strong, strong enough to withstand a worst case scenario. but as we now know, it wasn't. likewise, the chernobyl tragedy that 25 years ago taught us that the effects of a single nuclear accident can linger for generations. and we've got to pay attention to these questions and learn from others' mistakes. this means continually revisiting the laws intended to keep nuclear plants safe, strengthening the nrc's regulation and ensuring plants are in compliance at all times. the nrc's has got to ask the hard questions and make sure that the american people get the answers that they deserve. and i urge you, commissioners, to act quickly to take the next step to make sure that nuclear facilities are prepared and that the public is fully protected. and i thank you. >> thank you.

senator boozman. i'm sorry, senator sessions. [inaudible] >> okay. senator boozman. >> whatever. thank you, madam chair and ranking member inhofe for having this really important hearing on the task force review. .. >> within a robust culture of safety and our industry is truly the gold standard, and we need to keep it that way.

the task force review confirmed that appropriate mitigation measures have been already put in place and that continued operation and licensing activities do not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety. i would very much like to encourage the commission that as they move forward that they do so with speed that more importantly or as importantly that they do this very, very thoughtfully. we need a process that allows the commission, the nrc staff, the industry, and other stake holders to be fully engaminged. with that, i yield back. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you so much. now, senator sessions, you are last, but certainly not least. >> well, thank you. we spent a good bit of time on this committee and other committees and rightly considering the events at fukushima and the report of a

near term task force provides a good starting point to thinking about potential improvements that can be made to our own nuclear fleet, but i do think it's important to keep in mind as senator alexander noted that we have not had one single event at an american nuclear power generating plant where an individual has lost their life or sustained a serious injury as a result of nuclear effects. i think that's a significant thing we need to remember since over 20% of our electricity is coming from nuclear power. it's a big part of our economy, and it's been very safe, so i really think we need to remember that. how many lives have been lost in the process of creating coal plants and providing the fuel and how many problems have we had with natural gas, difficulties, and lives have been lost, and both can provide

or fail to and put pollutants into the atmosphere. i'm interested as senator inhofe is in looking at the japanese system to see if theirs was less effective than ours is. we have a gold standard for nuclear regulation and i hope that's true, and we like it to be true, and we need to know if perhaps our regulations would have prevented this. certainly nuclear plants already must demonstrate to the satisfaction of you, the nrc, that the plant can continue to operate safely even during a blackout scenario, and i do believe as senator alexander noted the ac1000 for example would have gravity fuel water processes that would shut down a

plant even if that was a complete loss of power and the backup failed. those would be safer plants it seems to me and those ought not to be unnecessarily delayed. delays are costs, you delay and create uncertainty and delay and create uncertainty, and pretty soon people are afraid to invest what would need to be invested for us to create a cleaner, more productive form of energy that's safer and bottom lined in other forms of energy for the united states. my goal has always been that we should have cleaner energy. we want american energy, not imported where possible. we want safe energy. we want cost efficient energy, energy that does not place an unnecessary burden on our people and our economy.

nuclear power fits all of those it seems to me. it may not be the total solution, but it fits all of those qualities, and i hope and pray and urge that you do your job to make sure we're safe, make sure it's operating safely, but do not be a burden on our ability to meet the needs for increased electricity in the future by blocking reasonable development of new sources of nuclear power. inotice in alabama we had a shut down of power -- we had power failures to our nuclear plant at browns ferry, the dba plant, the backup systems responded just as expected, just as required, just as you have monitored and required, and there was no dangerous scenario that occurred. i also appreciate on the fact that you, your committee, have

found there's no reason to doubt the safety of our nuclear power facilities. your task force report concludes "the fukushima is unlikely to occur in the united states, continued operation and continued licensing activities do not pose an imminent risk of public health and safety." so, madam chairman, thank you for having the hearing. i think it's something we need to move forward with. hopefully we can be able to effectively allow a new generation of even more efficient, more safe nuclear power plants to come online. these plants produce tremendous amounts of base load electricity without pollution of our atmosphere and provides safety to all concerned. thank you. >> thank you so much, senator. so under the agreement we have reached, the chairman has five

minutes and each colleague has three. is that your understanding? okay, excellent. chairman, go ahead. stick with your time because we are so close to a vote, and we want to conclude before then. go ahead. >> chairman and rank members and members of the comet, on behalf of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. in the aftermath of the fukushima accident, the commission establishedded the task force to spearhead our review of the nrc's nuclear reactor safety program. its members include some of the agency's most experienced and expert staff collectively having more than 135 years of regulatory experience. in conducting their review, the task force's efforts were independent, but by no means solitary. in developing the report and recommendations, the task force had access to the entire nrc staff and more than 100 hours of

briefings. they spent thousands of hours reviewing products and consulted with the site team in japan. in its report, they outlined a comprehensive set of 12 recommendations, many with short and long term elements touching on issues including the loss of power, earthquakes, flooding, spew floods venting, and i provided an overview of the testimony i submitted on behalf of the commission. as their report makes clear, the task force did a great job of understanding what nuclear safety requires in a post-fukushima world. now that the task force completed the review, it's up to commission to move forward. the stake holders calledded upon the commission to act promptly. we have not reached a decision on how to proceed. although my colleagues hold different view points, i believe our goal remains for the commission to come to an agreement on an open and transparent way to make

decisions on the 12 recommendations in a finite period of time. in considering recommendations, the commission must move forward. although the task force did not find risk to public health and safety, they identified significant concerns with specific issues, and they recommended improving the agency's regulatory framework. fukushima clearly demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances challenges plants in unexpected ways, but we must commit to a strong response. i believe the american people expect noless. since all the members of the committee, i thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and happy to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. >> nawng chairman boxer, senator inhofe and other members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. the members of the near term task force covered tremendous

ground in the 90-day review. after a more extensive examination of earlier efforts, the task force concluded a senator sequence of events is unlikely to occur in the united states and continued operation and continued licensing activities do not pose a risk to public health and safety. in providing the reassurance to the safety of the public, the task's force's work combined with efficiencies or confirms the safety of continued operations now now allows the nrc the opportunity to proceed with the systematic and methodical review of lessons learned that the commission established early on. i believe wise decisions depend on public participation, and on careful analysis of the likely consequences of regulation. the nrc is in a position to conduct activities that the task force's short time frame did not allow them to undertake, namely a more extensive public stake holder, engagement on the issues, and others likely to

emerge. committees to establish a set of facts regarding the events in japan and receive the expert views of the advisory committee on reactor safeguard. in that vain, i view the near term report as an important first step to learn from the events at fukushima. the conclusions drawn by the six individual members have to be open to challenge by our public stake holders and tested by the nrc technical staff who would be responsible for carrying out the changes the commission might adopt prior to final commission decision make egging on those changes. i support acting with dispatch and urgent but without changing the deliberation of our response. thank you for the opportunity, and i look forward to answering were question. >> thank you. how did i do on that one? we met in california, so i had a chance to practice that.

go ahead. >> chairman boxer, ranking member inhofer and members of the committee, good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. my views with the way forward of the near term task force recommendations are summarized as follows. first, it is important to bear in mind a significant task force conclusion a a regulatory system serves the public well and the senator sequence of events like in fukushima is unlikely to occur in the united states. second, many people referred to the events as fukushima as unthinkable or unforeseen and imply we should focus on protecting nuclear plants from these events, however, there is growing evidence that the historical record of tsunamis was not used properly to discover the design base of

fukushima and the plant was not sufficient. in addition, the location of safety significant equipment was less than optimal with the to flooding. the accident was not of extremely low probability. that is, it was not unthinkable or unforeseen. these observations suggest they should be mindful of striking a proper balance between confirming the correctness of the design basis and expanding the design basis of u.s. plants. third, the timely disposition by the commission of the near term task force recommendations is important. it is also important to do this in an open and transparent manner. three months should be sufficient time to achieve these objectives. four, our process for reaching decisions should be methodical and systematic. the three mile island experience is relevant here. as the task force states, some

of the actions taken by the nrc after tmi were not subject to structure review. subsequently some of the resulting requirements were found not to be of substantial safety benefit and were removed. fifth, with these recommendations in mind, i believe that the commissions' deliberations would benefit from evaluation of the task force recommendations by nrc management, the views of stake holders, and the independent evaluation by the advisory committee safeguards. this may result in additional or different recommendations. i will be working with my fellow commissioners to reach a timely resolution of of the lessons learned from fukushima. thank you. >> thank you very much. now we look to commission member william macwood. >> thank you, thank you chairman boxer, ranking member barasso,

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. the series of the events became evident, there was a task force to study and apply lessons learned. this task force provided with recommendations we discussed this morning. i congratulate the six-person team for impressive work and i also wanted to just sort of point out dr. charles miller who chaired the task force is with us in the audience somewhere back there, and i wanted to make mention of that. i think tomorrow is his retirement date. this is his opportunity to observe his work. >> can we ask him to raise his hand. thanks so much. thank you for your service. >> thank you, charlie. nevertheless, while the task force found u.s. plants are safe and say that quite clearly, their conclusion are license for come play sent sigh. we can learn from fukushima and

improve the framework with the 12 recommendations spoken of this morning. obviously the task force is limited in time and scope and ability to reach out to stake holders and use of the event that the project on safeguards. fortunately, since the task force found no imminent risk to public health and safety, we can apply resources that best affect and deal with issues which were not covered by the task force in open and transparent manners. we have to work quickly to engage the stake holders in the recommendations swelt considerations of approaches which the task force did not have time or resources to analyze. i also believe that while there are many who believe we should move very quickly on every recommendation, i think what senator carper said this morning is quite app propoe. there's some implementations that can be used right away.

many indicate that's possible. there's others that may take more time, but we should take the time to do this the right way and not make the mistakes of the three mile island. with that, i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you. welcome. >> madam chairman, ranking member inhofe, members of the committee, thank you for the chance to be before you today. i highly commend the nrc's task force for dedication and professionalism in conducting its review. given a short period of time, the task force provided a significant product that will serve us well. before my position on the report, i studied the report, met with the task force in a public meeting, sought input, listened to the views my colleagues at this table. i cast my vote on the task force report last wednesday, made that vote publicly available.

serving in my view is the anchor for this report and findings related to the commercial reactors in the united states. the task force noted that the current regulatory approach has served the commission and the public well, and the continued operation, the continued licensing activities do not pose imminent risk to health and safety. as i stated the commission's july 19th meeting on the task force report while i support thoughtful consideration and safety enhancements, at the same time, i do not believe that our existing regulatory framework is broken. my vote is centered on three prince. s, an integrated approach based on the nrc's executive director for operations. a failure for such approach was a key lessoned learn in the response of the three mile island and was stated by bill who is here today as a concern

he had going forward with fukushima when we had our public meeting on march 21st. not all of the 12 task force recommendations that have 35 sub parts are equal neither is safety enhancement or emergency perspective. second, some actions should be taken sooneron others. -- sooner than others. my vote supports recommendations washting short term actions. i called out on my vote last week six actions to happen now. there are perhaps others. i'll wait forward hearing from the edo what those recommendations might be from an integrated stand point. i join my colleagues by engaging full engagement from our stake holders that is critical. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. each of us will have five minutes.

we're not dealing here with safety issues that are relatively straightforward like seat belts. we know it's essential. people buckle up. we know they save lives. we are dealing with here is potentially fatal doses of radiation if you don't do your job right, if we don't do our jobs right, and today the "new york times" had an article saying fatal levels of radiation found. workers on monday afternoon found an area near reactors one and two where radiation succeeded their maximum levels, a fatal dose for humans. when i hear colleagues call -- this is my interpretation of what they said and it's not far off, recommendations for safety, more washington red tape, i believe that's what the ranking member said, more washington red tape, i can tell you people in japan would have got down on

their names and prayed god that they had more safety measures in place so i want to ask some questions here. the task force recommends requiring harden vent designs in reactors. now, the reason is that what happened in japan is the fuel in the reactors of units, one, two, and three became uncovered lead ling up to a build up of hydrogen gas. japanese tried to vent the gas, but because events were not working, explosions occurred in all three units, we know some of the mark ii reactors made safety improvements, but the task force recommends harden vent designs in mark i and mark ii reactors. only three reactors in america installed hardened vents. why do we have to wait before we implement that recommendation?

i'm going to ask each of you do you think we ought to move on that recommendation to harden -- to move forward with this recommendation of the harden vent design? i just want a yes or no or don't know. >> yeah, i think that's a fine recommendation. >> i don't want a comment, yes or no or i don't know. >> i don't know at this time. >> okay. next. >> it's reasonable. >> okay. >> i can't answer at this point. >> expand the capability and the task force noted they did not have a clear understanding of whether the operators were able to operate the vents so it's more information to be gleaned here. >> i take it as a no. it's not good news from the commission. can i ask each of you what is your purpose when you became a commissioner, what was your high education duty in a word? >> public health and safety protection. >> yes. >> safety and security --

>> yes. >> public health and safety. >> protect health and safety. >> public health and safety. >> good. well, then i would like you to consider looking add what happened in japan, and looking at the similarities that we see in some of our plants and move on it. let me tell you why i'm concerned. after 9/11, the nrc took seemingly di ceasive action. i want you to listen to this. i hope the public is listening to this. you ordered u.s. nuclear power plants to take a series of improved security measures because we worried about a terrorist attack, and in my state they handed out iodine pills. that's how worried they were about it. we have millions of people who live within 50 miles of power plants. the nrc had those orders in regulations. you know when? with compliance required by march 21, 2010. from 2001 to 2010.

now, i want assurances from each of you that you will not allow that to happen, and i want -- i want to hear from you as to whether or not you believe we can move on these recommendations and put them in place within a year. >> yes, i mean, we can believe within 90 days and have full implementation with potentially long term recommendations in five years. >> okay. let's ask 90 days if we can move on these, most of these recommendations and put them into place in 90 days. there's a yes from the chairman. yes? >> i don't believe all can be agented on in 90 # days. >> how many? >> i'm not certain. i propose we receive an evaluation. >> you don't know. next. sorry, my time is over, go ahead. >> i agree with the chairman, but we should disposition all of

them within 90 days. >> excellent. sir? >> i think some could be within 90 days, hard to say all could, but some certainly could. ? thank you, sir. >> i agree with commissioner magwood. >> okay. my time is up. >> thank you, madam chairman. you might recall when we had a june meeting, i had an armed services commitment that prevented me from being here. i asked senator barosso to provide a full account of the actions took while exercising the emergency authority at provided in section iii of the nrc's reauthorization plan of 1980. to date, i have not received such a report. section iii states, and i'm quoting now, "following the conclusion of the emergency, the chairman shall render a complete and timely report to the commission on the actions taken during that emergency."

let me start by asking you except for the chairman the question has chairman provided such a report? start with you -- >> i have not received a report. >> you have not. >> i have not. >> i have never seen a report. >> i have not. >> second thing i ask you is has he informed you he ceased using his emergency authority? >> he has not informed me of that. >> he has not. >> he has not. >> he has not. >> okay. i'd have to assume he's still using the emergency. this is kind of very confusing -- >> senator, would you like a response -- >> not yet. >> well, if you want to extend my time, go ahead. >> sure, i'll extend your time. >> my colleagues have been all been informed -- >> it might be better if i finish, and he can -- >> [inaudible] >> i have to assume he's still using since they haven't

received -- i do want to do this because i think it needs to be in the record. none of us were around at that time, but in 1980 is when the emergency provision was passed by law, and it was toby moffit is democratic congressman from connecticut. i'm going to read it because it's important for the record. this is from 30 years ago. "two situations in the future -- those where the chairman is in basic agreement with the majority and those where he or she is not. in those cases where the chairman has a majority of commissioners with him or her, it is obvious that the chairman will not need the extraordinary powers tough to weigh in this plan to work his or her will. the chairman and commission can move in unison towards their regulatory policy." what about the other situation where the chairman is in the minority regardless of party affiliation within the commission with the majority of

the commissioners oppose the chairman? isn't it equally obvious it will be at that moment that these special powers will be most appealing to the chairman? isn't it clear that if these powers are ever to be needed and utilized at all, it is precisely by the chairman bent ongoing against the majority of the commissioners. if that be the case, is it plan not clearly constructed to get the commission form of regulation, and would it not be subject to the basis sort of partisan political manipulation? that's over 30 years ago. i have to say before you make your comments, chairman, i'd like to get a commitment from you that you will respect the will of the commission authorities on the report and not act unilaterally to implement the task force recommendations. do you feel comfortable making that commitment here in the hearing? >> of course, that's everything

i do is consistent with that. >> all right. >> with regard to the emergency -- >> go ahead. >> with regard to the emergency powers, the commissioners have been briefedly me on the status. it is a clear signal there would be no emergency. >> that's not what they said. they said they were not notified by you. >> which is a true statement, but for one to infer they are not aware of the status of the agency and i believe as you indicated, you were there for assuming i'm using emergency powers. i don't believe that's a fair assumption. the commission is fully aware. their staff is briefed on a weekly basis on response activities related to japan. they were provided situation reports throughout the entire activity of everything going on. moreover, they received a report that you've all received, a task force report, that summarizes and looks at the actions taken

following the fukushima incident, so to somehow infer that the commission is kept in the dark about what is going on at the agency is simply not true. they have been receiving multiple briefings including -- >> all four were not telling the truth when they answered the question have they received a report? >> i simply can't speak for them in that, but they have received many reports about what we have done following fukushima including the report that you see in front of you. if that's not a report summarizing actions and recommendations going forward, i don't know what would be, and that's one of the clear requirements of the report in the statute, so their response i cannot explain. >> well, i think i can. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you very much. okay. how about a smile from everybody here. [laughter] can you do that? not quite. senator. >> we don't always smile up here either.

>> we try to. chairman and i do. >> we do. >> we do. >> my -- i'm listening to this and reminded something my mother used to say, and with respect to moving along expeditiously on these recommendations or not. my mother used to say haste makes waste. my father, on the other hand, would say that work expands to fill the amount of time we allocate to a job, and so i'd like one parent pushing on the accelerator and one parent tapping on the brakes, and that's not a bad combination. it sounds to me like what we want to do here, what the commission thinks we ought to do here in some cases, some of the recommendations to push on the accelerator, and with some others, we can tap on the brakes. i think one of the things i like to do around here is try to encourage con consensus across

the aisle, and i'll try to get consensus here with respect to the recommendations. mr. magwood, you thought there were some recommendations to be implemented pretty much right away, and there's others that would take some time. would you mention a couple of the ones that fall under the implement right away category for us, please? >> i generally tried not to point out specific recommendations because i want the process to work its way, but just to an tis pace a clear example is the walk downs and inspections that the plants are prepared to deal with floods and size mic events. that's something to be done right away. there's a half dozen -- in general agreement with what he recommended. there are others, i think, you know, ultimately the action on events, for example, one that we have to study and understand very carefully before those are implemented, but it doesn't mean it takes year to do it.

it may not be done possible in a few weeks. many can be implemented very quickly, and let me just share personally because i've talked with other members of the commission. i have no sense there's anyone in the commission thatments to delay this unnecessarily. every looking at this seriously and wants to move forward as quickly as practical, but we want to process to be done correctly. >> that's encouraging. did i hear commissioner magwood say the half dozen? >> yes, sir. >> all right. >> real quick, i'll summarize some of those. there's six things i think could be done very quickly here and decided on in a matter of weeks. i put them in my vote from last week. first is reevaluate l flooding standards at all sites. second is perform seismic vulnerables and third, rule

making of the long loss of power, the blackout rule we discussed at the last hearing. fourth, review b5v, our fire and flooding equipment to with stand a great event or flooding. also, additional equipment in a multidisaster. there's accessibility of vents and boiling water reactors, and six, maintain and train on severe accident guidelines. those are examples to be done right away. >> sixth one? >> severe acts of management guidelines that guide the licensees how to deal with catastrophic events and make sure they are in good order and people are fully trained in those is a high priority. >> all right. going down the line here, do you want to react to the half dozen, please? >> i certainly don't have any disagreement, and i would note beyond that there really aren't that many recommendations that

the task force recommended for near term action, so i think some of this discussion is really about semantics, but four of the 12 recommendations themselves were long-term recommendations, two targeted towards nrc action in and of itself so there's actually only six recommendations actually directed towards licensees in the short term, so i don't think the universe of -- >> were those the ones mentioned? >> a subset of that. smaller -- the ones that appeared to be missing were representations related to spent fuel pools and the need to have reliable monitoring and capability dealing with spent fuel pools, one that most people would agree is an action that we would want to address in the near term so i don't think there's that many left once we take the particular issues that we can't get all the work done in 90 days. >> okay. my time expired. real quickly, chairman and

commission, would you like to give some indication whether you pretty much are in agreement that the half dozen, list of half dozen -- on the money there or overstating the case? >> i would just add quickly that i did not have any negative reaction to the task force's recommendations. i agree that they vary in complexity and i think that my proposal was to hear from the nrc staff responsible for carrying out such actions, and i think the recommendations when shaped through the nrc programming offices may be different, and i'd like to do it maybe once and do it right opposed to continually it rating prolong uncertainty and that's very undesirable. >> okay. >> well, all i'm saying in my vote is that i would like to have the opinion and judgment of the senior management before we go ahead. that doesn't mean it takes forever to get that, but this

sounds like a reasonable list, but i would like to have this additional input before we make a decision. plus, senior management may come up with additional recommendations to be implemented immediately. i don't think we should limit ourselves to what the task force said. >> okay. thanks very much. >> senator borasso. >> thank you. how involved were you in the selection of the six members of this near term task force? >> i was not involved. >> not involved. >> i believe the edo told me the list of peoples or the list of people on it, and i think i okayed it. >> were you involved then in any way, shape, or form of the deliberations of the task force? >> not at ul. i spoke to them before you began their work telling them they had a tremendous responsibility to do and do it the best they could. >> there's a patchwork of requirements flowing from the current regulatory program. do you agree with the implementation our current safety in the united states is

defective or not working? >> i don't believe that's what the task force said, but they said there's a patchwork. the inference that's defective is not true. it is true that we have a patchwork of regulations. that's what the task force indicated. we have some things that, for instance, if you just look at emergency procedures, we have emergency procedures that fall into three classes, the standard procedures we call emergency operating procedures and procedures for severe accidents, and then we have procedures dealing with potentially the september 11th type actions. teach one of those has a different regulatory treatment, but all three of them are likely, likely comparable in their importance and should be integrated into a whole process of emergency procedures. that was the patchwork that existed. each of those came out of a particular incident. the severe accidents came from the 80s and when we recognized there was a need for better preparation for severe

accidents. lastly the extensive mitigation guidelines were from 9/11. there was never an action to look at them as a unified set of procedures. that's what the task force is recommending, and some get regulatory treatment more than they get now. >> commissioner, you stated in your notation vote response sheet that the nrc is an agency "priding itself on openness and transparency" you also rernsed that the nrc has "principles of regulation used in decision making." if the nrc has a couple public meetings on these recommendations, would that suffice to meet openness and transparency and the standards of the nrc principles you referenced? >> senator, thank you for the question. meetings are a very key component of the effort. we had a public meeting last thursday, the nrc, which i think is a very good start.

i think all the commissioners here support the chairman's call for open meetings as being a very key component. there's the discussions happening outside and that the prior recommendations should proceed. >> you didn't believe the existing regulatory framework is broken? is this 82-page report larger in scope than you expected given that statement? >> if i can address that statement, senator, i agree with what the chairman said a few minutes ago on his definition of the or characterization of the patchwork comment, and i think there's been a dynamic, evolving buildup of regulation in response to events, and so i dent think that the -- don't think that the patchwork is a fair characterization itself, but i think the chairman is correct here. i think it is something we ought to look at, but i don't think it's something that's an immediate concern that suggests our existing regulations were not safe and proper.

>> thank you very much. commissioner, if i could, lacking the nrc technical and problematic staff evaluation, you know, you said i do not have a sufficient basis to accept or reject the recommendations of the near term task force. how can owe receive a sufficient basis of knowledge to then make that decision about accepting or rejecting these recommendations? >> i had made a proposal to my colleagues which is not yet decided upon, but it would be that the nrc problematic staff take the recommendations, 45 days come bag to the commission are -- with a plan how to move forward on getting that complete evaluation and can, at that time, identify the more straightforward recommendations on how they would propose to move forward on those more quickly, so i did not think it needed to take an excessive amount of time. >> thank you, thank you, madam

chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> just to start again by telling you where i begin my thinking going back to the ap article, june 20th, 2011, federal regulators working closely with the industry to keep the nation's aging reactors to operate to safety standard by failing to enforce them an investigation by the ap found. throughout this discussion i hear half a dozen times members of the committee have quoted the statement in the task force which says that the task force ckds a fukushima accident is unlikely to occur in the united states. we heard that a half does p time, but have not heard the paragraph before that. the paragraph before that says,

"this regulatory approach established and supplemented piece-by-piece over the decades that addressed many safety concerns and issues using the best information and tactics available at the time. the result is a patchwork of regulatory requirements and other safety initiatives all important, but not all given equivalent consideration and treatment by licensees or during nrc technical review and inspection. consistent with the nrc's organizational value of excellence, the task force believes that improving, improving the nrc's regulatory framework is an appropriate and realistic achievable goal." chairman, what should be -- what's the problem? i don't think -- again, my friend from wyoming said they were defective. i didn't hear the word

"defective" that the regulatory system is defective, but they want to improve it. do we have a problem of improving the regulatory framework? second of all, let's be clear what we're talking about. . you have highly knowledgeable people who have made 12 recommendations, recommendations, they want you to go forward. no one is saying you have to accept all 12 recommendations tomorrow. what they are saying is look at them, analyze them, tell us what you like. i think mr. inhofe is ready to go on some of them. fine. what is the problem in your judgment about taking the recommendations and starting a discussion to see what we like or don't like? >> i think that's something we can do, and as i said, i think it's something we should be able to get done in 90 days. >> what is the problem with starting this discussion? >> i voted within days of receiving the task force report to respectfully i believe begin

this discussion, so i don't see that my proposal is to take an inordinate amount of time to evaluate them. >> you're ready to get going? >> yes, i am. >> time to start the process. >> yes, i think i was the first one to vote. >> you are ready now to begin immediately to start a discussion on these 12 recommendations? >> absolutely. >> senators, i think we're all ready. >> i'm glad to hear that. chairman, is the process now ready to go? where is the confusion been? what am i missing here? >> well, i think there's a bit of a -- we're stuck, i think, on the developing of the process rather than just moving forward to actually begin the discussion and dialogue on the recommendations. rights now what we're talking about is the process to have that discussion, and

unfortunately, you know, with the exception most have weighed in about the prosays. >> what are the differences of opinions with regard to processes? >> well, i think they are not severe. i think they're minor, but i think a big difference is setting an expectation when we get completed. i suggested we work to get completed, our decisions about all 12 recommendations in 90 days. that's a reasonable time frame and that's what i hear is the biggest point. >> do you think we could do it? >> i agree with the chairman's characterization. >> well, do you agree though -- do you agree with him we can get the recommendations done in 90 days? >> no, i have -- i believe that some of them are complex enough it's not possible to make a final decision on all 12 in 90 days. >> i believe we can do it in 90 days. i think the major difference, senator, process-wise is that the chairman wrote up would go

directly to public meetings of the commission. some of the members feel that we should get senior management evaluation first of the recommendations. >> okay. mr. magwood? >> as i see the votes been cast so far, i see a great deal of commonality. i think there's a census developing quickly with this, and as i said earlier, i think some of the recommendations can likely be implemented -- >> do you agree with the chairman we can get moving on this? >> i think we can launch some of them sooner than 90 days, others may take longer. >> i believe that we can october on most of these recommendations, perhaps not all. in the press there's been a perception of great -- there's more consensus, everybody is ready to move forward and

there's agreement on the need to place this as the highest priority, and it cloarly is. >> okay. >> madam chairman, thank you. >> let's see, senator alexander. >> a traffic policemen's job would keep the traffic safe and all five of you staid public health and safety was your job, but if a traffic cop stopped the cars from going anywhere, his supervisor would say that's not creative of you and is there anything within the charge of the commission to make it possible for a nuclear power plant to create an environment in which a plant can operate in which a new one could be built? >> i don't think there's a chart specificically for that to be the most vaition of what we do -- >> that's not part of your charge to create an environment in which is pour plant can --

power plant -- i mean, if your only charge is public health and safety, you'd shut them all down. >> no, i think our charge is republican assurance of public health and safety. the charge is we provide a level of assurance that's reasonable. >> there's no economic responsibility -- no responsibility you have to make sure a power plant can be operated economically at the same time? >> no. our requirements really fall into two categories, those things which are a basic safety based on court decisions have, the commission is required to make those safety decisions irrespective of the economic considerations of the decision. certainly when it goes to the implementation of requirements, we can consider the economic impact and look to see which is the most cost beneficial. >> you can consider that? >> at that stage, but not at the basis of determines whether something is a fundamental requirement. we are barredded from a court

decision. >> is it your objective and that of the commission to create an environment in which new nuclear plants can be built? >> no, my goal is to ensure an environment that environments are safe and if new ones are built, they are as safe as requirements dictate. >> you don't have any -- what about the recommendation of the commission? they recommended that you complete without delay the design certification of the ap1,000 and the economically simplified water reactor design. >> that was an implementation not to take action, but recommendation indicating there's no reason to specifically delay action as a result of these recommendations. >> that sounds like action to me. are you planning to do it without delays? >> we are continuing to move forward? >> within 90 days? >> fairly close to a final rule in october which is part of the reason for us to look at these

recommendations in 90 days because when we go into the decision of looking at a final design, fringe, the ap1000, it's important we dispositioned the recommendations so we know what, if any, changes impact it. >> considering all the recommendations, all 12 delay your consideration of the design certification for the ap1,000 and the new boiling water reactor design? >> not in my opinion. however, i believe if we don't consider the recommendations in a timely way, it could have the potential impact of delaying the reaction on the licensing. >> but there's a lot of talk here about delay. this report said you should do this without delay. i mean, why do they say that? >> i don't know. that's better to ask the task force, but, again, i think the information that's relevant there is it's useful information for the commission to know there's no immediate issues with

the design certification. >> let me press you further. you said you think everything could be done in 90 days. does that include these two designs? >> what i said is that it is important for the commission to disposition the 12 recommendations. i would note the statements relate the to new reactors are not any 12 recommendations of the task force. >> but they're in the report. >> that's correct. >> yeah. they say without delay; right? >> that's correct. we are not delaying any of the new reactor work, however, as i said, if we don't promptly act on the recommendations, it will create uncertainty for what actions are applicable to the new reactors that could lead to a delay in the actual work if we don't disposition the recommendations promptly. >> well, as you can tell, my hope is that you'll take the -- if you're going to take the task forces -- you can take the committee's advice to do the task force recommendations within 90 days that you'll take

the task force's advice to complete the design certification without delay. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. senator, i call your attention to the mission of the nrc that's clearly stated. the u.s. ncc is an independent agency created by congress. the mission of the nrc is to license and regulate the nation's civilian use of by-products, sources, and nuclear materials in order to protect public health and safety, promote the common defense, security, and protect the environment, so it's right there. >> madam chairman, i would think that it is still a legitimate question whether, you know, a traffic cop should stop all the traffic. that's one way to have safety, his supervisor would ask him to be creative and at least let people drive in a safe way. >> well, i don't think that's the right analogy because

there's really no analogy when dealing with nuclear energy, and i think in a -- >> we've had a lot of traffic, we tolerate 38,000 traffic deaths every year, never one with a nuclear reactor in the united states. >> that says a lot for an independent agency protecting the health and safety. they said the same thing in japan until recently, but in any event, let's move on. obviously, we have differences here just like you have differences there. i want to make the point, and i really do want to make this point because i made it to you before. as many differences as we have here, we're friends, and we differ, we argue, we debate. i just i'm sensing with you that maybe there needs to be a little bit more friendship? just a point spoken as a human being, not as a senator. i think it's important that

these differences not become perm. if we can do it, we are really good friends, then anybody can do it. anyway, here we go. we're moving on, and we're going now to senator lautenberg. >> thank you, madam chairman, and this is beginning to look like a glee club here. everybody happy faces and -- what you say is really what you get. the nrc recently renewed the operating license for the hope creek nuclear plant in new jersey through 2046. now, what did we learn from the incident in japan that you would take into account when deciding to grant the extension, and which conditions would that influence you to place on in >>

well, for any reactor whether it's a reactor operating for 35 years or 45 years, if we adopt any of these recommendations, they would likely apply to every reactor in the country with the exception of the recommendations like the harden vent issue only applying to boiling water reactor designs. the license renew process is ensuring there's a program in place to deal with the aging of components and systems, and nothing that came out of the task force specifically touched on those issues, but a call, for instance, for a number of recommendations dealing with earthquakes and those kinds of things we would expect at any plant, hope creek being one of them, would be required, then, to implement along with the others. >> so not too much specific information came from the fukushima failure that influenced your granting of the extension? >> not at this point, nothing

that affected the extension, but ultimately, if the recommendations are adopt the, some would apply to hope creek as an operating plant just like any other plant in the country. >> the g mark i containment system that was used at fukushima is also used at u.s. plants including two reactors in new jersey, and it is said in june that we didn't know what went wrong with the containment system at fukushima. now, what did this uncertainty factor bring into the recent nrc task force recommendations? when do you think we'll know what went wrong at the japanese plant? >> that could take possibly years. what will need to happen is they have to decontaminate the facility, the reactor itself, get in, analyze, and really look at the equipment and try to -- almost like a criminologist to try to recover and reconstruct

what happened in the accident, but as the task force laid out, there are some things we can do in the short term, and in particular with the hard ped vents -- harden vents, there is a requirement. the mark i requirements similar to japan are containment designs that do have hardened vents, but never done as a formal regulatory requirement so the task force recommended that we do that. the advantage of that is it brings it under our inspections, oversight, and all those kinds of things to moderate and be sure it's used effectively. that's something specifically recommended that we take action on. >> but it would take years, you say, to fully understand what took place there? >> it may. one of the -- >> it's hard to imagine because there were specific events. we're not talking about the influence on the people who were in the area and that kind of thing, but the specific trigger

for this collapse is pretty much obvious. >> yeah, and that's why you see a number of recommendations from the task force. .. >> given it falls short for the 2008 proposal, how can we be

sure that the task force approach here will ensure the safest form of storage? >> i think the task force recommendation is really a short term recommendation. which is precisely to ensure that if an event like fukushima were to happen, the challenges, namely how much water is in the pool, and making sure there's sufficient capability to put water into the pool to keep it cool. those things would be addressed. that's what they've asked for in the short term. over the longer term, we can analyze the issue more importantly of whether we should have more fuel in pools versus in storage. they really went at the short term issue of making sure the fuel in pools is going to be in an enhanced configuration and safer that way. >> i'm being ruled out. thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> that took a little long, i think. >> thank you, senator. senator sessions. >> thank you. there has been some complaints about your leadership in the mission, as you are aware and

seen it in the media. i do believe that it is important that you reflect the proper role of the chairman, which has, i'm sure, administrative responsibilities. but we have a commission, and the commission is established to decide in, as a commission important issues. with regard to this emergency powers, did you file an official documents assuming emergency powers of any kind? >> no, senator. >> how did you announce? >> it is not something that we have procedures in which it is formally done. three or four days into the incident, i was made aware my colleagues asked about that. i spoke with the council, i asked members of the staff, should i make a formal declaration of use of emergency powers. in all honest iting we got one two or people saying no. and quite frankly, i got distracted by dealing with the emergency response and didn't turn back to it until several

weeks later. >> it you seek a formal opinion from council as to whether an event on the other side of the world would give the american nuclear regulatory commission the commission chairman the power to assume emergency powers that would in some ways diminish, obviously, the influence of the other members of the commission. >> i did seek that in the general council advised me it was perfectly appropriate. >> do you have a written opinion? >> i do. i believe that's been provided to the committee. >> with regard to the committee, are you skill assuming those powers. >> no. i've ceased that weeked ago or perhaps months. >> and have you issued a report what you did during the course of that time? >> as i indicated, we provided situation reports to the commission at the beginning of the incident, those situation reports were issued multiple times a day. >> no -- the reorganization act,

the statute of 1980 said following the conclusion of the emergency, the chairman or member of the commission delegated the emergency functions under the subsection shall render a complete and timely report to the commission on the actions taken during the emergency, closed quote. have you done that? >> i believe that i have. >> is that available to us? >> we can provide with you the boxes of situation reports -- >> well, no, that's not the statute requires. would you not agree, mr. jaczko? why would you hesitate to do a complete and timely report of the actions taken during the emergency? >> i have conferred with the general council and i believe that i have more than satisfied the requirements of that particular provision. sufficient -- tremendous information is provided to the commission about actions that were taken during the response. >> well, i'm not arguing about that.

you've given a lot of information. i believe the statute under which you served requires that the chairman or the emergency official render a complete and timely report. not a series of situation reports in a box somewhere. would you agree that's what it seems to say, plainly? >> as i read the statute, it's clear they envision one piece of information. certainly when that statute -- >> why wouldn't you do that? >> because i think we provided much of that information already to the commission. i've heard nothing from my colleagues on the commission that they have any interest in that report. >> i have an interest in it. the people of the united states have an interest in their chairman of the nrc following the plain statutory requirement. i'll ask you what hesitation do you have to put a formal report together that says what you did while you assumed emergency powers? >> i'd be happy to put that together, senator. i believe i've more than done,

more than provided information to the american people through testimony through a variety of different reports that have provided significant information about the actions that were taken during this event. i would be more than happy to summarize those in a single report. >> i think it should comply with the statute. that's all i'm asking. >> i'd like to comment that i have conferred and we believe that i have more than complied with the statute in that particular provision. we can provide you can an analysis of that as well. >> i believe it requires a single report after the conclusion. and it's pretty obvious that you have not done that. with regard to the committee, you didn't select them edo? >> director of operations. >> who do they work for? >> the chairman. >> so did you know who was being selected? >> absolutely. >> and those members discussed

with you before, they were selected? >> i believe he gave the names to me. i said they were appropriate. i thought they were a good selection. >> did you make any suggestions to him about names that might be on that list if >> i don't recall whether i did or didn't? >> you don't recall? >> it was not something that was formally presented to them. i believe i signed off on it inverbally. i believe they were good selection, the people that he selected were excellent people. i don't recall if there was a time a smaller group or larger group, i could check any records. it was not for me a significant decision to me. i trusted the cdo to that task force. >> my time is up. thank you, madam chairman. i will submit a written question concerning how it was that the commission planned that stakeholders would be invited to submit questioned was

eliminated. >> thank you. the last hearing that we had here we did ask the chairman about this in depth. i'll get you about this taking over emergency powers. could you not start the clock yet? i have another thing to do. senator cardin, i'm just going to put this out here. he would like this in writing, this answer. if the commission delays action on task force recommendations on the grounds that you don't have enough information about what happened at fukushima to move forward, does that suggest the nrc doesn't have enough information to move forward with existing licensing on reactors? that's a question that he wants answer. we're going to have a second round. i think senator carp is coming back. >> i'll be belief. you are the chair. >> thank you for noticing. okay.

here's where we are. i want all of you to know we're going to have you back every 90 days until i know what you are doing. and take all of the answers that you gave, how much are you going to work, half a dozen, bakers dozen, whatever it is, and we're going to stay on this. i'll tell you why. after 9/11, we had all of these great ideas, everybody thought, great. the nrc took decisive action. and nine years later, some of these things went into effect. that is not going to happen. or if it happens, the american people are going to know. here's the point. whether you love nuclear energy, don't like it, or you are agnostic, it ain't going anywhere if it isn't safe. it is not going anywhere where the public doesn't have faith in you. if the public thinks that you are somehow not independent, not doing their business, let me tell you they won't be happy. i have a question for you,

commissioner svinicki. i cannot say your name. forgive me. svinicki. on the july 19th you stated and i quote the nfc finds itself to move away from small group tasking including the commission itself attempting to labor in isolation. this is very disturbing to me. very disturbing. the commission itself attempting to labor in isolation. you are an independent entity. what are you talking about? isolated from who? >> i meant that term to reinforce the importance of having public meetings and stakeholders outreach, meaning that the commission ought to have the benefit of -- >> you don't think that's up to stakeholders to decide what we should approve? you are an independent commissioner, are you not? >> yes, i meant that the process should be informed by those public. >> and chairman jaczko has laid

out a plan. he proposes a process to move forward over the next 90 days to receive broad input from the staff and external stakeholders and have votes by october 7th, 2011. do you agree with that? >> as i indicated in response to your earlier question. >> i'm not asking you a earlier question. i'm ask you this. chairman jaczko has proposed a process to move forward over the next 90 days to address your concern to receive broad input from nrc staff and external stakeholders and to have votes on specific recommendations by october 7th, 2011. do you agree? it seems to match what you called for. now he's put it out there. it echoed what you want. do you agree? >> i support commission meetings, as i've indicated. i'm hot sure that all of the commission, all of the task force recommendations could be decided on in 90 days. >> how many do you think could be decided on in 90 days?

commissioner ostendorff has pointed out this. yes or no? >> i have proposed. >> yes or no? do you agree with him that six of these could be decided in 90 days? >> i don't have a specific count. >> okay. let me just say your responses disturb me. when you say that the commission isolated, your role by statute is to be independent. chairman jaczko laid it out. i have seven people that live within 50 miles of the nuclear plant. i went there with the one sitting next to you, what is your plan if there's an emergency? he said we have to go out on the highway. that's all we can do is escape that way. do you ever go to those freeways?

you probably may not have. you can't move an inch sometimes. i've got seven million people. you are sitting here and saying you can't move forward. i want to compliment the member of this special task force of. it's not red tape at all. 12 recommendations, they make sense. and i am stunned to hear that you were -- is there one that you can recommend to move forward? >> i agree the task force identified the correct areas. i would like the nrc staff that would be responsible for carrying out the recommendations, i would like to have their input prior. >> that's right, chairman jaczko has laid out a path to do just that. you say you won't be ready in october. what's the date that you'll be ready? what date do you think is good to be ready to vote on perhaps the half a dozen simple ones

that everyone else seems to think we can move on. what's the date. give me a date. >> my objective would be if some are less complex to move on them before 90 days. >> excellent. which ones do you think it would be? >> i -- >> less complex. i looked at all of these. most of them don't seem too complex. especially the ones that deal with making sure that the plants under take more safety precaution, emergency preparedness, and all of that. which ones are less complex. give me a couple out of the 12. >> i think that relooking at flooding and seismic requirements to make sure we are using state of the art knowledge there is a straightforward recommendation -- >> so you like the recommendation that every ten years the operator have to come up with new assessments as to the safety. that's the recommendation? >> i was referring to the recommendation that asked the task of staff to relook at the

basis on seismic. >> how about that one? the one i just said. they say every ten years the operator of a plant that's located near flooding in seismic has to do a relook at the problem because with science moving forward, commissioner, we have new information all the time. as to whether the seismic problem is worse, less harsh, right now we are very concerned. science shows us it's moving in the wrong direction. more earthquakes, tsunamis. that's one the recommendations. do you think that's complex. is that complex? >> i think that we as an agency constantly look at our state of knowledge in those areas. >> do you think it's complex to ask the operator who is operating a plan on or near an earthquake fault or near a possible tsunami zone to ask

them every ten years to reassess the safety of their plan? is there a complex recommendation? >> i would assess we require them to look at it constantly. any new information that comes forward, as with california off of the coast and fault rhines, we require in advance of ten year period. >> good, you would support every time there's new science and overall new look at the safety of these plans; is that correct? >> yes. we require that now. >> well, are you ready to vote on that in the next 90 days? what you say you support, are you ready to go for that in the next 90 days? >> respectfully, my proposal asks that the nrc staff come back and provide us with the implementation path. before i made a final

decisioned, i woulded to be informed by the nrc. >> all i can say is if i'm the people of california and i'm watching this, right now i'm not so sure about whether i want that plant to operate. because it's very simple. and with have our plants there coming in. i urge them not to do that. not even to issue before they have studied that. you seem to be on my side, then you have to hear from everybody else. there's certain things that you should have more belief in what you say. because it's common sense. i'm just saying we have oversight over the work that you do. mr. chairman, i want to complement you and i want to say the commissioner who are ready, willing, and able to act in a time frame of 90 days, thank you.

because if we don't, we are not going to see people supporting the power. you take the obvious sit view. the more you convince people, the more they are going to be comfortable with nuclear power. if you give me answers like i have to wait and i can't tell, and then you have a situation where it look nine years to put into place the last safety measures, that's ridiculous. as long as i'm sitting over here and i have a voice, i'm going to continue to call you before us. i mean i really could get used to this. because i think you need to know how important the work that dough is to the safety the people and foremost and to the future of the nuclear energy. >> senator? >> just a few questions. chairman jaczko, some of my

republican colleagues have kind of suggested that you are initiated a [inaudible] on the nrc. you are running a nick traitorship to undermine american democratic values. so i just want to ask you once again to be clear, do you believe, and does the not partisan general council of the nrc believe that you are fulfilled the statute in terms of the emergency powers? and in terms of emergency powers as i understand it, quite appropriately after fukushima, you wanted to make sure that -- it was the 13 plants that we have in this country that are similar design to the fukushima plants. you quite appropriately wanted to make sure that something similar to what happened in japan does not happen to the united states. is that correct? >> well, certainly it was a piece of it. the primary focus is really on

american citizens in japan, and ensuring that we were doing everything that we could to protect them as they were there. and that was in many ways the prime focus. most of the issues related to how we dealt with u.s. plants were really dealt with by the commission. when it established this task force. that was how we decided to go forward in that way. i didn't really exercise any authorities with regard to domestic facilities. >> it was just to protect the american st. st. citizens in ja? >> right. >> does the nonpartisan general council believe you acted appropriately within the statutes? >> i believe that's the case. and some are here. they can probably nod. >> may i ask the general council if he acted within the law? >> yes, you can. please, sir. please join us.

>> senator, my name is steven burns, i'm a general council career employee. the simple answer is i believe the chairman's actions were consistent with the powers that he has under the statute. i received inquiry from his office fairly early on. based on my view and an assessment of my predecessor's view of actions taken during and in response to 9/11 when there also was not an specific event in u.s. facility. although a threat environment obviously to u.s. facilities, my view was that given the intentions of president carter and then the congressional essentially endorsement under the reorganization plan, that his actions were consistent with those of responsibility. >> you are as i understand it, a nonpartisan official?

>> yes, i'm a courier official appointed by the commission. >> madam chairman, thank you. i would hope that puts an end to the consistent attack against the chairman. let me ask mr. ostendorff if i could a question. my understanding is that you are prepared to move quickly on a number of the recommendations of the task force. let me ask you about their first recommendation. that is the task force recommendations establishing a logical, systemic and coherent that appropriately balances defense, depth, and risk considerations. that's important. are you prepared to move rapidly on that one? >> thank you. i address that specific recommendation in my vote in some detail. i think it needs to be looked at. i have some concerns that trying to embark upon that right now will distract us from takes

other actions in the short term. i do support us taking a look at trying to improve the framework that we currently have. >> i just don't quite get that answer. you see that as important. no one is suggestions that you have to swallow, hook, line, and sinker. what is the problem with beginning that discussion right now? >> senator, i've been around nuclear propulsion program in the navy for many, many years. i've seen a lot of different efforts taken in the naval sea system, on the submarines and carriers, i've seen the actions. this is one that's going to take a few years to do recommendation one. i support moving forward as a separate effort to look at recommendation one. i don't think that should hold us up in trying to take shorter term actions? >> okay. okay. thank you. >> chairman, i would yield the floor. >> we're going to close it out. i have a couple of questions to ask of our commissioners.

thin i think we're going to vote here soon. this is a question for commissioner magwood and commissioner ostendorff, if i could. it's my understanding that a majority of you have asked senior staff to take a look. and you've asked the senior staff folks to provide suggestions to the commissioners on how to proceed with the recommendations. here's my question, we talked around this already, i'm going to ask you this directly, since senior nrc staff made the recommendations until the first place, now we're asking other senior staff to come in and to provide suggestions, why is this next step needed? and just explain that to me. why is it needed? >> i'll start, first i think that -- well, speak for myself here, certainly, my perspective

is that it isn't simply another assessment by nrc staff, although i do look forward to seeing what the senior staff thinks. for me, the most important thing is to have the staff interact with stakeholders in a direct and comprehensive fashion to understand what stakeholders responses are to the various recommendations and see what their suggestions are, and then think about that and feed that information to the commission. i don't look at it as simply the nrc staff looking at what the nrc staff has already said. i think it was nrc staff using the mechanism that is we have in place. public meetings, across table discussions in public venue, of course, to hear details about the reaction to the recommendations. it didn't get that back to the commission. that's really the normal, in large respect, what we do every day. >> okay. commissioner ostendorff. >> thank you. i respond and agree. i'll just make two points here

in addition. one is when i asked the executive director for operations bill how we thought we should proceed, he supported his office and those who work for him, come back and give us an integrated list. that was a key lesson learned from the three mile island. the agency did not do that. i think we'll get more bang from the buck, implementing those that will make a real difference sooner by having them characterized less. second piece that not all of the recommendations are equal. and there's some that should be done right now, and some that require more information. >> all right. thank you. chairman jaczko, questions on orders versus regulatory process. some of the regulatory tools that the commissioners disposal are the rulemaking process and the issuance of orders. could you describe and prepare?

for reach what opportunity for public comment and the shake hold hold -- stakeholders? >> they have more opportunity for public involvement. either they need to be taken care of in time for safety reasons or responses to violation of our regulations. so they are not a preferred tool. because they don't provide for the more in depth public engagement that a regulation would. and one the activities that i've challenged the staff since i've been chairman is to better streamline our rulemaking process so that we can use that as a more viable tool and get things done in a more timely way, but still have the stakeholders input. generally, the orders have less involvement. but it's usually a situation where which we feel there's a clear safety needs to requires prompt action. in most cases, when it's relating to a specific issue,

there's a rulemaking process so eventually the same continue tent get captured. >> all right. let me just get followed up with that. stakeholders and industry in the environmental community have shared and discuss concerns with my own staff about moving these recommendations through your order process. and what has been the nrc's experience? with expedited rulemaking and might it have a role to play with some of the recommendations adopted by the commission? >> well, i think everyone that comes in as chairman of the nrc and probably every commissioner at the nrc wants the rulemaking process to go forward faster. we have mixed success with that. and a lot of it, i think, comes down to the usual challenges of resources and focus and priorization. we did recently complete in start to finish in about four months, having to do with an issue related to how we deal with the over fatigue and tired

of workers who may get tired at a nuclear power plant. i think there are ways to do it. it would cause us to change how we do our regulations. but i think it's doable if that were -- in my mind, that would be the most preferable way to some of these things is to do them in expedited rule makers that can be done in four or five months, rather than the two or three years that it takes. >> okay. the vote has started yet. and so we have what looks like another hour or two. [laughter] >> all right. not that long. i would like to do something -- i see -- that's my mother calling in to say haste makes waste. not really. what you wanted to do, sometimes like close with the hearing, ask -- you know, we always ask if you have an opening statement. sometimes i find it's helpful to do a closing statement. not a lengthy one, but maybe

something like given the consideration or the questions that have been asked and responses, this maybe a closing fight as we prepare to go vote. captain ostendorff, commissioner, why do you go first? >> thank you, senator. i would say that we talk all the time and meet each week when we are in town. >> how often are you all in town? >> pardon? >> how often are you all in town? >> i'd say we probably are all together to meet at least three weeks out of four. you know, individual periodics, consistent with the government and sunshine act. i'd say it's my perception based on discussions with all of my colleagues here that we all want to move forward quickly. we all want to do the right thing. i don't think we're as far apart as maybe some of the questioning might have suggested. and i really think that we want to do those things, but not all

of these are longer term actions. some are short term, some are intermediate, and some require more information. i asked the institute for nuclear power operations july 15th, senior executive, do you have sufficient information on the events in order right now to support the order recommended by the task force. he says, no. the task force itself said that we do not understand whether or not the operators of fukushima actually operated these events. i'm using that just as a discreet example. i think we need to explore. it would be a month, and have information to make a position. that's just one example. there are some things that do require more information, more granularity. >> okay. thanks. commissioner magwood, closing thought or two please. >> i think commissioner ostendorff covered it. he said it quite well.

the only thing that i would add is i believe we will move forward quickly. there's a lot of willingness on the commission to get it done. we're taking this very seriously. i think we all were talking to each other during the fukushima event. and i think almost immediately began to think about what lessons were being learned as to watching them unfold on television. this is just the conclusion of what started back in march, and i feel very positive that we'll get this done quickly and do the right thing. >> all right. go ahead. >> i agree with my colleagues. i think the commission will act in a timely manner. it's just the details that we have to work out. so i don't see any problem at all. >> all right. >> commissioner svinicki? >> i agree with what my colleagues have said thus far in summary and remarks, i think that there is a lot of over lap and commonality in the approach here. and i think that we want to and can, i believe, it's possible to

strike the appropriate balance between urgency and moving forward and also being a thoughtful and getting it right. thank you. >> thank you. mr. chairman? >> well, i would say i appropriate all of the comments of my colleagues. i think there are far more areas of agreement than disagreement. i do believe strongly that it's important for us to disposition the recommendations in 90 days. i think that's something that's doable. what i've heard from my colleagues, i think there's perhaps more agreement than there is disagreement about that. >> good. in closing, one of my favorite people to work here in the senate is a republican from wyoming, his name is mike enzi. enzi. a lot of people don't know him. i knew him when i was governor. we worked on a couple of things together then. mike enzi is the senior republican on the health education labor pension committee. and the senior democrat was a guy named kennedy, ted kennedy. they were remarkably effective,

and the committee was remarkably productive. i would say to mike, how does one the most conservative republicans around here work so productively with one of the most liberal democrats? they get so much done, regardless of who is chairman is. he said ted kennedy and i describe to the 80 clash 20. we agree about 80% of the stuff, disagree on 20%. we focus on the 80% that we agree on. as a result, we get a lot done. more times than i can count, i call my on colleagues on this side to subscribe to the 80/20 rule. if we did that on a consistent basis, i think it'll be not just a better place to work, but a better country. i would urge as we seems like we've got about 80% agreement on this.

but it's an agreement on what needs to be acted on more quickly, promptly, and that which needs more scrubbing. and so as my mother said, haste does make waste. in the words of my father, work does expand to the time that we allocate. we need to move forward on what we can, as a team. on the stuff that needs more time, let's take more time. not more time than we need. with that being said, we're going to wrap it up and you guys go have lunch. i'm going to go vote. thank you all for coming. this hearing is adjourned. >> i think we have -- our colleagues have two weeks to commit questions. if you get more questions, please respond. thank you. [gavel] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> president obama turns 50 tomorrow. he's going to chicago for his birthday and tonight holds a fundraiser there. chicago natives jennifer hudson and herbie hancock scheduled to perform. live coverage tonight at 8:15 eastern on c-span. here's a look at our prime time schedule on c-span2. starting at 8 p.m., a hearing on the overall soundness -- >> this weekend on booktv on

c-span2. john, on "afterwords" amanda foreman, and live sunday noon eastern three hours of your calls and questions. in depth with ann coulter, her latest is "demonic." look for the complete book tv schedule at booktv.org and sign up for book tv alert, weekend schedules in your inbox. >> earlier today, congressional democrats held a briefing on reorganization of federal aviation administration programs. a delay has led to a partial shutdown of the agency. we'll now hear from senator majority leader harry reid, and transportation committee chairman jay rockefeller at the 35 minute briefing. >> we had the good fortune of having a new tower to be constructed, mckaren field.

one individual contacted the office that he was so happy to be there. he worked for three days, and then this happened. what is this? the republicans playing games with house republicans -- house republicans playing game with faa. we've had 20 plus extensions of debt to get some of the other issues worked down. but that wasn't good enough for them this time. they had to try to hold a number of issues hostage as they have done with more than 300 million americans in recent days. i call upon the speaker boehner to end this. they could do it in pro forma session. we are in. they should send us clean to go back to work. 75,000 construction workers out of work. 4,000 federal employees out of work. and then to pour salt on the wounds, we now have safety inspectors -- safety inspectors -- paying for their own hotel

bills, airplane to do the safety inspections. those inspectors are the primary individuals responsible for ensuring the commission airports comply with federal regulation. of they also supply the runaway safety action teams, over see construction safety plans, that's not too difficult now, there is no construction going on, investigate runway, and ensure that corrective action is taken on safety. these men and women are now being asked to spend their own money to do their jobs. they are not being paid. this is one the most outrageous things that i can comprehend. so many people desperate for work are being told they can't. because once again, the house republican, rather than legislate the way we have done around here for a long time, feel they have the empowerment to hurt individual people. and that's what we have done.

the issue here -- the issue here, everyone understands, is not a central air service. they try to hold and take the number of democratic senators. then that -- this was an extension, they'd come back and want more. that is not the way to legislate. but that's what they are doing. i hope republicans understand how desperate people are out there. i commend and applaud kay bailey hutchinson who has been so strong, recognizing what they did in the house is wrong, and ray lahood, the secretary said the republicans are doing this. i just think it's so, so bad that the -- and the airlines, how about that? about $1 million a day they are taking money that belongs with the federal government. i agree say, speaker boehner,

stop this nonsense. >> my name is steny hoyer, i'm the democratic whip, i'm speaking on behalf of speaker pelosi and myself. as speaker reid has pointed out today, almost 4,000 federal employees and some 70,000 workers for contractors around this country are being held captive. they are out on the street because republicans have refused to work with us to find common ground. the faa shut down will jeopardize $11 billion in construction projects. it will cost more than $200 million per week. it is already cost us $360

million. this is from the party that is worried about fiscal responsibility. thousands of people have critical aviation engineers, safety analyst, and key personnel. we owe it to these workers to come together and reach a compromise. we are with every american taxpayers to come together and reach come compromise. we need to get this done, and we need to get it done today. unfortunately, republicans continue to practice the politicians of confrontation and hostage. it is severely damaging our economy and the livelihoods of people across our nation. as leader reid pointed out, we have been more months now, holding 315 million americans and the entire country hostage to the threat of taking us over the precipice into default.

because of the work of the white house and leader reid and leader pelosi and others, we avoided that. at the last minute. however, 75,000 people are now over the precipice. and worrying about whether the people in washington on the republican side of the aisle are going to responsibility say enough. these are people who are responsible for modernizing our airports, building new runways, and helping the infrastructure keep base with the rest of the world. while our competitors continue to invest in infrastructure and growth, america is losing ground. this is why: every day because of republican hostage taking. for the sake of more than 75,000 americans, waiting to work, willing to work, wanting to work, and we've asked them to work. for the sake of economic competitiveness, it's time for

republicans to put our country first and these workers first. before themselves, before the petty politics that they are pursuing. and work with us to forge a long term compromise in september. but there's a bill in the house of representatives introduced by congressman jerry that will be passed within hours. speaker boehner would agree to a unanimous consent and leader reid if mr. mcconnell will agree could pass this within hours. or pass the bill in the senate? > how about a minute? >> we now hear the senate can pass it within minutes. [laughter] >> i will quickly go back to the house of representatives and report that no matter how hard much my credibility will suffer. [laughter]

>> we need to act on this issue now. 75,000 americans demand it. our country demands it. and it's inresponsible to hold hostage these people as our country and the safety of our airways, pending some petty political gain. i now yield to the distinguished former colleague of my mine. not a colleague of mine, but a good friend of mine, the chairman of the commission committee, senator jay rockefeller. >> ladies and gentlemen, it's very easy to solve this. it's embarrassingly easy, shamefully easy. all we have to do is to have the house send us or we send to them and they accept it, a clean bill of extension. the leader talked about the fact that we are now in our 21st extension to reauthorize a four

year federal aviation administration bill. which is -- which aviation is a pretty large percentage of the gross domestic product. it's hugely important. but that's all it takes. and virtually every day, you know, barbara was down there. barbara boxer was down there last night, offering a clean bill of extension. it's objected to by republicans in the senate. i was down there the day before. and i offered a clean bill of extension. clean bill of extension says you'll talk. but you are not going to be told what you are going to talk about. and that's point one. it's so easy, it's so easy. and then all of those 4,000 people get paid who are out of work now. and things get back in line. the other thing that needs to be made clear is that a union bargaining relationship between

a private company, in this case delta, and a union is not something that the faa discusses. the faa has had sometimes labor problems with the transportation security folks. but they've resolved all of those things. you cannot have in an faa bill, you cannot take it up, a union contract with a private company. you can't do it. doesn't belong in a bill. can't be in a bill. please understand that. we can talk about all kinds of things, but talking about that -- one, we'll never come to an agreement, secondly, it doesn't belong in the bill. then one further thing. why are they doing this? i think firstly, it's an extension of the sort of thing that began in wisconsin. the whole andy worker type thing. i think they have fastened on to

it. surely they know it can't be in an faa reauthorization bill. but it's all they talk about. they send over something on essential air service and my counterpart says, no, no, that's you being used as a leverage on rock feller or whatever else to talk about on the national mediation board. >>one, we can't do that. secondly, point out to you the grounds a fact. most of the big airlines are eweonized. not a problem. one isn't, delta. delta wants to have the law changes so that it works for their advantage. delta has tried to unionize four times. four times they failed.

i don't know what's in it for them. but it's an anti-worker agenda which is driving them. and the rest of us are trying to get a very, very complex faa bill passed. if they did a clean bill of extension today, everybody -- you know, people would be pate, we could go ahead, we could proceed. we've always done clean extensions. it's the only -- we've had 20. as the leader reid said. we've had 20 now on this 21st in the middle. they have to put attachments to it. but their agenda is very clear. my agenda is very clear. my view towards the organization of workers that's between a company and a union. it's not anything that dough with the federal government. so back to my original point, it's so easy to solve. the clean bill of extension that allows us to get back if they

could have concrete. we appointed 100 day ago. they will not appoint. if they go along with a clean bill of extension, we can sit down and negotiate anything they want. well here we are, another made up crisis. that's what this is. why do i say that? because 20 times we've passed clean extension of faa. we keep the issues for the regular process. you know when you went to school, you learned how a bill becomes a law? house and senate may disagree. they take their disagreements into a conference committee. they haven't even appointed. they made up the crisis because they want to get their way on a number of issues, primarily, i think, an attack on worker men and women. but this attack is already the

gun. because working men and women are out of work. it's time they put the interest of jobs ahead of their own petty agenda. that's what i call it. i want to show you what's happening on the ground. is this a pitch of the tower. which is getting manufacture and more traffic needed. a large tower and bipartisan of the, we were able to get funding. and we warned the republicans that if they, you know, shut down the faa like this, this -- if there was bad weather that this work could be damaged. sure enough, what happened? we had a rainstorm, unusual, but it happened. the drywall was damaged. and now we see some of it ruined. we were warned it could happen, and it did happen. the contractor, private sector

contractor is losing 2,000 dollars a delay in rental fees, equipment trailers, and fencing and the superintendent there said the longer this goes on, the worse it affects us. and we've got now tens of thousands of construction workers already suffering because of a housing crisis. now they are suffering more. thisthis isn't made up. this is government by hostage. i want to associate myself with leader hoyer -- not leader, what are you now? >> whip leader. >> i want to speak, but you are partnered with nancy pelosi, but i'm in denial. >> that's okay. we're not offended. >> the fact is when you look back a the threats to shut down

the entire government unless they got tax breaks for the rich, followed by the full faith and credit hostage to their desires to cut government spending. here we are a third time. i hope the american people wake up. this is their motus operandi. government by crisis they make up. government by hostage taking. government by threat. real people. the people that they claim to care about, private is hurting badly. i hope they leader, senator reid is successful in getting the speaker boehner back here, back here to fix this problem that we have fixed 20 times before. and i stand with my chairman, i'm proud to be a senior member of their committee and chairman rockefeller for his strength. >> well, thank you.

i want to thank all of my colleagues, leader reid, whip hoyer, particularly chairman rockefeller who has just been undaunting in his desire and hard work to try and get this done. senator boxer, who's been one of the leader on the committee. now at this very moment, so you may not know it if you are an airline passenger, the federal aviation administration is in limbo. airports are the economic engine of small and large communities across the country. and this engine is now stuck in neutral. time and time again, the gop has blocked a clean short term extension until the longer term being can be passed. they have refused to negotiate. under the cover of the debt ceiling crisis that they manufactured, they have set in motion a second crisis. once again are holding the livelihoods of americans hostage until they get everything that

they want. leader reid has reached out here today to speaker boehner and said come let us talk and solve the problem. so that innocent people aren't hurt. we hope we are not met by silence from speaker boehner. i'd just like to make a larger point. once again, a far right wing of the gop is hurting the american economy in who's name they claim to be acting. they are trying the same tactics they used in the cr and in the debt ceiling debate. they are trying again to get their way by waging a battle of attrition on the floor of the house and senate, hurting thousands of innocent people in their wake. they have taken brinksmanship too far. this is becoming a disturbing pattern. a small group, strong

uncompromising group feeling the righteousness of their cause, hurt tens of thousands of innocent people and take them hostage until they get their complete way. these debates should not be determined by which side is willing to take the most casualties. we will not submit to a government by extortion. we must pass a clean extension and do it quickly. to not do so would put the livelihoods of tens of thousands at risk for no purpose. >> if i can address this question to senator rockefeller. we heard directly from senator reid yesterday that quote sometimes you have to step back and find out what is best for the country and not be bound by some of your own personal issues. senator reid told us he was willing to accept the house bill. you have blocked it. are you willing to shut down the

faa? >> i'm not answering that question. because you are quoting me. we, of course, recognize that there are many issues -- a number of -- you know, unanimous consent flying back and forth. i have courts that said i would be willing to eliminate nevada. that's what i was talking about opinion the majority leader, they have picked up a number of democratic senators. that wasn't good up. >> are you not willing to give away morgantown? >> okay. okay. you know what, jonathan, here's the issue. you and i say this respectfully, the way that we have america going to do, there's no penalty for outrageous conduct. what they have done is outrageous. what you have done is say he

said, she said. that's not the way it is. : defend its something important for the country. it allows america to be in touch with the rest of america.

so, on the central air service but focus on what they are doing is what you should be doing. >> at the same each time you talked about how painful the shutdown will be. it's going to be so painful to shut down which it is why not just accept -- >> another day september 15th. they will go to something else. this is a subterfuge for the number-one issue. they refuse to go to conference unless there is a prearrangement and will be ruled they've issued legally within the confines of the law they get rid of that we are not willing to do that and that is what this is all about and soon you focus of the better off you are and this issue has nothing to do with the services.

>> no more, you are saying. >> that's why we have reached out and what we are telling speaker boehner. stop this foolishness. we are not going to be held hostage as you did with the debt ceiling on this issue because we understand, we've been around quite a few times. we had long conversations yesterday but we always wind up in the same spot. they are going to give us something else come september and september the full ready e eliminated the permanent loss which is important that they will have other hostages then. >> there is a certain naivete that comes into the question because they are not talking about resolving the faa in a few weeks and this isn't really what they are about. now, plenty of times -- there was an issue that was attached

to it that both sides. that's why the story today is the fact that the leader is reaching out to speaker boehner to say if we want to resolve a particular issue, whatever it might be, let's talk about it, but not have one side say take-it-or-leave-it or people are going to be out of work, and the essence of your question doesn't understand that. that's the key. i've been here a long time, you've been here a long time, a long time for a pretty young guy, and the fact is you have to give a little bit behind the surface here of what this is really about. and again, i would reiterate what ever the issue is, this is about government one side making these and our leader is saying okay, let's sit down and negotiate something on whatever issues might be.

[inaudible] >> why it like to say something here to jonathan with all due respect. the issue was not a central your service or even a labor issue. it is the issue of hostage taking. it's as if someone puts a gun to your head and then you say why won't you give me your money? you leave out the whole context that there has been a gun held to your head, and that is not fair, and that is not right, and yet here he is right. we keep getting that situation. the issue we are here today about is you cannot run government because the other side, our side can do it, too. you can each say we will hurt innocent people to get our complete way sitting down to negotiating a the founding fathers intended to be and for the media to say that we are ignoring the gun held to your head you're not, why don't you given to them and let the thing go it's just not fair or right or even handed.

>> we've had a temporary extension, right? you of ejected yesterday -- [inaudible] i do not understand your anger and annexed it is not directed at one individual, mr. micha, who says he's doing this to save american taxpayers money. he has already cost american taxpayers more than the entire eas will cost for an entire year. why? because he has taken us hostage. absolutely right. why are you not angry? why is the american public not as i think they will to reckon their indirect somebody who was

to save 210 million cost over a billion dollars? just over a month. of this kind of hostage taking. again, the house of representatives has a bill. jerry costello has introduced it. they can pass it within the hour in which 75,000 people pass. why won't they do it? because we want to do what they tell us to do. we cannot run america or a democracy that way. that's the issue. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> jonathan, can we have order in the house? of course i care about morgantown, but the point is they said publicly they did it for this reason the senate

finance committee and the commerce committee and of the senate and took away things necessary for them but they are taking away our bill and their bill is the fastest-growing airport in the state. of course i care about that. but that isn't the point. the point is that isn't there a point because john mica has said time and time again publicly we did that. to try to force them to deal with the bill. and if i can be critical we've been caught up in the debt ceiling crisis. the faa and the tens of thousands of parks that make up the faa is extremely complicated we've gone from 210 disagreement

in staff negotiations down to 12 come all of which can be settled. but it has nothing to do with morgantown. actually, we have a better air service which costs less money and a better way of doing it, but isn't about the central air service because if i agree to that, then they would say okay well, we got that one, and then they would come back until you do the national mediation for it. you have to understand that speaker bonner said it didn't message to me that he would only consider discussing were doing the queen extension if i would agree previous to the discussion on the certification and

judicial review which is all about her nmb. what i am saying gently and kindly and loving to you is this is a very complicated issue when we come out of the huge cascade of complicated issues and highly charged, but it is complex. there is a history to what i'm saying and there is clarity in but i am trying to say is that it is so easy to do it. it's easy to do it. the question is why won't they? >> it's almost four years when democrats controlled both of the house and the senate, and there was no permanent reauthorization >> so what do you want me to say? we didn't do it. no, we didn't do it. >> why not? >> you think it is because we didn't care? i don't know why we didn't do it, but we didn't do it. we are dealing now with the present coming and we have gone from 210 issues of contention down to thanks to kay bailey

hutchison and some others, mostly staffers down to only 12 issues. 12 issues mean the huge alleviation system at work if we resolve it, and there are little things like lifting of batteries, you have to do homework on lifting the batteries, jonathan, if you're going to ask these questions, and it's very complicated, but it can easily be done. a clean bill of extension and we both sat down. >> [inaudible] conversation, did that take place yesterday and did he -- >> about three or four days ago. >> and he told you that -- >> he didn't talk to me directly, he just past it -- >> -- between the aids or whatever he indicated that he would accept a clean extension if the senate would agree to the deal on in the.

>> he said we wouldn't have to have our position on the recertification certification, which is a complex issue and and of itself, and judicial review. is that terribly important? not to the average person but in terms of trying to get this bill solved, it is very important and that is the point i make. we are not talking about posture, we are talking about the most basic way that you do government. as history has shown you do the extension and willing to sit down and negotiate the issues the haven't appointed countries, i've appointed - 100 days ago. >> we will give you the details on that after. thank you, everyone. islamic the house said they won't budge on this issue but [inaudible] >> what we are really trying to do was what they said they are

trying to do and that is to ratchet up pressure. the airlines are all very silent in the american business and chambers of commerce. they are very silent. the american transportation, the biggest ata that represents all the major airlines. they sent a letter saying yes, we would like to have a clean bill of extension about two or three days ago, but could the work it? did they make phone calls? no. was there any pressure? no, and i think that's why you're going to hear from the white house today. >> but there was no point when [inaudible] -- >> no, i want to work out the problem. the lifting of the battery that you're interested in is a very important problem. >> there are things the house republicans are holding hostage on the eas. some of the same senators you are referencing, their airports were also removed from the senate bill.

>> that was simply as john mica said it will times publicly and to me personally that was a leveraging techniques to get you to talk about the national mediation, which in all [inaudible] >> okay. thanks. amol conversations [inaudible conversations]

throughout america there isn't a name that stirs more love, more admiration, more

respect, more wishing for our daughters to be like her than the name of congresswoman gabbie giffords. thank you, gabbie for joining us today. [applause] watch return to the house on - disease in video library. it's washington your way. next, a discussion on defense spending cuts in the recently signed a debt ceiling legislation. from washington journal, this iy 45 minutes. >> host: we are back with gordon adams comegys the foreign policy professor at american university, b formerly vice houe as to get social -- associate budget director. our topic is spending cuts and the debate in the debt ceiling deal that would put the pentagon 's budget on the chopping block.

initially, it is about three and a $50 billion to four to billion dollars debt to -- 350 billion to $400 billion that could be cut. the numbers can fluctuate. if the super committee does not come to an agreement, it is $1.2 trillion split. where is their fat to trim. where do you suspect they will come up with kuatz? -- cuts? guest: nobody knows where the figure will come from. the white house says may be as much as $350 billion in defense. that is consistent with what the president asked for in april. he asked for $400 million -- $400 billion over 12 years.

$350 billion is not really a cut. you can find that, and still increase defense sector rate of inflation. you could actually do that, and keep the pentagon's buying power. so, the first cut is not really a cut in the defense budget. if they go to the super committee, and the super committee fails because it only hit a pentagon if it fails, then you are quite correct -- the pentagon is in for probably $500 billion or $600 billion worth of reductions over the next 10 years. interestingly, if you put that together with the three and $50 billion they are already in for, it comes to almost exactly 4 defense the gang of six proposed last week. there are plenty of political

figures that have said it is quite possible for the pentagon to absorb the cuts and still have a vital defense. it will take good management. host: the bipartisan the commission put this together -- half the number of joint strike fighters, -- host: what is the f-35 joint strike fighter? guest: when you cut the defense budget, and this is not the first time we have done that, we have done it four time since the end of the second world war, once after a career, once after vietnam, once after the cold war, and we are in our fourth bill down, and it usually

happens because people get concerned about debt. when it goes down, there are tried and true things to do. one thing is bring down the size of the force. we have done that every time since korea, vietnam, the cold war, and will probably do that again. so, to mean that down, and doing one of those recommendations which is we are not likely to go to war in europe any time soon, so we can slim down forces in europe. you can do that by trimming the forces, and cutting the size is important because when you bring down the size of the force, you actually need to buy less equipment, do less training. your budget is heavily-driven by the size of the force. the second thing that typically happens, and we went through this in the 1990's when i was of the office of management and budget is you look at

procurement programs. that is where your f-35 comes in. why do we not need, isn't performing well? you use those standards. what are necessary to the mission? there are a number of programs subject to scrutiny. f-35 is one of them. host: why is that? guest: it is the next joint fighter. we plan to buy some more over 2300. one of the typical ways when you are slowing down the budget and defense his say let's by 2100, or 1900, and by the more slowly. those will save the money in the defense budget. they may do that because particularly in the case of the air force may have a new, high- price fighter that has come on line, the f-22, and in the navy

and marine corps they use something called the f-18, of which there is a new generation in production now. if you want to do something in terms of performance, you buy the existing aircraft instead of the next generation. that is just one example. the air force wants to start a production program in about five years time for a new long range bomber. we have a number of very old but much-refurbished b-52's. we could postpone the decision to build a new long-range bomber. if you go through the inventory programs and say what can i slow down, you will make a series of decisions that allow you to do that. secretary gates before he left made some of those decisions.

secretary leon panetta will have to make more of those decisions in the future. the other thing they need to worry about is the defense infrastructure, the back office, the people that are not really a point of combat. what do you do about that? it is really expensive. the pentagon has an overhead of 42%, which means 42% supplies the back office, buying the stuff they use, the computer, the technology, the desks, the shares, -- the chairs, the grass-cutting. 42% is really heavy for everyone in the private sector, probably about twice the average rate. it is grown a lot in the last 10 years because the whole budget has grown. we doubled the defense budget in the last 10 years. a lot of that is an overhead and people. it is time to think about

discipline, and admiral mullen has said we have lost our discipline in the pentagon. cuts are probably the most useful form of discipline in the pentagon. host: former defense secretary gates said we could find $400 billion. then you heard from general dempsey who testified that they were struggling to find $400 billion, and if they cut more you're putting us at risk. you'll affect the budget of the pentagon when you served under the clinton administration. how difficult is it to find ways to find money, and why is their difficulty? do you think it is easy to find, and there are places to cut? guest: there are plenty of places to cut. i have never known the head of the department in any part of the federal government then voluntarily said sure, cut my

budget. the reality is that cuts on the order that we are talking about, even the big ones, those amounts to 15% of the projected resources the defense department wants to have in the next 10 years that is not a end of western civilization as we know it. in the time i was there before and after i was in the office of management and budget, actual spending in defense went down 36% in constant dollars. now, that is more than twice of the rate we are talking about, and that is real spending. the military force the ended up in 1998, when we started taking back up, was the same military force that if president bush sent into iraq and sit down saddam hussein as if they were a speed bump. properly managed, you can find ways to get the efficiencies we are talking about.

you can bring down the structure, the hardware programs, cut the infrastructure simply by saying less money for this area, and you have to tackle the third rail of pay and benefits. host: if you were to cut the pentagon's budget $800 billion or $9 billion, how does that line with other country's million dollars? we today have the only military in the world that can sell globally, flight globally, deploy troops globally. it is the only military that has global infrastructure, logistics, communications, transportation. it is the only military. it is a globally-dominant force. the chinese spend one seventh of what we spend on the military today. 10 years and now, properly managed, there is no reason all of them should not remain should. nobody is playing catch-up ball

with us any speed that worries us. we are secure and we have a globally-dominant force. host: john kyl disagrees. here is what he had to say. >> these cuts were not the result of careful planning and analysis. they were arbitrary percentages thrown out in negotiations, totally not connected to the actual defense requirements. worse, the cuts that would be triggered if the committee recommendations failed were intentionally designed to be so large, so unimaginable, so irresponsible, that congress would be incentivize to approve the recommendations. the phrase "armageddon" was used to characterize this scheme. host: gordon adams?

guest: this is political rhetoric. we can do it in a manageable and reasonable way without it being armageddon. i do not expect armageddon i would expect, say, $500 billion over 10 years. we're talking about something like 8% or 9% of currently- reflected defense budgets. as been done before and we're still globally dominant. what we are looking at is caught in the political stance of washington with a lot of rhetoric surrounding the choices that people want to make and do not want to make, and reasonable people will compromise. they always compromise one we are doing budgets at the level of the top line. there is not cuts be done analytically. host: larry, a democratic caller

in tennessee. caller: if they want to cut military and government spending, why don't they do away with all government programs, and protect the rich, so they can get their tax breaks, and big businesses, so they can ship our jobs overseas? host: chalk, a republican in oregon. caller: i was wondering which president he served under, and if he is a democrat or a republican, and i wrote these down. sometimes on the phone it is hard to keep your train of thought. anyway, one comment, and this has to do with the budget negotiations, i cannot figure rao while all of these things have to be done behind -- why all of these things have to be done behind closed doors, and why the media does not question these politicians and negotiate

behind closed doors. i've understand national security, however the budget seems a little different than that and it always has to be behind closed doors and it is always done at the last minute. host: we ask about the super committee and whether they should hold public hearings, but do you suspect there could be some national security reasons for the super committee not to discuss what they would want to cut and what they might not want to cut? guest: iraq other suspect they want to cut and not -- i rather suspect they will cut and not cut in the private. i feel a little bit like the french police officer in "costs above the." -- "casablanc."

this is all about politics. this is typical washington, deciding we will live through this year, and we will get through it. it is the only semi-. number you have in this agreement, and we will really decide where we want to go with this agreement when we get to the first tuesday in november, 2012, which would be the election. when we find out who owns the senate, the house, the white house, the terrain will shift and a lot of the decisions will be renegotiated and remade. for the caller, i served for five years at the office of management and budget in the clinton administration. that is where i worked. host: mrs. "the washington times" this morning. in fiscal 2012, the cap would be

roughly $5 billion then current year spending. host: some analysts predict the state department and homeland security will be dealt to protect pentagon spending. -- gouged to protect pentagon spending guest: i think it is likely because the department of defense has a large political constituency that supports it, and driven to people that strongly believe in supporting major funding for national defense, contractors and communities were bases and production is located. they have an asset the state department does not have, which is the base of support and political and the structure in the congress. although one does not know what happened behind a less set of closed doors, it seems to be likely that in exchange for votes from defense secured --

conservatives in the republican party, there probably was some kind of understanding that defense was not going to pay debt -$5 billion price tag if they do not kn. for every dollar that is added for defense, something has to be wet summer house. it could be 10 or $15 billion. host: here is a story from "roll call on security budgets, this is "the washington times." --

host: that puts more pressure on the non- defense portion. tim, , independent caller in maine. you're on the phone with gordon adams. caller: i want to talk about nato. bob gates said america's pain 90% of the cost of nato. this is an old argument. i can remember in the 1950's when my father complained his tax money was paying for the security of europe. it is time for europe to start paying for their own security. guest: that is a tough question. during the cold war, it was possible to say that everybody across the pond agreed upon what

the major security threat to the united states was -- it was the soviet union and the warsaw pact. they were as much of a threat to the europeans as it was to the united states. the consensus in nato was pretty strong that everybody had to put their shoulder to the oil, and even then there was a nine about who was paying their fair share. we defined at that point the security of europe as being essentially the front edge of american security -- an enemy force that took over western europe was not in the interest of u.s. national security. everyone included in the assumption that the united states would be the heavy burden carrier, although it is worth saying the germans, the french, but the british, the italians in particular have a substantial forces. with the end of the cold war, it

is less clear that everyone shares the same view about what the challenges we face in the world really are. the europeans are facing their own kind of fiscal crisis with an aging population, social service benefits, high immigration costs that they have to face with moslem immigration into western europe. there are a lot of reasons the europeans are cutting back in their own defense expenditures. we can choose whether we want to spend additional funding and defense. we probably spent 2/3 of nato expenditures. we can choose whether or not we choose to do that. one of the recommendations we made was similar to the one that is being discussed from the simpson bowls commission, which is to reduce the number of -- bowles-simpson commission, which is to reduce the number of

american troops in europe. it is a tougher argument to go to the europeans and say here is the way we define global threats and challenges, and now we want you to agree with us 100% and boost your military spending to fit. not every european country agrees all of those challenges, so it is a more difficult exercise to carry out. host: all code usa today" breaks down our forces -- "usa today" breaks down our forces -- host: that is our topic this morning, spending cuts and the impact the debt deal will have on the pentagon budget. michael, a republican in austin, texas. you're on the air with gordon

adams. caller: i cannot believe i made it through. i have been watching c-span for several years pep i have called in half of a dozen times. i'm curious about specifically, mr. gordon, military, a retired benefits. my father has been fighting cancer for 3 years. he is in remission, thing goodness. he spent over 20 years in active duty military and civil service, and i, myself, am an .riginal gulf war veteran i have served my time in their reserves as well, and i think it is deplorable to even think that

these bureaucrats are even thinking about military retiree cuts. host: let me throw up these numbers for you from "usa today to tel." caller: well, ok. i understand that cuts need to be made. sacrifice has to come from a majority of the country. but, you know, on the flip side coin, you lookyou to the rich not sacrificing anything.

ulta tom and joe -- you want cuts? dollar thatist d comes into washington, why not tax every lobbyist dollar at 50%? look at campaign contributions. and those small percentage tarriffs on imports. tackle waste and abuse. if you want to talk about a new tax bracket, why did obama said $250,000, why not raise that to $1 million?

guest: this is a good illustration of how hard it is to tackle this issue. there are three issues, compensation, the health-care system, and the retirement system. the quadrennial review is almost too complicated to say, and it is the standard dod analysis, and they have recommended reforms four years in benefits. they generally do not go through -- generally, benefits have been increased over the last 20 years, in large part because people are effective and well- organized to lobby. it is important to understand the difference between these and the rest of the economy. right now, because of pay increases over the last 20 years, your average so there is paid about 11% of a comparable

private sector person. this is scaled for age and education. that says we have succeeded in accomplishing the equalization of pay and the compensation side. he might be time to look for a system that looks at retain the people we want. in the health-care area, the data you are using is accurate heard the tri care system is available to people that are not old enough to medicare, who are -- maybe fully employed. the average premium paid in the private sector is more than 10 times that high. it is a huge gap between the private sector and what is paid in the tri care system for retirees that are not on medicare. we have a retirement system for the military right now which says before you serve 20 years, you get nothing. after you have served 20 years,

you get everything. that is not a very logical system. any reform that is done to that system has to grandfather the people that have that expectation in their system and not cut back on those back on those people. but for new entrants in the military, it seems reasonable to say, you ought to best pension at five years, like the rest of the government. then you have a choice about whether you want to stay or go and then draw a pension. it reasonably ought to be a pension you can draw when you reached the age of 57, like federal workers. from my view, if you could go there, you ought to grandfather everyone under the current system, because there is no point in trying to roll people back from the benefits they now have. host: the nomination for deputy

defense secretary, senate nominations expected to be smooth. that person has worked behind the scenes on the pentagon bureaucracy. the pentagon faces cuts up to $1 trillion. guest: i think it is a good appointment. i know him. he is a smart former physicist. he understands the technical and science side of the business. he has worked on the policy side of the pentagon. he has worked on acquisition side. he is now moving into managerial responsibility, which the pentagon strongly needs. the secretary is a good guy but cannot manage the building internally every day. he will make the policy calls. carter will do the management

side. it is a good team. host: an e-mail -- brian in frederick county, maryland. you are next. caller: i am sick and tired of people talking about cutting my benefits. i certification. but i was in the desert, there were no republicans or tea party years on my back. i should not have to pay the same as some wall street by or somebody who never even bothered to serve. cut my benefits of these wall street guys are prospering is ridiculous. i am sick and tired of it. what do you have to say about that, sir? host: before you go, what branch did you serve in? caller: air force retired. senior master sgt.

host: what were you responsible for? caller: i am a laboratory manager by trade. we had to set up tents, -- see, i did 23 years, so i was in all the involvements. it is not fair to hear people come after me. i am not getting much anyhow, and i am getting whacked with taxes on my retirement. there is plenty of money out there. all you need to do is put a one- cent tax for wall street transactions. host: what did you think about things like the f-35? should that be on the table? caller: we need to keep our defense strong. what i am saying is we need to expand the tax base. people are talking about it but nobody wants to do it. host: on the f-35, here are some

numbers from "usa today." gordon adams? guest: the bottom line here -- you have an illustration of how hard this is. the issue that was raised in the negotiations it, and are still being raised, which is, right now, the debt agreement does not provide much of anything in terms of revenues. there is a strong constituency in the republican party and in the country that says, do not raise taxes. we could solve two-thirds of the projected debt problems if we simply did not extend the bush tax cuts. if we did that, which expired at the end of the year, we would solve two-thirds of the problem and we would do what the caller

is calling for. a higher level of taxation on people who are not being touched right now. host: sascha tweets in -- guest: i cannot imagine anybody else that i would rather have involved in a bill down at the pentagon. he was my boss for 18 months at omb, and then when he moved over to become chief of staff, he was still my boss because half of our business was being done out of his office. he is a guy that those national security issues, defense budgeting issues, has the ear of the president and congress, where he is respected. if you need somebody in charge of the bill down, he is a good one. host: another e-mail --

guest: r&d is the level of effort. you do what you can do with the money. once you're in the hardware program, you have to buy it, so you get what you wanted to buy. research and development is one of those areas where less effort means less research being done. but at the level of $85 billion a year, our r&d budget alone in the pentagon is larger than the entire defense budget than any other country in the world, except china. host: colleen. independent, chapel hill, tennessee. caller: my husband was an infantryman in vietnam.

he recently lost a friend to to agent orange poisoning. there were two books that i had seen on c-span. this is my question. why can there be a ruling of some sort, that if you are on a certain committee, that you are not allowed to take money away from lobbyists? but us say ways and means, defense. you should i be allowed to take money from a defense contractor. guest: by taking money from, i assume campaign contributions. the problem is, the supreme court has ridden the and it rigorously argued for decisions that cover a 20-year time span or more than any restrictions on campaign contributions are a

violation of free-speech. so the only restriction is the size, where we have limitations on the size of a contribution to a candidate. but not on the fact that they can make campaign contributions. the supreme court has continually expanded access of campaign contributions to members of congress in their election races, and have been unwilling to put restrictions on it. i agree with the caller. one of the most corrupting influences in the political process in congress is the impact of campaign contributions from industries to members in areas where the members sit on committees that affect the interests of those industries. it is very corrupting of the american political system. host: randy in syracuse, new york. caller: good morning. my question is about our involvement in libya.

president obama said it would be a better -- a matter of days, not weeks. it seems like our goals there are quite murky. what are our national interests there? guest: i can tell you what they say. beyond that, not much more. the president, when he said it would be quick -- remember president bush saying mission accomplished. every president that gets that nation into a conflict has to learn the phrase that the general staff once said. no military plan survives first contact with the enemy. almost every plan disintegrates on site when they get into the battlefield. clearly, again, in libya, that is true. it has taken a lot longer than predicted and it is not clear where the outcome will be.

president obama is learning that hard lesson the same way that every other president before him has. the decision to go there, i believe, was largely influenced by two things. one is the sense in the administration that the libyan people were facing a very dire threat of direct attacke by ther own government. the other thing was -- and this distinguishes it from syria, in a real way. it is a nation and led by a leader who was kind of a pariah in the arab world. not a lot of countries would come to his defense, if they went after him, in the guise of protecting the libyan people. the fact that there is not much appetite in this the

administration for putting more boots on the ground in the middle east constraints for the activities that the u.s. can engage in. so putting those constraints on it has limited the speed at which anything can be accomplished. host: a tweet -- guest: i think a distinction needs to be made here. pay rates in the private sector, for people who are contracting services to the department of defense are inevitably higher than pay rates for people doing similar work in the government. that is certainly true. moreover, we have expanded the services contract thing -- and i want to make a difference between those who service and those who manufacture or research things for the government. i am talking about the people who provide food services in bagram, security in iraq.

i am sad to say, already, the investigation into the special organizer will show lots of disorganization. i think we will be looking at some years of investigations, court cases, brought charges, all sorts of things that happened in wartime pretty regularly. i am very sympathetic with the undertone of what the caller is suggesting, which is there is something not quite right of having all these soldiers doing things at pay rates that do not match. and not coming under the supervision that a federal employee would come under. host: gordon adams, former white house budget director for

security from 1993 to 1997. we are going to try to get a couple more phone calls in. dan from new jersey. caller: i have been trying to get through four years. thank god for c-span. america has been off-track since world war ii. you do not need an overblown military. nato is obsolete. that was started in 1949. it was the start of the military alliance. in the mediterranean, i hear -- i hear we are trying to get the chinese out of libya.

we are killing a civilian with nato. host: ok, we will end it there. burt in pittsburgh. guest: i do not necessarily predict caller: -- caller: i do not disagree with cutting military overhead, but i did some analysis from 1960, 1965, converted the cost of those dollars. while the military is bloated from that standpoint, the percentage, compare the cost of dollars, military went down about 70% while the rest of the government grew about 300%. my point is, not to cut military overhead. i think we need to get rid of the baseline, which is about 8%,

and all the cuts in the future. well, i would like to buy a mercedes but i'm only going to buy a shabby -- chevy. guest: first point is fundamentally a question about roles and missions, american forward engagement. in a dilemma that the secretary will face as the budget comes down, and we are in a build down, what do we do and what do we not do? the vice chair is of the joint chiefs staff's testified to the joint services committee. we can absorb this over 10 years, but anything beyond that, we have to take a hard look. and they are right. bring it on. it is time to have a serious

look at where the military fits in, what kind of military we need, and how much we are asking the military to do. from my own perspective, the first mission that should be on the table is really the peace enforcement, counterinsurgency, nation-building, nation partner capacity building, where we have done that infrastructure are mostly over the past 10 years. we have to take a good look at whether or not that is really appropriate, really inappropriate use of military force. that is a law under discussion and congress will -- that is an issue that congress will face. the bottom-line reality is that in the last 10 years, we have doubled the defense budget in constant dollars. compared to any other point in american history since the end of the second world war, we are

now spending more on defense than we have any year since the second world war ended, whether in peacetime or wartime. higher than wartime career, vietnam, higher than the peak spending of reagan in the 1980's. we were able to assure