream may be best suited to carry out this policy. let me emphasize nuclear waste policy options with centralized interim storage or a move to a permanent repository will offer benefits would cost in challenges. but the current uncertainty in the nation's nuclear waste policy and not policy those costs and challenges only increase with little additional benefit. thank you, mr. chairman. that concludes my statement. i've submitted a stand up for the record and i welcome your questions. >> thank you very much. i'd like to turn to mr. gregory friedman, inspector general of the department of energy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. rather than repeating many statistical points that have

been provided already, let me abbreviate my already abbreviated statement which contains a synopsis of the work we've done in yucca mountain overtime that were expanded my full statement, which it will be be submitted for the record. getting down to the nub of the matter, our work to date has highlighted a number of issues that continue attention of department management. for example, as has been mentioned in the main mountain has demonstrated a number of financial performance reviews increase the ultimate cost and disposal of waste for yucca mountain. closure of the project could significantly impact the department's future environmental liability currently estimated to be $250 billion. we will further ululate impact of closure as part of the ongoing financial work we do at the department of energy. for there must repository alternatives become available, department name is the number of

deadlines which required it settlement agreement as a result the department may be subject to significant assessments due to missed deadlines as of december 30th 2010, with an $800 billion has been extended from treasury's judgment fund for commercial nuclear waste producers for delayed acceptance of nuclear waste at an addition of permanence estimated contingent liability for spending medication to be approximately $15.4 billion. in summary, our judgment is to develop a viable, effective and acceptable path forward is nuclear waste disposal becomes more pressing day by day. the united states has announced plans to dismantle the nuclear weapons stockpiles to be an affordable reality of increasing volume of nuclear waste. further, commercial nuclear waste was to represent 90% of high-level waste storage at yucca mountain is generated that nuclear power facilities across the nation. to paraphrase, one

recommendation from the blue-ribbon commission on america's nuclear future was established by the president in january 2010 come and the united states should proceed expeditiously to develop an integrated comprehensive plan for managing the backend for the nuclear fuel cycle. mr. chairman, this concludes my statement and please answer any questions you were this a committee may have. >> thank you, mr. friedman. last but not least,.repeater license for nuclear energy at the department of energy. welcoming you have five minutes. >> thank you for mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. by way of introduction i grew up in nevada. it worked out to national laboratory with frequent assignments. when i lead, all processing reviews reported to me. more recently i visited the

complex many times while working as an nrc commissioner. i devoted 42 years of public service to the nation's needs or and uses admit your technology. i am convinced nuclear energy must remain a part of our nation's clean energy portfolio, and acceptable solution to the management of nuclear fuel and high-level defense waste is a prerequisite for nuclear politics in this role. secretary chu adventure i do feel must be founded on strong technical criteria and public acceptance that the gao made similar observations of overcoming social and political observation, political observation is crucial. for example, successful repository programs in switzerland, sweden and france for public involvement and consultation are heavily emphasized. our own experience with waste isolation plant illustrates her success at achieving social and political except for permanent waste repository and stands in

stark contrast to the yucca mountain project. does the secretary of state a, it is time to move beyond the 25 growth stalemate over yucca mountain. i agree and i accepted this position with full support for the administration's position. let me turn to two interrelated statements made in the gao report with which the department has serious concerns. first in the gao presumes you cannot repository would've opened on the date certain and second, gao presumes any alternative would take longer than the yucca mt. repository to implement. the gao report uses 2024 operations as a firm date and expresses earned if the department did not provide a more precise date. yet the department has consistently stated that 2020 date is subject to a number of contingencies over which the department has no controls. plus, there is always considerable uncertainty about when or whether the yucca mountain repository whittled

among other things the opening would require new legislation berlin withdraw, second nrc license presuming the first one were issued in a 300 mt. b-bravo and many related actions hinging unavailability of state issued permits. all of these would've faced persistent opposition from the state of nevada. in shutting down the yucca mountain project amid d.o.e. is committed to building better, more workable alternatives. in fact come as the gao with partners have been more widely accepted alternative is identified, it carries potential for avoiding costly delays come experienced by the yucca mountain repository programs that is the point secretary chu is synthesized at the department disagrees with the gao statement that the post-terminus station which had been planned to be open in 2020 will likely prolong storage of reactor site, which would increase on costs. there's simply no basis to

assume the termination of yucca mountain will prolong this process. there may be other alternatives that could be put in place sooner than yucca mountain might evoke them. i'd also like to highlight the perception name of the final impact as the communities may be less willing to host nuclear fuel repositories or other storage sites in the future due to further erosion of d.o.e.'s credibility. to the contrary, a new start with secretary chu's entrance, to enhance credibility to program enjoys very strong support from the local community. in conclusion, the department is acting and a terminating the mountain and we can and should do better than the yucca mountain project. working together the administration and congress can seize an opportunity to craft a

new option with the higher certainty of success. i personally look forward to the chance to put a successful management program it to crack this that will serve future generations and above all, enable them to enjoy benefits of clean, safe, nuclear power. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, dr. lance. i curse the first panel to stick around because he'll have some local folks in the state of nevada who probably already have some extent and for this position. i'd like to begin my first round of questioning and recognize myself for five minutes. starting with this again. how much has been expended on yucca mountain development? how much money have the bank clerks [inaudible] >> i'm going to keep going quick. where did that money come from quite >> about 10 from the nuclear waste fund another 5 billion from appropriations. >> him as the nuclear waste fund

get it money? >> it is a tax in the ratepayers, one 10th of a cent. >> which ratepayers? unit is to benefit from nuclear power. >> of the money, are those still being it? been absolutely. >> what happens taxpayer spending if it is terminated? >> the taxpayer spending continues. current estimates of 15 billion through 2020. >> what happens to this liability for each year he repository is not accepting ways past 2020? >> earnestness or 500 million per year. >> whether cost the taxpayer faces a nuclear issues delay quakes >> there'll be costs associated with judgments. there's 72 lassies. there will be costs associated with the waste on the defense side in terms of perhaps more

storage needed at these various defense facilities. reliance, the nuclear policy act is the law that governs nuclear waste and spent policy. is that not? >> that is the current law. the law says department of energy must study, characteristic ability to develop a repository, correct? >> that's correct. >> the law says further d.o.e. shall file an application for license to construct a repository, correct? >> yes, sir. >> a lot establishes civilian radioactive waste management and director for that office, correct? >> a lot actually makes clear and for the record, all these questions have been responded by.reliance. a lot actually makes clear dob duty and obligations in

development and those obligations are presently to support the application pending before the nuclear regulatory commission, correct? i'm talking about the law. >> as you know -- >> be very, very careful how you answer this. what does the law say? >> that is what the law says. i'll go to the next question. what provision of the nuclear waste policy act, what provision is the secretary relying to withdraw the application quit of the law? >> i am not a lawyer, sir. general counselor believes the secretary has the authority to withdraw the application. i think you might need to get with your federal council. and you better be careful questions.

and i'm not time. i'm not at a time, but i'll finish my questions have now turned to their ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for being late. but i know we've would like to ask. >> without objections to what are. >> i'd like to place into the record a letter from the poor living commission on the future and also from the chair of the county commissioners and clark county, nevada. >> without objections to work your. >> i think our panel for being here. i think most of you know a number of those today congressional trip to yucca mountain. last month and i appreciate the opportunity to view up close

what the decisions have been going on since the 80s and i appreciate the opportunity to folks from the local county to express their concern earthier interest in reopening the yucca mountain. while on the trip, i heard various reports on the cost of building yucca mountain and i know mr. gaffigan is 14 billion? >> we put it all in about $15.4 billion. >> is there anything that could be recouped if we decided to forget about it and look for another long-term facility? >> that money is spent. >> any other opinion from witnesses on the panel? >> mr. green, we pointed out in lessons learned the retention of the intellectual property derived as a result of the expenditures associated with yucca mountain is extremely important and should be.

so hopefully, if the decision is made and sustained through terminate the sites, there will be a tremendous body of knowledge that will be useful going word. that's certainly our anticipation and their hope. >> i would agree with mr. friedman. >> to each of you agree we should have some long-term storage facility? >> i would say in 1957 with they were going to need some form of permanent apposite tori and that is the current thank you today, even if we could assign a new type elegy. we will need to dispose in a current solution. >> i would agree. >> i would also agree. commission as well. >> i guess i have concerns because i know the only other alternative is along the texas border in new mexico and we

could just be opening another can of worms if we started out or good obviously nevada nobody went saying it's yucca mountain. i don't know if anyone would run for office if they would say they want to support high-level nuclear storage facility in new mexico. that is one of my concerns about it, and that we need one and we spent $15.4 billion in now in the last year and and a half the decisions have been made to literally put a fence across it and shut it down. how long would it take a sip restarted a new right now? to actually start in 1982, the discussion of it in the decision on the side for the pathway to get the decision? >> i think early on it was one of nine i that was considered and eventually that was whittled down to three sites by 1987 in

the 1987 amendment directed only at the not be considered. >> wended decision-making start? >> it's fair to say we do not visit the mid-1980s. >> i would agree there was some characterization before 1982. >> so we're talking about 25 years to where we are now. and do you think if we decided to do something we take another 25 years to get there? >> i think it's important to note that as the blue ribbon commission works to this process and the value is successful models from within the country with and in the international community that there may well be approaches to management as well as the selection that will be suggested that can lead to a much more expeditious movement. but the gentleman yield? >> i'd be glad to yield.

>> dr. lyons, is it true they were given an alliance not to expedite yucca mountain? >> they were given a mandate to not consider yucca mt.? >> are simply not a citing commission sir. >> so that the gas? >> that is the statement i would make him. not the interim storage, nothing can start with yucca mountain? is a decentralized regions storage states coming up tonight and could not be considered? >> i didn't say that. isn't this that they're not deciding committee. >> it's my understanding of blue ribbon commission was given explicit directions not to consider yucca not in. >> it is not deciding committee. they are not considering sites. >> my concern as more of a statement than a question as we have followed the country insights to in text as where we are actually storing on-site and we would hope that we would have

some long-term permanent storage. i support recycling so we don't have budget. that's unavailable in our country, but that is making your is by starting over a year and a half ago, it could be 25 years, maybe longer. even now are looking years away even our looking 10 years awayeven our looking 10 years away, temporary storage site were not designed to be the long-term they are now. >> mr. chairman, thank you. >> blue-ribbon commission may recommend since the curtain can't speak whether they would recommend other paths such as interim storage that could lead us to a least useful options in the repository could be in operation. >> chumminess time is expired. the chair recognizes mr. murphy from pennsylvania.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. are the current site that nuclear power plants and facilities above and below ground and concrete containers, et cetera suitable for safety? >> yes, mr. murphy. that is too good an thesis. >> they are adequate for how long? >> it was recently released. 30 years after the cessation of the site. >> bulges keep going. the states have taken us 30 years to get this far. d.o.e. maintain a record? >> i'm sure they do. i don't know if it's broken down by source or anything. i would assume it's available. >> provide that for the record. >> is continuing to maintain a

record available for the public to the state he sees to make sure it's a dated and if we can have the information will be helpful. >> numbers around 25 billion. >> it can be provided broken down. the it's taken us 30 years to get this far. what makes you think you can suddenly complete this by 2020? >> i didn't say we could do it by 2020. he said we may be a lot to do at dinner. >> will prolong the process. >> i said there is a significant question in my mind other yucca not loping. the interim storage site -- >> i hope you are too, but the law that congress passed has gone through multiple administration here. this is what is select team. is there something unsuitable scientifically about the yucca mountain site? >> license