rose on emergency power and disaster preparedness. this is about one hour and 55 minutes.

>> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i am pleased to welcome you back before the committee. a year ago this week in japan a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the coast of japan, triggering a tsunami that is reported to have reached out to 45 feet high and stretch up to 6 miles inland. the "entourage" nuclear plant

was hit hard and lost power, multiple hydrogen gas explosions to the reactor buildings, containment structures were damaged, three nuclear reactors melted down and mediation poured out into the environment. people's lives were uprooted by evacuation to avoid the threat of radiation poisoning. many of these men, women and children have yet to return to their homes. some may never be able to go back. i know that our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of japan and the victims of this catastrophe. the purpose of the hearing is to conduct oversight of the nrc efforts to ensure that the 104 nuclear reactors in the nation are operating safely and that these plans are swiftly implementing the lessons learned from the disaster in japan. i'd like to take a moment to discuss the safety issue concerning the the nuclear power plant in california. after i learned of increased

deterioration of the tubes that carry radioactive water into the plant's steam generators i wrote to the nrc in southern california and asked for the focus on resolving the safety issue. if these tubes rupture radiation could be released its levels that exceed safety standards. today the nrc announced that it's flying out a special investigation team to conduct a more intensive valuation of the plant, and i want to say thank you to each and every one of you. i've got 9 million people living within 50 miles of that plant. it is critical that the nrc thoroughly review all of the safety implications of the problem and the public is assured that the plants operate safely before it's restarted and that the nrc keep me up to date on its investigation. so today is the sixth time after

the events in japan that members of the committee is gathered to conduct oversight at the nrc. in late march, 2011 the nrc created a task force to review the safety requirements in light of the events in japan. in july 2011, the task force made 12 safety recommendations to help prevent and reduce the impact for such a disaster in the united states of america. the nrc staff prioritized the recommendations and said several should be implemented without delay. on monday the nrc sent three orders requiring these high priority safety improvements at domestic power plants so a couple of days ago we took this action. the first order requires the plans to better protect safety equipment needed to address the emergencies. they have enough equipment to address the emergency that has all of reactors at the plant. the second order requires plans to install equipment to better monitor the conditions and spent

fuel pools and the third order requires the 31 water reactors in the u.s. personal virtue fukushima to improve or install the venting systems that help to maintain safe conditions within the plant. the nrc also directed nuclear power plants to the analyzer earthquakes and flooding risks, assess their ability to safely operate following such events as well as their capacity to communicate with a prolonged loss of power and address emergencies at more than one reactor. the nrc said it also issued the two notices of proposed rulemaking in march and april on the steps to take if the plants lose electric power and improve emergency procedures. i am very encouraged that the nrc has moved forward. it shows the public that the nrc is acting on the information gathered since the fukushima disaster. but i want to say something here.

i am concerned about the time lines for requiring plants to meet the safety standards. the commission asked the nrc staff to come up with, strive to complete and implement the lessons learned from the accident within five years by 2016. however, some of the proposed time lines allow the plants to avoid the improvements for longer than five years, and i will have questions for all the commissioners on this issue. you have done good work. now let's make it happen in the field. according to fema, 120 million people live within 50 miles of the reactor including more than 9 million people in my home state of california. i also want to take this opportunity to say to you that your actions are very pleasing to me.

i have had a history of having to push hard, and i didn't have to do that in this case, and i feel since i've been critical that i owe you a thank you. so that not only comes from me and senator feinstein and the whole congressional delegation, but it comes from the people who are counting on you. they don't know but they appreciate the fact that you care enough about them to send an investigative team out there today to make sure you understand what's happening with these and why they are failing. they shouldn't fail. they are too new to fail and something is happening with this the chemistry of the water we don't know, but why so appreciate this and with that, i will turn to senator sessions who came first on the other side to this gimmick thank you. senator inhofe in the armed services committee the senior

member. good morning. i think all of you for being here and appreciate the work is being done to deal with the aftermath of the fukushima incident to review that carefully. it's an important challenge for us and we need to look at that and from everything i see here it's been focused and working hard on that. i think we need to confront the fact that the administration claims to be in support of the american energy but the policies continue to drive up the price of energy and reduce the amount of energy produced in the united states. certainly true of the oil and gas production and nuclear power. restarting of the nuclear industry that the record indicates otherwise. i was disappointed that as the chairman of the nrc was the only member to vote against issuing a

license to the planning. you can't believe these things forever and ever. a drive up to the cost create uncertainty and basically will kill the start of the nuclear power in america which we need for energy, for the economy and for the environment and also why would the chairman has played a central role in the administration effort to close down yucca mountain depository and an endeavor that eliminates 25 years of investment, $14 billion in the government money has gone into that. on december 15th we heard testimony about abusive behavior, his abuse of the law including the use of the emergency power as withholding of information from other members of the commission, the abuse of personal the fear and intimidation of staff. we heard testimony about the trouble in circumstances that led to the other commissioners and putting those appointed by

the president to write a letter to the president come to the white house that told the president that the chairman of the actions are, quote causing serious damage to the nrc and creating a child work environment. yet five months after that letter was sent from the president has not responded in a responsible manner and regrettably instead of seeking to get to the bottom of the fact, the president and the senate democrats have circled the wagons to protect the german from the accountability. so i am concerned and i have to say think it is obvious that there are serious problems and the leadership of the commission come in the germans office and it's not but needs to be confronted. one other thing i would like to say, and i think that president obama should act soon to ensure that the commission is not forced from the commission in june. she was confirmed by the senate

in june of 2008 with a broad support and brings to the nrc a long and distinguished career as an engineer and public service and has worked at various levels of the state and federal government and she held an important staff role during the nuclear issues for senator john warner on the armed services committee. she is a hard worker, competent and a sound character. very recently she was willing to sign the letter that blew the whistle on the problems in the commission. the nrc needs a full panel of experienced qualified commissioners, and i sure am convinced commissioner svinicki shouldn't be forced to leave. i would urge the president to nominate her. she has been as a support for the republican seat and has support of the republican leader. said it would be a travesty i think if we reach the situation where the commissioner svinickis service on the nrc is allowed to

expire and then the chairman who has created such controversy. i don't intend to let that happen. i'm not going to let that happen if i get anything to do with it. even if we have to bring the senate to a grinding halt. madam chairman, thank you for having this hearing. you have been an open and fair chairman and i was pleased to know you are still celebrating that big highway bill. >> how quickly one forgets. >> i was pleased to work with you and you really demonstrated a tremendous amount of energy and bringing people together on that highway bill, and you deserve a great reform. >> it's very sweet of you. i just want to remind a tree but the that this hearing with the title is, just to focus ourselves. lessons from fukushima one year later the nrc implementation of recommendations for enhancing the nuclear reactor safety and

the 21st century. with that, i turn to senator carper. >> i'm just going to say to my friend from alabama who a lot of times we call my friend i like a whole lot i concur with you on your views of the commissioner svinicki. she is an honorable member of the commission and i expect to support her. i also want to say the commission has been through a tough time over the last year or so trying to figure out how to work together and how to lead effectively and to play his role well. we had a public come to jesus meeting here several years ago. you're part of that. i was part of that. and my sense is that maybe it had a positive effect. we will find out. we've seen the license now issued for not one but the first two plans that were built in this country for 20, 30 years to

really think that's pretty good progress. two out of the three appointees of president actually voted for that and i think that is a good sign. so i just hope that this hearing focuses more on what can we learn from the awful events of fukushima and what are we doing not what we have learned, what is the timetable, what do we need to do on this side to make sure that the dollars and the lessons learned are implemented in a timely and effective way to estimate thank you so much, senator. senator barrasso. >> thank you madam chairman. on the one-year anniversary of fukushima, the american people do want to know that the nuclear safety has improved. the american people want us to ensure that there will not be a real peak of the nuclear disaster in japan share in the united states that communities across america or safe from

harm. the nuclear regulatory commission is tasked with protecting us. it's not a responsibility that any of them should take lightly. the incident at fukushima has led to a process of developing recommendations to improve nuclear safety here in the united states and i stated before, this process should be allowed to continue free of partisan politics. we heard the agency isn't working as effectively as it should and the inspector general's report on the activities of the german is pending. it's my hope that once the report is the least it will be thoroughly reviewed and taken seriously by the committee no matter what the findings. we also need to have a full slate of commissioners that is stuck with the best and most experienced men and women in the field and is both senator sessions and senator carper said in a bipartisan way that among those of our the commissioner svinicki.

during well qualified, and i hope that her nomination is not be installed by the white house or others for political reasons. that wouldn't serve the public interest in keeping folks safe. we need the most qualified people to serve on this commission and i agree in a bipartisan way that commissioner svinicki is a very critical member of this commission. so i look forward to working with both my colleagues on both sides of the all to make sure that that happens. second, in february 9th speech the plaza eighth nuclear conference in rockville maryland the chairman spoke with the futures for the nuclear industry. he spoke of one teacher 20 years from now where there was a continuous process of the construction of reactors as senator carper has just mentioned. the of the future was one where 20 years from now we would see the industry dominated by the process of continuous decommissioning and in working on the process of long-term trend of continuous

decommissioning. the first option to me is the only way forward for america's energy future. it is the only responsible course of action for this committee to follow. if we are serious about providing affordable domestic energy for seniors, for working families and for small business owners. the president has called for an all out of the above energy strategy at this year's state of the union address. the president if he is serious, and he will join those of us who seek to strengthen this energy source and staff the commission of qualified and experienced people. so, i think you, madam chairman. i look forward to the testimony. >> thank you so much. senator sanders? >> thank you, madame chair and thanks to the members of the commission for being here. clearly, we must focus, continue to focus on the need for the safety reforms after the unthinkable disaster in japan happened reminding us of one of

the issues we always have to be aware of with regard to nuclear power 99.9% say it is not good enough. today, tens of thousands of people remained evacuated from homes, tens of thousands near the fukushima reactors that suffered meltdowns in the area that has elevated the radiation levels in everything from fish to rice to vegetables. i found it interesting that my friend from albia used the word incident. i suggest that you were talking about the fukushima disaster. is that correct? i think that for the people of japan it probably wasn't quite an incident. i think it was a disaster impacting the country, and when we understand that, we've got to understand how serious we must be in making sure the nuclear power in this country is safe. in a letter to the president following fukushima, i called for a moratorium on the license renewals to examine what happened and implement reforms and i am especially concerned

about because in the southern part of my seat the nuclear power behind with a similar design of what took place in fukushima to read and in fact we have 23 reactors in the united states with the same g. ploch one design as fukushima. but the license extension continue without accounting for the lessons learned. safety officials express concern about this design in the early 1970's and the top nrc officials said in 1986, and i quote, the mach one reactors had a 90% probability should the fuel rods over sheet and milk in an accident, end of quote. that was 1986. a week after fukushima, the nrc timing was extraordinary and legalized the mark one reactor in my home state. the vermont yankee power plant will for 20 years without taking the time to examine the implications of fukushima. we licensed it one week after

fukushima. the nrc has crafted 71 license renewals and has never rejected one. 713 go zero and every single instance the nrc said it is appropriate to license a nuclear power plant. it voted three to two on the government side with the energy and of litigation against the energy future. in my very strong view, the nrcs job is safety. that is what your job is and it is not to tell the people of vermont or any other state how to go forward in terms of energy. in my state there is a strong feeling we want to go forward with energy efficiency and sustainable energy i believe we have that right. i believe every other state in the country has the right. if we want to move to sustainable energy and not maintain an aging and troubling of nuclear power plant i feel we should be allowed to do that. finally, in troubled that a year

removed from fukushima the nrc recently voted to move forward with the first new nuclear plant licensing this country since three mile island without requiring the plant to fully incorporate all safety reforms recommended derive a panel of experts in the staff. the last time we had a hearing within the nrc, we heard the chairman and we heard it again today was responsible for all the problems associated with just sheets is life and he's a terrible life. interestingly enough would note the was a fourth rutka one vote on whether or not to go forward with the licensing of the plant in georgia and there was a division of the chairmen voted one way forward and others. i would suggest else i did at the last meeting that may be the difference that is taking place here is not the personality of chairman but a philosophical difference which exists about how the nrc should proceed. the chairman and i look forward to the questioning madame share.

thank you. >> thank you. senator merkley. welcome. >> thank you, madame share. is it my turn to -- >> it certainly is. >> i wanted to ask a couple things. particularly around the venting of gases because one of your orders requires improvement -- >> this is your time for an opening statement. i'm going to pass on the opening statement. >> welcome that's fair enough. we will turn to our panel now who will start off with our honorable sharon and he's going to have five minutes and each member will have three. go ahead, chairman. >> chairman boxer, german carper, ranking member barrasso and members of the committee on behalf of the commission i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to provide an update on the implementation safety enhancement space in the

review at the fukushima accident. i stress the commission continues to believe that there is no imminent risk from continued operations in the power plant in the united states. at the same time, however, our assessment fukushima leads us to conclude that additional requirements should be imposed on the licensees to increase the capability of nuclear plants to mitigate and protect against beyond design basis the phenomenon. when we last appeared before you in december, the commission was considering the staff report on prioritizing the recommendations of the near-term task force into three separate years. tier one consists of actions to be taken without delay and for which sufficient resource flexibility including the availability of critical skills sets accessed to read the tier two actions can be initiated as soon as sufficient resources are critical skill sets become available. finally, to three recommendations require further

staff study were shorter-term actions to be undertaken first. and i would stress these are not necessarily in a previous order while tier three items may require additional staff study they are not necessarily actions that are less important to safety but as a result of public meetings with stickers and putting the industry and the public and with the advisory committee on reactor safeguards, there's been a number of enhancements in tier one and tier two and 23 recommendations. as has been mentioned on march 12, the commission issued three immediately effective orders to u.s. commercial reactors. the orders reflected tremendous effort on the part of the nrc staff and the commission to produce a comprehensive package in an expedited manner. the first order requires the plant to better protect safety equipment installed that from the september 11th 2001 terrorist attack and to obtain sufficient equipment to support all reactors in a given site simultaneously. the second order requires the planned install enhanced grumet

for monitoring the levels each plant. and the third order applies only to the u.s. oil reactors that have marked one or two containment structures. these reactors must improve the systems work for the case of the plan which is a smaller number install the systems that help prevent or mitigate the core damage in the event of a serious accident. for all three of these orders, licensees are required to submit their plans for implementation, for implementing the requirements by february 282013 and complete a full implementation no longer than two cycles after submitting or december 31st, 2016 whichever comes first. the licensees are required to provide status reports so stuff can monitor their progress. in addition to these orders the licensees also issued a request for the information. licensees for asked to evaluate the hazards at the sites using the the current requirements and indictments and identify actions

of a planned to address will devotees to the licensees were requested to develop a methodology and accepted criteria and perform seismic walk-downs'. the of the current committee since to perform under conditions of bond side and of slight damage and prolonged less of electrical power. as part of this initiative they were also requested to assess the staffing levels needed to respond to a large-scale natural the fed and implement strategies contained in the emergency plan. there are remaining recommendations which address the station lockdown and integration of emergency procedures, and these continue to be worked by the staff. the station blackout rule making is a high priority activity with a goal of completion within 24 to 30 months from october, 2011, and the staff is recently provided for finalizing an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for that particular rule making. we anticipate beginning work on the recommendations when we have

a necessary information from the tier one activities and when we can triet the critical resources from these efforts to the issuance of the workers and letters on march 12th is it a second step forward on the postal efforts. we are making strong process and as always i continue to be impressed by the dedication and expertise. there is still, however, a great deal of work ahead of us for both the commission and the staff. it's challenging for the nrc but it's also a very productive year for us as we move forward the agency expects to meet new challenges. we are confident that the nrc will continue to ensure the safe and secure operation of the licensed facilities while also ensuring the safe and secure construction and operation with new nuclear plants possibly including small modular reactors. so with that, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and i am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you pittard >> thank you, chairman.

>> the honorable kristine svinicki. >> thank you qtr end boxer, carper, member barrasso and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today on the topic of the nrc implementation of recommendations for enhancing nuclear safety and the 21st century putative and his testimony, on behalf of the commission, the chairman described the progress that nrc has made to further strengthen the nuclear power plant safety. i also join the chairman and acknowledging the hard work of the staff and their sustained efforts towards the progress that nrc has made to date. as he has described we have issued a series of orders to the nuclear power plant licensees which require them to mitigate beyond the design base natural defense and require the systems and a greater capacity of measurements for spent fuel implementation. we also for clearing that license to use lakhdar and

undertake a revaluation of the seismic and flooding hazards at the site using the current requirements. licensees must also identify actions to address the vulnerability found. the nrc will assess the results of the evaluation to determine whether additional regulatory actions are needed to get in implementing the recommendations, the agencys broad set of stakeholders have been engaged through multiple public meetings. we have benefited from the insight and perspective of the nuclear operators, nuclear safety and environmental groups and the public. i believe that all of these efforts to strengthen the activities in response to the event and will continue to do so. additionally, as the nrc acquires more information about the accident, we will assess the impact of such information on actions already under way and consider appropriate actions going forward. thank you. i look forward to the committee's questions. ..

it was not unthinkable. it was not unforeseen. today i can report we have reached a similar conclusion. for example, the report issued by dave endowment for international peace last week states, quote, it would have withstood the tsunami had it designed previously been

upgraded in accordance with state-of-the-art safety approaches, and a quote. furthermore, a report by the american nuclear society special committee on transport also issued last week states quote, the committee believes that the responding to the accident at the fukushima daiichi pausing and regulatory oversight to the severity of the accident, end of quote. in light of these observations, it is reassuring to know that the tree and three as a strong regulator a decision-making process open and transparent and we have long recognized the importance of a positive safety culture. however, there is still lessons to be learned from the accident. for example, we have required all of the plans to reevaluate their mitigation strategies for external events, taking into account all unities at the site. i am pleased to progress the

commission has made as well as the golf the process can reach the decisions has been transparent. i continue to work with my fellow commissioners to apply the lessons learned from fukushima. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. and the honorable, william magwood. >> thank you, chairman. chairman boxer, recommender brecksville and members of the subcommittee, is a pleasure to be here before you talk about the fukushima disaster. first let me say we are quite confident of that. but as we reported during her last appearance before this committee, regency at has swiftly and systematically to understand events in japan designed to affect its regulatory response through those placements at fukushima. this is under such a focus over the last year. the commission devoted a large portion of energy to this challenge. the chairman of 30 outline the

details of a response whether not repeat that now. let me say that while we move quickly, i am very confident in the decisions we have made today are appropriate and we fully implemented will address a large portion of any risk that we revealed by her insights, games and study in the fukushima event. this week we met with many international colleagues at the 24th regulatory conference here for my conversations with our colleagues, it is clear that many of the world's regulators have viewed these issues much the same way and i expect the response at fukushima across the world will have considerable similarity in many countries. i want to point out the nrc staff has worked tirelessly to review these complex issues in a holistic fashion working with many stakeholders and consulting with the reacting safeguards. i would like to recognize the valuable contributions provided by the chairman of the committee

and the overall effort of men agency. a marty who will soon retire in 34 years and his leadership will be sorely missed. finally, i want to conclude by sending my thoughts and encouragement to citizens of japan in last year's earthquake and cannot meet. we visited the fukushima site in january and saw firsthand how hard our friends in japan are working to do with the aftermath of what they now call 311. back to my feet deep and very residence with the americans understanding quite well. i wish our japanese colleagues are very best and success of their efforts. to die for your attention i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner ostendorff. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman copper anke carper, just over one year since the earthquakes in on a devastated japan and led to fukushima daiichi. last july the task force and the nic concluded the sequence of

events in the united states is unlikely and the task force concluded there was no imminent risk in the operation of u.s. nuclear power plants and those conclusions are made day. and the actions plans even safer. the nrc has taken positive concrete steps to strengthen the regulatory framework in response to fukushima. i join my colleagues at this table commended among women at the nrc for their hard work and i've also appreciate a chance and colleagues to marry. since i last appear before the committee in december that a three letter submitted in the commission in february. as mentioned by others, the orders were issued this week. i think it is important for the committee to no polymath has slightly different variations on the bases for these orders that all five of us in the unanimous act approved all three orders.

that is a significant statement. to meet the three orders her present some policy decisions with nuclear safety in a commissioner magwood mentioned in her visit to fukushima the importance of as taking strong decisive actions to regulators. i am confident of the path nrc is on today and i think we're taking responsible actions and appreciate the chance to appear before this committee and look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. commissioner magwood set our markets are safe. once when i got exactly what the japanese said before fukushima. i think we need to be cautious. but i think the answer is, we are doing everything in our power to ensure they are safe and that is crucial. so i have some questions. chairman jaczko, the nrc staff has proposed will make encircled

high-priority safety recommendations. and very happy to hear everybody supported these. very, very heartening to me personally. and one of those rules would require plans to have the ability to safely operate when they lose all electric power co. station blackout. another role that required an emergency operating procedures and guidelines to address severe accidents. chairman, when will the nrc proposing analyzed these rules? >> right now the station blackout rule, the first proposal, will recall of proposed rulemaking is due this week to be finalized and then to be released to the public. the emergency operating procedures of the secular rule you referred to, and at the notices also is planned for next month. the station blackout will, the commission is faster that to be done in about 24 months from now and that would put it somewhere

in the 2014 timeframe. the second row right now i think it's on a much later scheduled to be finalized closer to 2016 or sometime in 2016. i feel comfortable here in a good track with the station blackout rule that is a high priority the commission is recognized. i certainly have concerns that the second rule will be a challenge for us to not only complete the rule itself, but the implementation within the five years the commission has laid out. again i think part of our work in the next couple of years is to figure out ways to get the word of a little more timely. >> right, because as i understand the safety commission recommend this all be done in five years. is that correct? >> cushion itself increased efforts to get the stuff within five years and we did have her advisory committee reacted to safeguards and encourage rulemaking is to be accelerated to station blackout in particular because it is such an important piece of the fukushima

response. >> do you feel comfortable at this issue you speak forever and you say you are striving to make that 2014 and 2016 date? i want to just ask, let me not virtue of the spot because in speak for everyone. does anyone disagree that those two roles -- we should do everything in your power to implement the first one, 2014 station blackout in the second 12016? okay. the nrc staff has stated the high-priority safety recommendations should be implemented without delay. we talked about them, the nrc told his staff describe by 2016. so i just want to make sure that your keep us up to date, our committee on the progress being made so that it are split page we would do it. but she do that if you see things slipping? otherwise we are going to assume it is on track unless you tell

us. i do want to be a surprising find out it is going to take 12 years because that is what happened last time after 9/11 the recommendations took 10 years or more. >> chairman boxer, if i could add right now one where i do have some concern is with the efforts to re-examine the siphoning howitzers at the new power plants. this is enough for right now but would probably push out to the earliest sometime in 2017. the latest completion dates so want this point it appears to be off target a little bit and seismic hazards as commissioner apostolakis said were we recognize this new information or they may not redesigned the standard. it takes so long as a bit of a concern to me.

another time and place and then i'll work with all of you. this is very concerning because in california we have updated reports that are not good to see there's been a lot of change. >> yeah, first of all i agree with the chairman's statement, but there would be a lot of back to the days related to seismic outbreaks and right now the focus on the lands east of the rocky mountains for the u.s. geological survey of the seismic data and the stuff we prioritize in terms of risk, the act of despair. so a lot of it will have been accomplished before the state after the 15 years. according to the staff and my understanding, it is the plan

with low risk that we have to do some upgrades perhaps that will take longer. and the california plants, by the way, according to what i know today will complete their upgrades before the five years. >> good. one last question. chairman jaczko, was the fukushima release large amount people were evacuated many of you to return home. does the nrc consider harmful impacts beyond the radiation exposure impacts, including such things as evacuations, cleanup of contamination in determining whether to require safety measures at a nuclear nuclear reactors? in other words, the cost of the benefit ratio would change it seems to me if the nrc considered what it would take. just look at southern california plant is almost 9 million people living within 50 miles.

so i'm interested into whether or not you consider harmful impacts beyond the public radiation when you determine the cost benefit of improvement. >> we really don't. our focus is primarily on the direct in the short-term and longer-term direct health impact from radiation exposure. when we make a safety judgment. this is clearly an area that i think we need to look at and examine because as you look at the fukushima events, but it's really right now what needs to be a long-term impact and it is significant. >> i'm going to give everyone an extra two minutes because i've gone over. when i asked the shares near my plan what she thought, she said -- i said how do you get people out of fear? she said well if it were to happen, an earthquake were to happen during rush hour, this is the road and you can even move on that road. though it seems to me there

needs to be more work done because radiation is the worst of the things that can happen. that being homeless is a whole other situation. not being able to evacuate. so i would like to work with all of you on that. but you will that he would be open to looking at that as far as cost benefit issues? thank you. i see everybody nodding. senator barrasso, go forward. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thing we've heard good news. u.s. planes are safe. there are steps to make them safer and we are on the right path. i've heard that across the board. i see the views have evolved, lessons learned. i do have a couple of questions and specifically a critical report that came out by a group called the union of concerned scientists. critical of the nrc response to addressed protecting u.s. plants. the report goes on unless commissioners to comment on it.

the u.s. reactors remain vulnerable to fukushima like severe disasters. the nrc has a plan to reduce vulnerabilities that must precede more expeditiously to fully implement the lessons learned from fukushima. there were critical report goes on to say the nrc strengthens measures to mitigate beyond design basis accidents and maybe only a matter of time before a similar disaster happens here. i know you are very thoughtful on this and we seem to views evolve. maybe start with commissioner matt would and tell me what your thoughts are on this report that seems to be critical. >> well, let me not overstate, sort of a defensive reaction to that. but i think that the thought that ucs is putting out, which is a need to take actions an appropriate font and the commission fully agrees with us.

we have already agreed to take steps as a body and as an agency that will enhance the safe via the u.s. plans to make short fukushima type scenario does not fold. that said, our infrastructure, regulatory approach or practice that that plans, equipment, consideration, design bases are what prevent fukushima from occurring under similar circumstances at the u.s. plan. i just don't think it would have been. but we can still improve and we are going to improve. >> commissioner svinicki. >> i thank the chairman has outlined the actions that we are taken in response to just that concerned to learn the lessons to move forward. i was in the timeline i think the commission to a person has urged the nrc staff to come up with schedules that are implementable but yet have the appropriate sense of urgency

about moving forward. i think they've done their best. i've read my colleagues who has to move forward work with time frames if things can be accelerated we should do that. i think right now we are moving forward on a solid ins commissioner ostendorff who has divided views there was unanimous support for the actions of the tissue. >> commissioner apostolakis. >> i disagree with the statements. i do not think that would have banned in fukushima will have been here and i repeat, it was not unthinkable. they made terrible mistakes. >> and you did comment that over the course of your -- i think you phrased it may views have evolved. so it is helpful to know that people have not decided this is it. we can study more, learn more and views can evolve -- >> yes, they have evolved.

>> commissioner apostolakis. >> a great many colleagues. i also disagree with the ucs report. i would like to make two comments. i agree with the chairman and commissioner apostolakis comments on the seismic piece. i think we are concerned with the overall time. to look at seismic hazards and i think our staff requirements memorandum was issued a few days ago with the request that our staff industry looked at ways that might be alternatives to speed up this process. so i think we'll want to move forward as quickly as we can. that said, i think we are doing it irresponsibly. the second piece if i could comment and i agree with this, i think one of the things that is thrown to the next series the fact that minute the nuclear

power plants country licensees have already ordered additional affordable diesel generators, affordable battery charge and equipment and other steps they are taking to enhance their ability to deal with the loss of all ac power and that's happening now. thank you. >> i know that a member of congress recently wrote a letter to the nrc asking that the commission expand the evacuation zone around nuclear power plants to 50 miles. it's 50 miles but the chairman just mentioned in terms of something other specific plants in california. the nrc has reported on the nrc clarifies misconceptions about emergency preparedness. it states that it is important to the exact size and shape of specific conditions of each site is unique in its developed through detailed landing that looks at specific conditions at each site and demographic information. in addition it says the zones

are not limit that i'm meant expanded as necessary. you are shaking your head, mr. magwood paired could you comment on that click >> i think the statement is accurate. the emergency planning zones are planning zones. they should not represent necessarily what would happen in the case of the actual emergency. we would respond appropriately depending on what was actually going on. so i am comfortable with the regime that we have in place or i should say that as part of our post-fukushima review, the staff does anticipate a look at the question about whether it should be expanded so we will be analyzing them in the coming months and years. >> and a final question to a commissioners who talked about the chairmanstatements figure nine about the two potential paths in the futures 20 years from now. new nuclear plants licensed in the life of existing plants

being extended, which of course is in my opinion the right path. the other future was for nuclear plants in a downward spiral of decommissioning. which path is the right one for us to be on now? commissioner magwood. >> i do not think -- i don't think those paths will be decided by regulators. i think those paths will probably be decided by economic considerations that are beyond the scope of our agencies. as i really don't have much more to say. >> thank you treatment time is expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to ask unanimous consent to place in the record the biography of the author of the union of concerned scientists report. his name is dave locke baume, one of the nation's top independent nuclear power experts annie haas been quoted in "the wall street journal". all of our major newspapers and

he has -- he has studied the crisis that fukushima reporter. since you are passionate, i thought we put his credentials and i would match those against anybody sitting across from me. and i just want to say when we bash a report, maybe we will just have to have them come up here. i think we're going to do that in the future. i turn it over to senator carper. >> is there in your statements i think you indicated, to be traveled together to japan to personally visited the area where the incident or the disaster occurred. i think it's probably closer to disaster myself. but just give us a sense for the views of the people of japan towards our intervention can matures the assistance assistance be provided for that.

i'd be interested in hearing that. sometimes folks in distress. after the big flood for providing our missile for millions of refugees. i didn't feel a lot of understanding or appreciation for that. i won't go much he felt when you're in japan in terms of the recognition, the work that we've done to help. >> go ahead. >> i think all of us have had different interactions, but i think we've heard nothing but gratitude and tremendous thanks to the united states government, the military come in the, department of energy. i know in commissioner matt webb and i were in japan we received a lot of things in a number of us were at the japanese embassy event last week, where we also received thanks a lot with other sectors of the government in this country and the chairman

led a commemoration ceremony this past -- just three days ago at the nrc, the japanese ambassador of the united states also passed on his significant things to our country. it's been very positive. >> commissioner matt good. >> i echo that. i've also had a lot of conversations with people from japan. there is a great deal of appreciation for the contributions of nrc in particular. i think a lot of people recognize the expertise brought at an incredible time. but really to the overall u.s. response. i heard a lot of positive things about our military in particular the navy in response to the navy provided to the incident and helping majestically and providing supplies. so i tank we've made a lot of friends in japan in the last year. >> good.

during the time that you are there for the time sense, do you know how many lives are last because of this disaster? >> because those fukushima quite >> that we are aware of, not. i believe there were two people killed at the plant by mr. manes have been coming to her drown. but other than that i'm aware of no fatalities resulting from the nuclear incident. >> to many of the commissioners have different information on that? commissioner svinicki put >> commissioner carper in addition to the two were pursuing us understand were immediately drowned in the event, i am aware of two workers that have been engaged in the heroic recovery efforts under extremely uncomfortable in adverse conditions. i understand to individuals have died of heart attacks and i don't know the direct relation, but some of the workers have to

work an anti-contamination clothing. it's very hot, very comfortable and maybe that they had a stress reaction but heroic efforts to recover after the event of course require tremendous efforts by workers in order to additional workers is not a radiological event of a heart attack from the extreme efforts they were making. >> already. just before i move onto my other question. in the united states since the first of her power plants were built, how many bytes have been lost? anybody recall off the top of your head? >> senator, the answer is none as far as any deaths due to radiation exposure to nuclear power plant in this country. >> does anybody have different information? >> at the risk of being contrary here, i think -- i think this is very important that we not send

a signal that fukushima was not a significant incident. >> i don't think anyone is suggesting that he had >> i've been in international meetings where people have asked similar questions and insinuated that it's really in it that our because of that. i think it is very important. >> let me interrupt you. people live 12 planets around a race around fukushima or miles, their lives have been badly, badly disrupted them will be so for many cases and was attempting to diminish that. i chaired the subcommittee hearing clean-air. we've had a member of hearings. in recent years. we talk about the number of people are not whose lives have been distracted, but have been told in this country because victor dear, because of the dirty air we breathe, put up by utilities which in many cases both in the midwest and i printed the treacherous senator sanders and i happen to live and represent people. so i just think we need to put this in a little bit of

perspective and i appreciate you out helping us to do that. >> anybody listening to this hearing is televised. i've live on c-span. anyone listening this may be thinking what is in order or what are these different cares, letters, hopefully can someone just in about a minute just try to explain so that regular americans citizen watching this hearing would know what we are talking about? please. >> senator and perhaps layperson terms in order is issued, it is a set of compulsory actions that the nrc has authority to issue to private entities such as nuclear power plant operators so under our authority to regulate nuclear safety, we can issue a direct in order to compel actions in determining as jaczko described so when we say orders it is separate from the long process of establishing a new

regulation. we can take action very quickly. >> habits in order to further from a letter, please? >> well, and order is a requirement that a power plant has to take care providers kind of the first step in gathering information. so it is something that they have to tell us as information they required to provide to us. but in an episode that doesn't necessarily direct any particular action. so many cases it will be the precursor to additional action as we gather the information. >> and i'll stop at this, but i understand in terms of the agreement among the commissioners is unanimous agreement on the orders had been issued? and essentially come unanimous agreement in terms of what is to one and tier two and tier three and the timeline is very broad agreement on this point? that's good. that's encouraging.

thank you. >> senator inhofe. >> man of chairman and members here, i just apologize for not being here. we're doing our armed services committee hearing that down if it's already 20 past ramo mcteer to reprogram my mind. >> absolutely. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to pick up on a statement that commissioner magwood made in response to question the senator barrasso. in the senator asked him about the future of nuclear power in this country unless i heard mr. magwood said the decisions -- the future of nuclear power in america will not be primarily made by the commission but by quote unquote economic considerations. and i strongly disagree with what commissioner matt wood said

because the future of nuclear power 100% be determined by whether or not the taxpayers of this country continue to provide huge, huge financial support to the nuclear power industry or the indefinite future. that is the issue. i always find it amusing that at this moment in american history when we have a $13 trillion national debt, when our middle class is declining, when poverty is increasing at many of my friends, some on this committee said we've got to cut social security and medicare and medicaid can we just can't afford it. but when it comes to taxpayer support for nuclear power, there is no end in sight. billion after billion after billion. so here's my question. for the commission. and correct me if i'm wrong. my understanding is that the nuclear power industry is unable to get support insurance from wall street and the air because

it is too risky and that we have a piece of federal legislation which guarantees that if god forbid there are a major nuclear power disaster in this country, taxpayers would have to pay billions and billions and billions of dollars in liability. am i wrong on that? >> well, senator, the way i would characterize it is really two tiers to the price andersen system. the first serious private insurance. >> absolutely. and after the 50 billion disaster with the taxpayers of this country educate tens of of billions of dollars that be on the 15 billion. >> many of my good friends here say well, get government off the backs of the business community. so why does that nuclear power go to wall street and the private sector and get them insurance? mr. magwood, we believe in the

power sector. >> the reason we say that senators that i'm aware this no one is actually tried to go to wall street. >> for the federal government steps in because no one in the nuclear power industry can get up and pull up wall street and say we don't want taxpayer. we don't like the federal government. i want to talk about going through the insurance industry? >> the price andersen structure has been in place for very long time. >> that's right. would you agree that they would launch them because they're so concerned for the deficit to e-mail it to end price andersen quickset abrazo are you going to work with man that? would amount to federal permit getting involved. >> the new plant in georgia is going to require a billion dollars of loan guarantees. so my question once again, the federal government, why are we

getting the federal government involved in the genius of the earthquakes why are we to wall street is nuclear power is so safe and made profits for the industry? am i right in saying that the post full text for tens of billions of dollars of loan guarantees the future of the nuclear industry. does anyone disagree with that? last one i want to make. if we are going to get rid of the ways that exist in the nuclear waste in vermont implants over the country, is a very, very expensive proposition if we can get the dirt to get involved in that rather than tens of billions of dollars of federal money, anyone think that's a good idea. figures the point, the point is that despite all the talk of any of my friends about how the government would be involved in picking winners and losers across the government 60 years ago picked the winner and the

winner is nuclear power industry. tens and tens of billions of dollars are direct subsidies are going to that industry. now my last question is, when does it end? i think it is absolutely appropriate that when you have it knowledge is, it does receive federal support. the nuclear industry is now in this country 60 years old. it is a mature industry. when do we get it off of the governments welfare program? vanessa began to stand on its own? how many more years do you foresee the federal government having to support the nuclear power industry? >> as i indicated earlier, to economic issues are beyond the scope. >> whose scope is at? do you think they could bear another 50 years these guys? anecdote for the question to department of energy. >> how many more years do you

think the public has to subsidize? >> i see this as policy deliberations that occur in the congress and the one guarantee program and executed by department of energy. >> mr. chairman. >> senator, when elected nuclear power plants, one of the things you want to make sure his vast financial resources to support self operations whose important utilities can finance the plans and ensure they have appropriate wherefores. so in the end, these financials do have an impact on safety and it is important. >> why can't the domain and safe? at france over your tummy that the genius of the private sector. if you want the federal government involved. i said why can't the ap for that? >> you know, senator, as you know, we try and stay out of the specific decisions and train remained an object to determine their safety.

and no more but we want to make safety decisions that are based on cost i think in a good rates and in a bad way. >> mr. apostolakis, how many burgers do they have to continue? >> these are for the industry, not the commission. >> senator, i don't have anything to add to my colleague said. >> homages conclude. federal government has paid and all of my conservative friends to the federal government not to be involved in energy or send on their desire to pump tens of billions going to nuclear power. i yield the floor. >> senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. than me again for apologize for not being here. let me start off by saying that the sharp response to our good friends, senator sanders as i disagree with everything he is saying. [laughter]

but i would like to do, mr. chairman, i have made a request that in december -- in december asked the question for the record that you send me something talking about this allegation of harassment and intimidation that you are being accused as. i ask what actions he planned to take to address the allegations and intimidation for safety managers. you want to respond to that weekly? >> well, i appreciate your question and i think as they talked about at the last hearing if there's any time of ever done anything intentionally to cause anyone -- >> the acquisitions are there. i'm seeing how are you going to respond to accusations of intimidation? >> as i said at the last hearing, i think that i've never done anything intentionally to intimidate or do the things that i think were being talked about the last time. and so, in the end what i think

i'm interested in is making sure that we continue to do our jobs at the staff has continued to be focused on our important safety mission and the commission can genius to make timely decisions in an effective way. >> could come up as witches said last time. let me just get to this thing on the first time in 34 years with five -- we've issued license to go to new react to us. we want to move forward with this in mr. chairman, u.s. cities but what the rest of the commission and the senate cannot support issuing this way since the third fukushima had never happened. now, i want to ask the other court of commissioners would like to respond to this. number one comic into the record nothing has happened before he came down here. the differences between the regulatory performance in japan and the united states. i'm talking about the fact that

they did not end up in nyc which we put together back in 1974. i would like to have one of you just can't describe to us the difference is that what japan is doing now, copy and the progress we have made. let's start with you, mr. ostendorff. >> is to chairman kevin thank you for your question. kind of i think mr. magwood i were in tokyo junior 18 in their counterparts, was called the nrc counterpart agency in japan for regulation of their career industry. we had long discussions with the leadership about their plans to reform the regulatory structure. i do think they are borrowing heavily from the united states model. i would also say they are looking at enhancing independence to try to increase technical confidence in their leadership. and the japanese to their own reports have acknowledged there

is some significant improvements they need to make. >> improvements based on some of the things we've done? >> and also an assessment of where their system -- some areas came up short. >> okay. okay. and if the rest of you want to comment as to some of the basic differences that they're facing of the there or not you, mr. chairman. the party her prettier. the others in terms of what they might be getting from us? the point i'm trying to make here, what happened over there and what happens here, talking about two totally different things. a different system, different geology, weather patterns and all of that, maybe you could address some of these differences. i keep hearing this and of course the chairman is that they don't want to move forward until we explore fukushima a little more. >> are a couple of things that stand out if you look at what happened in japan.

the first one is that you just discuss their with commissioner ostendorff. the regulatory authority figure was very weak technically and they didn't have the amount of independence we have, for example. the second is more technical. it has to do with the tsunami calculations that were very poorly done. let's put it that way. they ignore the data from the past. there was a report by some society -- technical society in japan a couple years ago that pointed out the day kept the update of this anatomy of the calculations and that was not done. so these two things seems to me stand out. they're they were both an organization that issues and technical issues. >> and the fact that they have

not ever put together an independent source like you folks right now at the nrc. any comments on that commissioner magwood? >> senator, this is something that the japanese government is wrestling with right now. there's a lot of effort to try to reform their system. they know that there are issues. i've discussed with japanese officials the issue of independence regulation, for example, the quality of technical expertise in the regulatory organization. but just to be honest, i think just the middle of wrestling with this debris should meet conclusions yet. i hate to give much of an effort opinion about the state of things. but i do agree with the rest of your question. those are issues, particularly the regulatory agency that i think will be essential if

they're going to rebuild the trust that a regular must have the puppet. >> the svinicki. >> senator, i agree with comments of my colleagues. one item that i would add is that i think the japanese have acknowledged by what i call commandant troth structure in this crazy situation was severely challenged and even in circumstances where decision-making is well-established and well rehearsed in times of crises it becomes very difficult. i think the japanese now understand that the decision-making lines and authorities are not as clear as they needed to be spores severe situations. >> mr. chairman, i decide to continue to get on the record on how important is that we develop nuclear energy. i sat back and i see that it is accepted now that we in the united states have the largest recoverable research of oil, gas and coal of any place in the

world. our problem is a political problem that would allow us to exploit our own resources. were the only country in the world that does that. and i see a similar thing here. we have this opportunity up there and we want to -- it was quite a number of years ago that the chairman of the subcommittee when republicans were in a majority at that time we hadn't had an oversight hearing in 12 months that i started changing things around and moving forward, getting into the safety of all of this and i regret it when fukushima came along, somehow people were assuming that there is a threat here, when in fact we want to keep hammering is between the opportunities that we have out there with oil, gas and coal and nuclear, we solve this problem. numerically we've all given speeches as to how long it would take people who are concerned about our dependence upon the

middle east. but it have to be dependent on the middle east if we exclude a resource is. a very important part of that is nuclear energy. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i was born in west virginia. i have a feed of that, did the whole state. and i take pride in many of the facts that the united states recognizes the whole. given what we've learned about her natural gas resources appears that we are the saudi arabia of natural gas anderson's earlier commission to begin with a fine exporting natural gas. like my colleagues here, i believe for a long time have believed that nuclear energy has to be an important component of the portfolio on sources of energy in this country done right and we've worked hard to make sure over the years that it's done and has not been perfect, but we always know that

we've tried to make it better. one of the reasons why and i'm sorry that senator sanders had to leave, the one of the reasons why it is important to ensure that we have a vibrant nuclear industry going forward is what i alluded to earlier. i am not aware of anyone who is asked in the history of this country. one of the virtues of nuclear powers that doesn't sulfur dioxide, mercury co2. but enough to worry about contributing to climate change or global warming. it doesn't poison ireland's favorite on the folks diving because were ingesting. it was the comes out of smokestacks and other utilities around the country. and in terms of the money, i'd often on the server side, senator inhofe and tried to figure out how much money we've saved from 100 or so nuclear

power plant that we don't have to pay for medicaid or medicare or folks that go to the hospital for doctors offices, treatments for funerals, for enormous numbers. it would be interesting to run a tab on that and see how much we had to in savings. there's a rationale rationale for the same federal dollars a month guaranties and for the opportunity cost to avoid those that are burdening us and to bankrupt medicare and put in a huge burden on state with medicaid costs. i guess i just want to get that out of there. i say this to our panel. it is my understanding the commission has decided to move ahead with the rulemaking to address the facility should do if it experiences a loss of to address the facility should do if it experiences a loss of power, referred to his station blackout. however the nrc expects utilities will power, referred to his station blackout. however the nrc expects utilities will have through

december 2016 to comply with the real one today's final. it is my understanding that losing all the to power for a period of time as the underlying issue behind much of the failure at fukushima. my question be, is the nrc requiring nuclear power plants in this country to address these issues in any way from now until when the rule would become final? >> well, as was mentioned, we did issue an order which requires additional equipment to help mitigate the impact of the loss of all electric power, so that basically means you have additional portable generators, power supplies and fuel and these kinds of things in the ability to connect up our two the vital systems. but that is kind of the short-term enhancement that would either to get us through

to the point at which we have the more permanent changes made. i would also like right now we do have a requirement that plated steel with this complete box electric power. right on the requirements are not sufficient and they aren't used to do with the situation for a limited period of time. the fukushima showed us much longer days rather than our city has to be able to cope with this kind of situation. there is not completely avoid the requirements in this area, but we do not think by now that it's really what we wanted to be in a few years. >> to many other commissioners want to add to that? >> my next question is during december 15 hearing about three or four months ago i asked chairman jaczko at the day-to-day nrc staff work was being compromised for this software on the fukushima recommendations. i specifically asked about the licensing process for new reactors under the licensing

process for current reactors, chairman jaczko responded there may be some delays in the release process for current react airs due to the constrained resources. i followed up with a question for the record, for if you had asked, how many staff for relicensing leading up to the fukushima crisis and how many were caught relicensing today? duo answered me the same insert that db2 employees were working before fukushima and 77 are working on it now. and that doesn't seem to be a large shift of resources. a minor shift in resources. but he also asked how many additional staff are needed to ensure there's not any delays and i did not get a clear answer for many of you. so let me just ask again if i can. is the day-to-day nrc staff work

being compromised with his staff working on fukushima recommendations? do you expect delays from licensing and every licensing because of that? and if there are any extreme gats that will reduce performance, what do you need if anything to fill those gaps? and that would be the whole panel to start with commissioner ostendorff and the lucrative right. >> i am not aware of any significant impacts the fukushima is having. i think bill abortionist here for director of operations is doing a great job of managing parodies for stafford. so i'm not aware of any significant impacts. >> mr. apostolakis. >> i agree. >> mr. chairman. >> are certainly impacts we put

a large number of people working on the fukushima affairs. the priority committees will not be done in the area of licensing. probably the most significant interviews of so-called extended power. this will likely take longer than we originally anticipated. but again, nothing that would have an impact on safety under safety oversight will continue in that area. so you know, if there is a short coming comments that session area of resources. it's a bit expertise and staff expertise that we just don't have a additional financial resources. >> recommit thank you. commissioner svinicki. >> senator, i've got different information than ever in response i provided to the committee in march 5. but i would just emphasize nate grey met with chairman jaczko. it is both resources for

critical skill sets made some issues require niche expertise and we have limited number of some experts. >> already. commissioner magwood. >> i don't think i have much to add except to say that i have asked this question multiple times within the agency to make sure you understand how are fukushima efforts have impacted things like license renewal at dvds. and it seems that one of our colleagues mentioned a minute ago the staff has been able to manage through this very effectively and has been able to wear particular person was able to work on fukushima another person able to back so it was prepared to take on that work. so we've been able to manage this effort without a major interruption of our important work peers to make thank you for those responses. we've been joined by senator from new mexico, senator udall,

work on. you're recognized. >> senator carper, thank you very much. thank you to the commission for being here. i first wanted to ask about several of the priority recommendations for the nrc task force may not be implemented until 2016, four years should not buy theirs after the fukushima disaster. the average american it seems to make six the government to keep them safe from disasters of nuclear power plants. why does it take five years to implement the short-term safety recommendations following the worst nuclear disaster in the generation? >> well, i think one area right now but we know there will be some challenges in the area of seismic, and i've been risk of powerplants and i think the simple answer to that is that the industry does not have the

experts to do this. and i think that is indicative of the fact that this is not an issue that we probably paid enough attention to in terms to outdated our requirements for matt janning standards, updating skills in our knowledge base. and that is clearly exposes a weakness and that is why it's going to take us time because there's limited people who can do this kind of analyses, so they will have to be shared among the various licensees they need to do this work. so i think in that area in particular, this part of the reason. >> are there any other reasons why? in that area i can understand that. are there other reasons? >> there is a point at which it is complex and it does take some time to do these analyses. it takes time to then, once for instance we understand what the problems are to plant, and proposals can be made about how to fix those changes that

ultimately need to actually be made in the plants themselves. so where does take some amount of time and we can't unfortunately do these things overnight. but i think it is reasonable to shoot for a target to get it all done within five years and that means getting all the parts of the plans changed as well. i'm not confident right now that we are on target to do everything we need to do. >> to any other commissioners have comments, questions or what the chairman said? please go ahead. >> senator, i appreciate the question very much. i would just like to comment that a foundational element to the commission's actions here have been a near-term task orders finding there is not imminent risk who continue the operation or existing nuclear power plants. if there had been imminent risk of would've shut them down. we do not find this imminent

risk. and so, a more measured approach is appropriate given that the foundational entering assumption and fainting. >> i would like to add that maybe the impression is that we are doing some native of seismic now. ..

as we move forward you will see us having greater activity on sites that have to go through the eshoo hazard assessment but we will deal with the plants that need to be dealt with first. so i think that the wave of risk is highest we will take action sooner and i think that is the appropriate to proceed. >> the thank you. i am to stand there are dozens of nuclear power plants across the country is operating licenses are about to expire. these plans are seeking to extend their licenses for another 20 years beyond the original predicted life span of the plant. do all u.s. nuclear plants have to meet all of the newer safety standards were two older plants get exemptions from the new standards? we will

>> well in general as we get new requirements in some cases we will require plants to update to the new requirements and in some cases we won't. it pretends depends on the particular issue and the way the plant was licensed. if you go back to the first plants that were licensed in this country or not they cannot license that time we had a generic set of basic safety requirements the basic design requirements so some of the plans are licensed to a different type of standard than other plants so there is more variety in the way the plans are licensed and the requirements that have been applied. when it comes to the real licensing itself, we don't do a kind of review. for instance it's like when you get a driver's license every five years you have to get a, ten years, whenever the

frequency is, to get your driver's license often use him something in the mail and you get a new license. well our license renewal is not a brand new licensing action much like going in and taking your driver's test again and doing all the things in a written test and would initially getting a driver's license. we don't require that for a license extension to we we require the have programs in place we review to ensure the plant will deal with the aging of the components that are important safety and that's the decision we've made and really the basis for our decision about the licensing extension. >> do any of the other commissioners have thoughts or comments on that question and what's been said? >> i think the chairman is right, we look at the subset of the requirements for the license extension, but once the license is extended been subject to all

of our like anyone else they are treated like any operating plant. >> the point is if they have been given exemptions in the past in the post fukushima are you going to look at those and see are they safe in light of what is going on? >> for the process and the accident it should apply to everybody. >> can i do one more question? swa. islamic go right ahead one. >> mr. chairman, the nuclear power makes up about 80% of the french electricity supply to read the french nuclear industry is different than ours with much more involved as you all know the government role, and i was interested to learn their regulators are going to require

safety equipment designed to survive disasters even worse than look the plans are designed for. in the u.s. apparently the nuclear industry is taking a lead in upgrading emergency equipment per year to the nrc action. when is the nrc going to implement similar requirement in the u.s. and what are the differences between the two national a purchase? >> i'm reluctant to what the french are doing because we focus more on what we are doing and that has occupied a bit of our time, but the basic ideas a guess i'd say for what we are doing here is to get at preventing these kind of very severe actions which means making sure all of the plants can handle the external hazards, earthquakes, flooding, other her challenges like that then really on negations if you get into a situation in which mother nature does something we didn't plan for that you can minimize the likelihood of a severe accident

which means new equipment, new procedures and other enhancements to the system to deal with that. the last piece is to make sure we have a robust emergency preparedness system to respond in the event all those other things we plan for fail. so that's the approach we've taken is to try to bolster each of those areas with new requirements in some regard. my limited understanding with what the french are attempting to do is if you will to kind of hard and everything, make everything a little bit more robust with greater physical infrastructure to protect equipment from external hazards to ensure you have that additional way to control the reactor that is in a hardened facilities and some of those things they are doing the things we have already required even before fukushima for some of our plants. sometimes it's a little bit hard to compare the changes they are

making to the changes that we are, but i think in general in the international community there is a lot of consensus on what needs to be done and in general we are moving forward on the relatively consistently that there are differences just because of the unique country and its regulatory program. >> thank you on that. the thrust of my question is just to get to the issue of safety and there are other countries more and safety in hindsight if we do have which none of us want future disasters or is it going to be found that they took actions that they have the safest plants? all of you said over and over again we have very safe nuclear plants. and so i hope that you are looking at everything that we do from exemptions to additional policies that are going to be put in place to make sure we have the safest nuclear plants in the world. thank you for that, and i've read much appreciate, senator carper, your courtesy and

senator barrasso, and i'm going to slip out for a meeting but i may come back. >> let me just say one of the points -- excellent questions -- one of the things we are trying to do here is to learn from disasters. einstein used to say anniversary lies opportunity. it's an opportunity for us to learn to make sure that we can avoid some problems and mistakes that were made and you heard we had the opportunity to go over and take a look at what they are trying to do in terms of reprocessing and that kind of thing. somebody somewhere around the world is going to figure this out. somebody's gone to figure out how to do it and not only -- figure out how to do additional energy and reducing the amount of time they have to be stored, and folks of at mit has been working on this and a lot of other places as well, the french

have been working on a number of years. we will figure this out eventually and i hope we are the first but i think we will probably need repository's around the country to store this for an indefinite period of time we don't need it immediately, but the idea of learning from others in the world, they can learn from us and we will learn from them as well. >> senator carper, i did like you, i went to france and spent two weeks and toward the nuclear plants, and the big question i have to it because as you probably know, new mexico has the first for the waste it's called the waste isolation project and so i was trying to find out from the french because they're putting all of their eggs in the nuclear basket where are they living in terms of permanent storage of waste, and the question after i kept asking the question place after place they said we were waiting for america to find a permanent

solution. >> when you there? mcginn period why was the state attorney general and had the opportunity to travel on a program that was in an exchange and i think i was there in '95, '96. >> thank you. >> senator barrasso, anything else? >> one of the ways i like to close a hearing like this is just to invite the witnesses sometimes to just offer closing statements, something that has come to your mind because of the interaction of questions and answers that you think he would like to add so you can be thinking about that and perhaps one last question of the chairman and then we will do that. chairman jaczko, we know a lot of what happened in japan and it adopted lessons learned from the accident even in the u.s.. we are still learning and will continue to do so for quite some time, maybe a long time. based on the continual

information coming from japan, how has the commission assured of the nrc will continue to evaluate and analyze the information so that it is incorporated into the current process? >> well, we have established an organization with our japan lessons learned directorate it is going to be working in all of the identified issues and part of their task is also the new information comes in to evaluate the information if it needs to get added to the tax which is in front of us so they will be reporting back to the commission on a periodic basis every six months i believe to update us if they have new information. so i think that we are well prepared to deal with new information as it comes along. >> why don't you go ahead and give me a closing. chairman jaczko once you go first, a clause in fact you have, maybe a minute or so.

is it i would just say i think today, thursday, which is the first day of the march of madness basketball tournament, and i think that we are in our lessons learned enhancements in the first round of the tournament, and we have a long way to go to get to the final four and i think the progress we have made has been substantial but we need to keep the focus and the efforts on making progress. as time goes on perhaps unlike the final four come interest wanes and increases and i think it's important we not lose sight of the need to complete these actions and move on because there will be other challenges we have to deal with. >> mr. ostendorff? >> i agree with cernansky eights comment. i strongly agree that we need to keep focus on these issues and that there is a long road ahead, but i would also say that i'm very comfortable with where we are as an agency. i think the process we have

followed with to date have stood us in good stead the integrated approach of the staff, the steering committee etc have put us in a good position and i think among their colleagues here we've had a chance the last two days of our annual information conference to meet with a number of international counterparts. i met with 12 in the last couple of days and the situation awareness of what is happening elsewhere in the world i'm very comfortable with where we are. >> thank you. commissioner apostolakis? >> thank you, center. i agree of my colleagues on fukushima but i would like to say something else. senator barrasso earlier quoted from their recent union of concerned scientists report and i disagree with a statement that was contained in the report and german boxer and wide that we were bashing the oil from david look, and i would like to correct that impression. i have great respect for david.

i always look forward to reports that he offers. usually there is something good, but i don't agree with him all the time and on this particular case i do disagree, but i have great respect for him. in fact, yesterday i invited him and met with him for 15 minutes to think to the as to what he thinks of the current state of affairs. >> i'm glad you made that clarification. thank you. commissioner svinicki? >> my comment was can't be the same as commissioner ostendorff, which is that i have tremendous confidence in the discipline process that the nrc and the commission and the staff caf followed to get us to the point we have i think prioritized appropriately. we are moving forward on high priority items, and i think that we have done a very searching review of lessons learned and i do think that we are focused on the right things. not everything can be pursued at

the same pace. i think we've put the emphasis on the highest priority items and i think that we followed a tremendously rigorous process and getting to where we are today. thank you pete >> commissioner? >> thank you. a couple of thoughts. first, i think it's always easy since we are at the center of this as a regulatory agency of the united states to the cut, you know, what we do is very important that there are so many other people that have taken the role in thinking about these issues including the society's report of the american society for the mechanical engineers was presented some thoughts yesterday which were quite intriguing so there's a lot of people in this country thinking about this, including the nuclear industry, and i think it's really important that the american people understand the nuclear industry really has been very forward leaning on this.

they have not resisted what we've been doing and they've offered a very good ideas on their own. i think they should be recognized for the good work they have done. but i also wanted to close just to let you know that one -- while commissioner ostendorff and i visited the fukushima site, i think that most lasting impressions for me wasn't really what i saw how at the site its what i saw on the way to the site through the 12-mile evin activation zone as he went from neighborhood to neighborhood going after business after business there's no people there it leaves a strong impression on you. for me the image that stays in my mind is that look of the house is going by as we rode past. i noticed the last thing people seem to do when they left their homes may be for the last time was draw them to a close. i'm not sure what reflex there is in the human psyche that brings them out but that is what i saw time after time, and for

me it is very clear that we have to make sure nothing like that ever happens in our country, so why on to make sure -- >> that is a very poignant comment. hopefully if we are vigilant we are not going to have to close those as they did their here but maybe they can open their crepes again. that's what we are trying to do. i read in the newspaper the other day that we have been conducting another stress test for the major banks and i think they've looked at 19 banks and said 15 of them passed with flying colors and for others have some work to do but the work continues. i think the nrc has been going through a stress test of its own in the recent months and in terms of how to grapple with

fukushima and be supportive and helpful to the folks over there and at the same time to make sure we know the lessons to be garnered from the tragedy and to ensure that we in views those lessons and deploy them appropriately with our nuclear power plants. and i encouraged by what you shared with us today. we are doing well with respect to that stress test. we have a couple of new nuclear power plants that have been licensed for the first time in some 30 years, and the construction has begun. i think with the appropriate federal support director. i also said as someone who supports not tens of billions of dollars to support the nuclear industry that some support particularly for the loan guarantees and making sure that the nrc has the resources that it needs to do your jobs. but at the same time as i

support the funds for the nuclear i think it is appropriate for us to support federal investments for the renewable energy is whether it is offshore wind or biofuel and clean coal, really clean coal. the other thing coming and i didn't mention that i know it's been mentioned today, the approval says something i think you can feel good about and i am pleased to have been able to reach that agreement. i think with respect to working through that agenda we are in a better place today than we may have been in the past, and it goes back to the commissioner in japan, and i mentioned i had been a reporter in pakistan right against afghanistan a year or two ago when they get so many pakistanis that were evacuated because of the flooding they had

and had the chance to visit a refugee camp or 160,000 refugees still encamped through the u.n. they actually provide the resources and most have no idea we had done that. and the opportunity to address the elders and this is kind of like a surprise in that before we left the folks running the camps said would you like to address and we said sure. i talked to them through a translator about the golden rule and then i told them i said, you know, when your children have no food -- our children, when your children have no medical care from our children have medical care, when you have nowhere to live, our children have no where to live and i told him about the golden rule and i think he got it because the golden rule is a part of their faith as well. one of the things i implore all

of you, commissioner.com chairman and the other commissioners to keep in mind the golden rule and to treat each other with its commissioners from the other folks who work with you at the nrc to always keep that in mind and i would just say that again today. this is actually something i share with my colleagues a lot as well. we have lessons we need to learn and relearn every day so i would urge you to continue to do that. i'm very pleased with today's hearing and the work that has been done. thank you. i would note for the record that some of our colleagues were unable to join us and have two weeks to submit questions and material for the record and i would ask that our witnesses respond promptly to those questions so they can become a part of the hearing record. again, we appreciate each of you can't work that were doing and your attendance and look forward to continuing to work with you to make sure everything we do including and nuclear power that

we do better. with that the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] khan

if i was quite your radical as a young person and thought, you know, we should overcome wasn't a very effective way of gaining the civil rights and i think that would price of more confrontation was needed.

the individual freedom and the limited government makes you a radical and i've always been the person who believes people should not interfere. i should be able to do my own thing as long as i don't violate the rights of other people. if there is anything that concerns the american family today, it's this: our government hasn't caught up with a new facts of american family life families have changed so why can't washington? mou fact, is working. nearly 65% of all mothers are working. part-time, full-time all the time. keeping the family together.

making ends meet, making america more prosperous. working mothers need affordable day care and the today that they deserve to often they can't get either. malcolm fbi director robert mueller discusses the fbi budget request before the senate appropriations subcommittee. the request, $8.2 billion, is 1.4% increase over last year. robert mueller warned against

additional budget cuts that could be in opposed to the sequestration process. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. the appropriations committee will come to order. today we are engaging in a conversation with our director of the fbi, the federal bureau of investigation's with a director mueller. this will be a two-part hearing. one will be here in open and public session and then because of the sensitivity of the issues and budget involved, for the fbis fight against the global war against terrorism we will have a classified briefing. so this phase we will recess and reconvene in our classified environment at the center and

all members are welcome and this is where we can have an additional in that conversation. today the subcommittee will hear from the director of the fbi. we are grateful for director muellers service in his agreement to serve two more years to work with our president in order to keep our streets to the country, communities and countries a. we will begin our examination of the fbi 2013 budget request this open hearing. as the chair one of the subcommittee, when we look at the fbi budget, i have three priorities. national security, which is how is the fbi working to keep america's eighth, community security, how is the fbi working with local law enforcement to keep our families and neighborhoods safe and then also oversight and accountability to

ensure that we are spending taxpayers' dollars wisely and ensuring that we get value for the dollar. today i'm going to ask unanimous consent to sustain the full statement be included in the record. having said that, my oral statement is that we know that we as the fbi carried out extraordinary responsibilities, keeping 330 million americans safe from terrorism, and also violent crime to continue their work to dismantle organized crime which now has many new faces, many new locations and to many new techniques and then the drug cartels that continue to exist in the country and threaten our borders. we also asked the fbi to work through the combat violence illegal drug smuggling, and at the same time, help us catch sexual predators.

the presidents budget request for the fbi is $8.2 billion. this request reflects the stringent budget reality in which we find ourselves. there are no new initiatives in the fpi budget request this year, and only one target to increase and that's the fbi a devotee to fight mortgage fraud. in fact, the fbi will last -- will be asked to do more with less in 2013. in order to afford to continue fpi critical efforts, we will have the budget proposed as $63 million in savings from the lubber fpi programs, and the fbi will also have a put that provision. fpi also intends to become the banker for all law enforcement helping the communication equipment purchases not for just the fbi but the dea come atf and

u.s. marshals. we hassle the fbi to really watch this very carefully because as we've looked at our cousins in the department of homeland security appropriations, the in trouble communications has been one of the biggest boondoggles i've seen. everybody brought a gadget, everybody has a gizmo and at the end of the day one of the gadgets or gizmos' get to anybody. so we are counting on the fbi to work to get it straight. and at the same time, we need to get an update on the work on the sentinelle program, or virtual case management. also, we need to be sure we take a look at the sequester consequences and what would be the impact on the fbi if there was an 8% cut, and we need to know how this will impact the fbi ability to carry out its mission. in the area of national security, the fbi was charged with protecting the future national terrorism. we disrupt terrorist plots before they happen by

identifying, tracking and defeating them and then also working to dismantle the weapons of mass destruction to read this definitely is not jay edgar hoover's the five fbi any more. counterterrorism, counterintelligence make up the substantial part of the fbi budget. just weeks ago we saw the fbi counterterrorism efforts to close up close when they arrested the man who wanted to blow up the u.s. capitol. the nation also faces a new kind of threat. that occurs in cyberspace. so we have cyber terrorists, organized crime involved in cyber, cyber is the new arena. and we look forward to getting the concrete budget on how we can keep us safe in that area and how they work with other intel agencies. i also want to know how the fbi is protecting americans from

violent crime and also fraud in the communities. the fbi target's sophisticated criminal organizations who prey on the vulnerable, the child pornographer, the china for a gang of children and prostitution, the scams looking people either out of medicare or mortgage fraud. and i am concerned this budget is flat in the violent crime. i know why able and wonderful colleague senator hutchison is going to talk about this southwest border. she is just about it and so am i. because of the threat at the border. state and local budgets are under stress and we need to to know how we are meeting that. i want to conclude my remarks by saying this budget is not about members and statistics. it's about people. make sure that americans are not victimized by any bad person or anyone with a predatory intent.

we couldn't do it without the people that work for the fbi. so director before i turn to senator hutchison, i just need to thank you for not only your service but i would like to thank you on behalf of all of those wonderful people who work every single day for the fbi. those are out there in the field offices working on the joint task forces, those that are around the world and at times very rugged and very dangerous positions, and i know that the fbi works every day to protect us. the people that work hard everyday or duty driven and dedicated and they are in many ways the boots on the ground and the local communities and also working with intel and military agencies around the world. this is why i want them to know i respect them for the work they do and i will fight for them in

terms of their paid benefits and pensions. so if we are going to say thank you we need to think and not only with words but deeds. thank you and i will turn to the senator. >> well, thank you very much for coming before the committee to be unhappy to say that last year we thought it would be the last time that you appear before the committee, and i was very pleased the president offered and accepted the extension of your term, because i think what has happened at the fbi during your term as exponential. i think the changes that have taken place and the responsibilities that you have had have been more transformational than probably any time since the beginning of the fbi. >> i do want to start my remarks just very briefly by recognizing also the chairwoman of this committee who will on saturday become the longest serving woman

to serve in congress in the history of the united states congress, and we are going to make a big deal of that because we are really proud of this little pint sized mighty mite. [laughter] has outlasted them all. so, mr. fbi director, let me just state a couple of points. i think that senator mikulski has really outlined the big picture. there are a couple of areas of interest that i have in concerning. certainly i think the southwest border has to be as much of a national security issue as any place that we have, and yet this request cuts the southwest border funding.

i would question the priority of the administration in increasing the financial fraud enforcement and increasing border security. so, i'm going to say that i will be looking carefully at that and hoping to restore at least the $5 million that was included to make it look like it was even funding. but really that was just required to sustain the positions that had been added in the fy ten border supplemental appropriations bill, so i'm hoping that we can add more where you think you need it the most because that would be 13 border corruption taskforce members located in the field offices across the border as i understand it coming and these are kind of the backbone of the fbi southwest border mission that provide intelligence and coordinate with the southwest

intelligence groups and the national border task force, so i am going to be looking at that very carefully. i'm also concerned and am going to ask you about the $162 million rescission and what exactly that is going to impact. if it is as it appears that it would be the processing for fingerprinting and dna on ied is, that is an area i think we could link it to terrorists coming and i wouldn't want to cut that unless you have other plans for using money to ensure that that is able to be done. and then the other area is cutting the contractors of counterintelligence programs which would be the informant

validation, terrorist screening center, the tracking taskforce. i will ask your opinion of those, and then the other area i will ask you about is the fbi agents that were involved in the prosecution of ted stevens. we had a disturbing hearing with mr. volcker last week in which we talked at the department of justice and please -- employees who are still prosecuting at the department of justice even after the report was released and the attorney general himself dismissed the case against senator stevens because of the misconduct on the part of the prosecutors. so i will want to know if there are people still at the fbi. i think there were just to agents that were accused of

being involved, so i would like to know your opinion of that as well. so i think you for all that you are doing in the other areas senator mikulski mentioned the especially knowing the role of the fbi now and international intelligence and law enforcement so that expansion has been on your watch and i appreciate that you have been able to handle live and work with the intelligence agency so well. thank you. >> directors mueller, please proceed. >> thank you, madame chair. but major and others on the committee on congratulating you on the tenure, far longer than mine i might add. also, let me thank you for your comments with regard to the fbi personnel. i'm reminded of that because recently i had an opportunity to talk to a number of agents, analysts and others who were

working all 24 hours a day over the holidays and in the case we recently took down in tampa which was indicative of the degree of sacrifice that you see from the personnel in your organization. let me start by saying that the fbi continues to face unprecedented and increasingly complex challenges to read as you know and as you pointed out we must identify and stop terrorists before they launch attacks against our citizens. we must protect our government and businesses and critical infrastructure from espionage and from the potentially devastating impact of the cyberspace tax. we must redoubt mortgage fraud, fight white-collar and organized crime, stop child creditors and protect civil rights, and we must uphold civil liberties and the rule will fall while carrying out this broad mission. for fiscal year 2013, the fbi has requested a budget of

$8.2 billion to fund the more than 13,000 special agents, a more than 3,000 intelligence analysts and more than 18,000 professional staff. this funding level will allow the fbi to maintain, just to maintain our base operations with a small increase as you pointed out for the financial and mortgage fraud investigations. let me summarize the key national security criminal threats that this funding will address. first, the terrorist threat. while osama bin laden and other key leaders have been removed, al qaeda and its affiliates remain the top terrorist threat in the united states. corel qaeda operating out of pakistan remains committed to the high-profile attacks against the west and meanwhile, al qaeda affiliate's and adherence have attempted several attacks on the united states. such attacks include the field christmas day bombing and 2009. the income to the truck bombing of times square in may of 2010

and the attempted bombing of u.s. cargo planes in october of the same year. we are also concerned about the threat from home grown violent extremists. as you pointed out, madam chairman, last month the fbi arrested a 29-year-old moroccan immigrant who allegedly attempted to detonate a bomb and suicide attack on the u.s. capitol building. over the past year we've seen some of their attempts by the home grown extremists in florida, massachusetts, texas and washington state. these cases exemplified the need to continue to enhance our intelligence capabilities and to get the right information to the right people before any harm is done. the foreign intelligence while they continue their traditional efforts to obtain military and state secrets the of property

from companies and universities to it for example, last year a long time northrop grumman engineer since 22 years of prison for selling secrets related to the b-2 stealth bomber several nations including china. and last fall a former dow chemical scientist pled guilty to transporting stolen trade secrets to the individuals in europe and in china to read and these are just a few examples of the growing insider threat from employees who may use their access to commit economic espionage. turning to the cyber threats, this will be an area of particular focus with the fbi and the coming years. as cybercrime cuts across all of our programs. terrorists are increasingly cyber savvy coming and like every other multinational organization, they are using the internet to grow their business and to connect with like-minded individuals. and they are not hiding in the shadows of cyberspace.

al qaeda and the arabian peninsula has produced a full color english-language online magazine. al-shabaab and al qaeda affiliate in somalia has its own plater count read and extremists are not just using the internet for propaganda and recruitment, they are using cyberspace to conduct operations. while today terrorists have not used the internet to launch a full-scale cyberattack, we cannot underestimate their intent. and one recruiting video proclaims that cyber warfare will be the war of the future. many have state-sponsored computer hacking and economic espionage which poses a significant challenges as well. just as the traditional crime has migrated online commesso too his espionage. hospital coordination seek their intellectual property and trade secrets for mother teresa and competitive advantage. the result of these developments is that we are losing data and

we are losing money. we are losing ideas and we are losing innovation. as citizens come individually we are increasingly vulnerable to losing our private information. cspi has in the past several years built a substantial expertise to try to stay ahead of the threats both at home and abroad. we have cyber squads and every one of their 56 field offices with more than 4,000 specially trained agents, analysts and forensic specialists. borders and boundaries pose no obstacles for the hackers so the fbi uses our 63 attache offices around the world to collaborate with our international partners. we also have special agents indicted in armenia, estonia, ukraine and the netherlands. according to identify emerging trends and key players in the cyber arena. and the fbi leads the national sired investigative trite task force which brings together 18 law enforcement military and

intelligence agencies to stop current and to prevent future attacks. the task force operates through focused cells come specialized groups of agents come officers and analysts that focus on particular threats such as bought nets -- botnets did just last week the fbi along with our foreign partners announced charges with six hackers who align themselves with a group known as anonymous. according to the charges, they are responsible for a broad range of high profile cyber intrusions targeting companies, the media and law enforcement since 2008. and this case was successful because we worked with overseas partners and used our traditional investigative and intelligence techniques in this cyber arena. we must continue to push forward and enhance our collective capability to fight cybercrime, and we do need tougher penalties for the cyber criminals and to

make the cost of doing business more than they are willing to bear. just as we did after september 11th we must continue to break down the walls and share information to succeed and combat the cyber threat. just as we do or did with tourism, we must identify and stop cyber threats before they do harm. it is not enough to build our defenses and to investigate the harm after the fact. let me spend a moment if i might to discuss the significant threats in the criminal arena. from foreclosure fraga to subprimal scams, mortgage fraud remains a serious problem, and in fiscal year 2011 the fbi had more than 3,000 pending mortgage fraud investigations more than four times the number of cases we had in 2005. nearly 70% of these investigations include losses of more than $1 million this budget year for fiscal year 2013 the

fbi is requesting a program increase of $15,000,000.44 new positions to further address the mortgage and financial fraud schemes tall levels. the focus on health care fraud is no less important. we spent hundreds of billions every year to fund medicare and other health care programs. together with our partners at the department of health and human services the fbi has more than 2600 active health care fraud investigations. in fiscal year 2011 these led to the recovery of more than $4 billion, tax payer dollars. the violent crime and activities do exact a high toll on the communities. according to the national gang intelligence there are more than 30,000 gangs with more than 1 million members active in the united states today. through the safe streets and safe trails task force the fpi identifies and target's the

sirius gangs operating and targets them as criminal enterprises. turning to the southwest border i know a concern to senator hutchison, the continued violence long of the southwest border remains a significant threat and we rely on our cooperation with the broken the laws of the fusion center and the intelligence center to track and disrupted this threat. with regard to crimes against children we remain vigilant in our efforts to remove predators from communities and to keep our children safe. we have a ready response teams stationed across the country to respond quickly to child objections and to our child abduction rapid deployment teams, there are innocence lost nationally initiative the fbi and its partners are continuing to make the nation's leader for our children. last, turning to the budget.

the fbi budget for 2013 seeks to maintain our current base resources and capabilities in a restrained fiscal environment. these resources are critical for us to continue responding to the broad range of national security and criminal threats we face today. chairwoman buckles comer remember such as incoming members of the committee, let me close by again thanking you for your leadership and support of the fbi and most particularly the men and women of the fbi in pursuit of its mission. the work force investments in our technology and our infrastructure have made a difference to the fbi everyday and the transformation of the fbi that has an undertaking over the last ten years would not have been possible with out the support of this committee. my thanks and i look forward to answering what questions you have to read 643 leche, director mueller. to my colleagues who have

arrived, working we will have one round of questions here, recognizing people in the order of arrival. when we have completed that, we will recess and then move to a classified series with the director particularly on the sensitive matters and we will do that in our classified center and recess. director, i want to move from right into questions. first of all, in your testimony you show the breadth of the work of the fbi from international terrorism to cyber threats and dealing also with the where there is need there is read by mortgage fraud and health care fraud. so let me get right to i think we need to have for their record of the major categories for the fbi which is how much of your

$8 billion, which is actually a modest request killed three tightly in last year's funding, chose into the national security then how much goes into the traditional crime-fighting, and then also where do they cross like in the area of cyber? because i think many people don't realize that the fbi has such a substantial role in counterterrorism. the fbi is transformed since 9/11. can you elaborate what goes into those categories? >> under the budget, 60% of approximately $5 billion is scored to the national security, what i would call the national security programs, the would-be counterterrorism,

counterintelligence, directorate of intelligence, weapons of mass destruction, and then additional pieces of other programs and that's about 60 per cent of our budget, the $5 billion but also scored pieces of other programs. for instance the cipher program is split between criminal and national security, where 60% of the cyber program that which is scored for national security relates to intrusions whereas the other 40% relates to programs such as images which address child pornography on the internet, and on puerto rico, the intellectual property crimes but we also address. so 40% of it is cybercrime and the other 60% is perceived and scored against the national security peace and that relates to computer intrusions.

>> what's go to the threat of sequester which i'm concerned the congress doesn't have a sense of urgency about cyber, but i am concerned they don't have a sense of urgency about the threat of sequester to be given this 8.2 billion when one looks at what we spend all these other issues this is really modest when you think of the scope, the debt, technical expertise and integrity required of the agents and all that work there, what would happen to the fbi if it were triggered? >> we tried to estimate what would happen in the event of the sequestration, and the primary figures show that we would face a cut of 650 to $800 million. that translates into the validity of the $8 billion appropriation for 2012 from

about what translate into a 25 worked day furlough across the bureau, and a reduction by 3500 work years for special agents come intelligence analysts and professional staff. given what i've described in terms of the threats we would have to do some very substantial prioritization and would have a huge impact on our investigations and an impact on our intelligence collection and most particularly not to be underestimated the would have a very large and cut on the morale of the work force. we would have to rotate the furloughs to lessen the impact, we would have to reprivatize, that would set us back for a to where we were many years ago and the impact of that sequestration would be felt for many years in the future.

>> i have a set of questions related to cyber which i would defer to our classified meeting. in terms of accountability as you know i want to ask a question about sentinel, where you are in achieving the programmatic goals and keeping it within the budgetary framework. as you know, we've been at the program which was initiated a long time ago to provide the fbi with the essentially virtual case files to make them more effective, more productive and in the first 9/11 connect the dots. could you tell us getting sentinel connected while we are busy trying to do out how to connect the dots? >> gas you are aware, the contract was entered into for a number of -- entered into a number of years ago phase one that was produced and phase two in our, from my perspective, was

not adequate, and so we restructured the contract to bring in much of the software development. we had anticipated that we hopefully would be through the test last fall and start sentinel. we had tests of the software as well as the infrastructure to support the software and worked well but the infrastructure needed updating and so since the fall, i have put in a new servers and built up the infrastructure to be able to handle the package that is in the last stages of being completed. there are three factors that go in. one is people can use the would be embraced in the field that actually works and is helpful. second is the budget, staying under budget and third is doing it in a timely fashion. i've had to sacrifice the timely fashion in order to make certain the product we put in this field will be increased by the work force and second to keep it

under budget. currently we have built up the infrastructure as a result of the consequence we put in the fall. we are testing that and the tests are positive and my expectation is that certainly by the end of this fiscal year and by the fall we will not completed the sand sentinel will be in the field, and will be just under the budget. >> keep us posted. i'm now going to turn to senator hutchison. >> mr. lautenberg, gramm and feinstein. >> madame chair, i am going to let senator gramm have my time and i will come back at the end because i'm going to see any way. i do have questions, but i'm going to defer to senator gramm. >> thank you. this has been a very informative hearing. is it fair to say the we do not have the legal infrastructure in place to deal with the cyber

threats that we face that the converse needs to give you better legislative support? >> yes. >> is it fair to say that of all the things that we should be concerned about, cyber attacks from foreign governments and terrorists is a growing threat by the de? >> yes. >> okay. would you consider a cyberattack generated from the people's liberation army of china against our national security infrastructure should that be considered a hostile act? >> welcome you are in an area somewhat beyond my curfew, but in the way that you would describe it absolutely it would be a hostile act to but i don't know if that is a connotation -- >> i don't know either what we need to come to grips with that because you have a law enforcement all model against cyber attacks where people engage in an economic espionage and may try to shut down a power plant or the grid. when is it a crime and when it is a day national security

hostile act under the law of the war? i think that is what we need to consider among ourselves, and i would argue that if, let's say that these website generated by al qaeda if an al qaeda that organization tried to commit the cyberattack, would you consider that an attack on the united states? ..

and i do believe the law enforcement has deficiencies in that regard. people at guantánamo they are being held there were multiple years. is that correct? >> yes. >> i would gather good information over time for that population without using waterboarding? >> yes. >> allegedly the best way to interrogate someone, not to torture them, they use traditional military law enforcement techniques? >> well, that is somewhat of a loaded question. i will say -- we have followed -- we follow our rules. >> you don't torture people, do you? >> no, sir. >> and you get good information totally agree. what i would suggest to the committee that senator mikulski's questions about sequestration. if this is not a wake-up call for the congress, what would you? you just heard the fbi director

and has done a marvelous job tell us that if we do what we are planning to do, we are going to devastate one of the frontline agencies in the war on terror. 10 years ago, what was the fbi's budget when it came to national security issues? what percentage of your budget? >> i would say one fifth of the budget back in 2001 was national security and i would say a principal percentage of that was espionage in the counterintelligence division. >> before 9/11, what percentage of your budget? >> i would say no more than a quarter. if it were a quarter. >> okay. if your budget has gone from 151 quarter combat is now 60% with national security issues, something has to give. has your budget? how much has it gone has it gone up in the last three years? >> and the last three years, maybe 2 billion. >> what percentage of increases

that? >> i could tell you since 2001 our budget in 2001, the budget was 3.1 and it's now a billion, so it's almost tripled over that period of time. >> okay, and these resources have been needed? >> yes. >> do you see -- do you have enough money to do with the jobs he told us that she do? >> and if you don't, tell us. >> is a prioritization. we have the priorities. we have as he saw the threats that we face are substantial. >> is one thing to perk. everyone does it at home in the business. it's another thing to have to do it on the cheap. are we giving you enough money to do it, not only to prioritize, but to fully and robustly deal with the threat the united states faces? and if you think you need for money, now money coming occidentalis. >> i would say that my concern and immediate future is having

sufficient funds to build at the capabilities to address cyber, and the same way we had and afforded the funds to address counterterrorism and i was 2013, 2014 or 2015. i think that this initiative is going to require additional funds on the road. >> could you give us some estimate privately or whatever is appropriate about how to build out the cyberaccount because not only do we need new laws come we probably need to find you more robustly. so, thank you. >> will you be able to come? >> yes, ma'am, if i can get back from a press conference about medicare will be here. if we can save money on medicare, will give some of it to him. [laughter] >> senator graham, thank you very much. we look forward to in a classified hearing. are your considerable expertise in armed services and again you are a jab officer.

i also want to comment on this site. senator lamar alexander is absent because of a family illness. he sends his regards and the last questions for the record wanted to note his absence was due to a very compelling family reason. >> thank you, madam chairman. and thank you, director mueller for the wonderful work that the fbi has done, the diligence and the covenants are your people operate with and hats off to you for your leadership they are. it is quite incredible when we hear reviews of what is happening budgetary relief for these years. i am reminded that 9/11, the lost lives in the restructuring of our society to place and the

way that is not yet fully understood. on d-day at normandy on the pearl harbor day, we didn't lose as many as we did on 9/11. and what we find the proliferation and i'm not doing second amendment reviewed here. we are not talking about people who apply and go through the rigors of testing as they do now. one of the questions that i'm really anxious to review and that is we now understood -- understand that people from the new york police department were doing surveillance in the state of new jersey. across the river into our sovereignty and last week the

special agent in charge of the fbi office criticized the new york police department surveillance in the new jersey community and university and i quote them, makes our job much, much harder. mr. direct or, how do you feel about that? >> let me start off by saying that we have a very good relationship with the n.y.p.d. and the work that the n.y.p.d. has done since september 11 to protect new york and the surrounding communities is first rate. and there has not been a successful attack in large part attributable to the work that has been done by the new york police department along with the joint terrorism task force, which has been ongoing for many years in new york and the joint terrorism task force of new jersey and elsewhere.

often there are issues and how you go about doing your work that arise over a period of time better bumps in the road in terms of your cooperation. and my expectation is that whatever bumps in the road there has been in the past in terms of alerting people to action center taken will not take place in the future, but it should not interfere with the work is being done and done exceptionally well at the joint terrorism task forces in new jersey as well as men new york. >> yeah, i agree with that, director. but the fact of the matter is the route to at least be some privilege given to the law-enforcement structure in our state and for them to be a lawyer. why should there not be that information available? what about cross currents of bumping into one another?

i'm not going to proceed further on this. >> i will tell you that everybody knows you often have to risk action all issues between the fbi and state of local law enforcement, between share some police chiefs and the like. it is not unusual to have that. and my belief is you sit down, talk about it in private and you could result in the fun. that is what has happened over a period of time whether it be new york or philadelphia or washington d.c. or save as to score what have you. and so, as is pointed out that the u.s. agency and is a remarkable he is a good and they have a good relationship with n.y.p.d. in new jersey. >> i want to ask -- ask you a question of all people on this terror watch list, they are able to legally purchase a gun or explosives. in addition to the gun show

loophole allows anyone to walk into a gun show, purchase a gun, no questions asked. when you look at the statistics of workers in our country compared to others advanced societies, our numbers dwarf anything that comes from other places, england, germany, you name it, canada. isn't it time to close the kerry camp and the gun show loophole? >> as we've discussed before and each year we have too deferred to the department of justice in terms of particular legislation, but needless to say anything that can keep the hands -- the guns out of the hands of criminals or terrorists or the like is something that is beneficial in terms of reducing the extent of, i believe the extent of violence in our society. madam chairman, may it continue with former more question, even

though the lines are required to affirm the f. e. i have a serious crimes on the number of crimes supposed to be made public? however according to fbi data that i obtained a number of crimes posted online is lower than that reported by the industry. we are planning to change the law to address the discrepancy. in the meantime, what steps can the fbi take to publicly disclose the actual number of serious cruise ships? i am not interested in hurting the industry, but i am also not willing to permit the crimes to be developed and not give true facts about what is taking place. >> 80 to raise two issues. one is recording in compliance with the law which requires.

we include the necessity of doing that in this charade to the extent possible that they comply with the statute. secondly in terms of making public those figures, i'll have to get back to you. i am not certain to what extent they are publicized and if not why they would not be publicized. >> thank you come in a chair. >> before i turn to senator feinstein, i want to comment, you have a long history when defending people. do you remember there were some terrible and finance many years ago and in order to be graduates need to protect the people to fill in the cities from pirates or other despicable and we look forward to hearing more from you. senator hutchison who is going to be next yielded to you and so then we will go to murkowski and hutchison that way. >> thank you very much.

i wanted to take up more senator graham left of. there has been an effort emanating out of the armed services committee to change the defense authorization bill to essentially put this country's detention policy under the laws of war. and under the laws of war, an individual can be held without charge or trial till the end of hostilities. the point made that america is a battlefield and they think that is the point that sun has been trying to make a period i would like to ask your view of this. i am strongly opposed to it. i also know what you said during the worldwide are adhering, that the fbi has interrupted or arrested some 20 terrorist plots in this country over the past year. you have the high-value

interrogation group, which he testified to the house committee has done for team interrogations and they gather with some success. i would like to ask you to comment on whether you believe that permanently detaining americans with all trial or charge is appropriate? >> i would have to start with any aa legislation that has recently been passed, which addresses that particular issue. and i say thank you and others are worried some at the outset into areas of the continuation of our authorities during this possible transfer -- or not transfer, detention initially into military custody and secondly, whether or not there could be clarity in terms of --

the presidential directives that would clarify the process in which a person is deemed to be not an american, non-american citizen, but a person who is an al qaeda affiliate it gauged in a terrorist plot who is non-american citizen to what extent would be military detention. we both the statute as well as the president directives, i am comfortable that the capabilities of the bureau coupled with the capabilities of dod will be maintained in the rather unique situation, where you have a foreigner, not a u.s. citizen who undertakes a terrorist attack affiliated with al qaeda in the united states. looking at the discrete issue, i am comfortable that we preserve what we need to preserve in terms of our role in that process. the broader question that you

have -- >> the broader issue is that the law is very cloudy and this is a problem. the court has had some holdings that you cannot detain a person indefinitely regardless of whether they are a citizen or not in this country without charge or trial. >> welcome in the supreme court has an occasion to opine on various aspects of that. what i have wrestled with this particular pieces of legislation that would impact that process, whereby a person is detained in the united states, a u.s. citizen and non-us citizen in the department of justice and the president's prerogative to determine whether or not ultimately a person is tried or you proceed against the person in an article three-quarter, in which we operate or in a

military tribunal, which has also been upheld with the legislation i believe the issues have been fleshed out to the extent that i am comfortable with, but i really hesitate to comment on other issues, which have either not benefit jack of legislation or unique to a particular circumstance, where you really don't the facts and not knowing the facts is very hard to apply to a lot.

>> of obtaining communications by these individuals as quickly as possible in order to prevent attacks. whether those attacks in the future be a terrorist attack on the infrastructure, on the financial structure, or attacks by al qaeda in cyberspace. it is absolutely essential that we have those tools. >> would you say that the foreign intelligence

surveillance act are a critical tool. >> it was precipitated that the >> it was precipitated that the it was not until that child was

completed that we learned of these violations. it came about because of a complaint that was filed by an fbi agent that alleged the prosecutorial and other law enforcement misconduct in that case. in my opinion, that was exceptional good work i that fbi agent, and judge sullivan suggested that were it not for the complaint of that agent, and in fact we might not have learned of the misconduct. i am joined this morning or this afternoon including senator hutchinson and filing legislation that would address some of the laws that are in place that allowed for this hard situation to move forward. but because this whole thing came about because of the fbi

agent, i would certainly hope that that individual has been recognized for his persistence, standing up for the constitution. i think he did rise. i hope that that recognition has been given. by the fbi. >> i back you on any particular recognition. the case is still under review by oh p. r. a justice department as well as our own oh pr. but i will say that the agent who came forward and did that was doing so in a condition of the fbi. it is the legacy to adhere to the constitution when you see something wrong, to bring that to the attention of others. that is exactly what we teach in our new agents training as they come through. there is no case that is more important than abiding by the constitution and the applicable

statutes and guidelines. >> i appreciate that. you mentioned in the report that is still under way. i have asked the office of professional response ability to conduct this formal investigation. i am hoping that the fbi will work with opie are as they look into some of the issues that were the behind the seasons matter. in particular, the fbi has worked very closely with the anchorage police department in this case that involved bill allen, who was a key witness in the case against senator stevens and mr. allen was -- it was alleged that he had transported a young native alaskan woman across state lines in violation of the mann act. it has been widely reported in the media.

justice higher up scuttle that -- a question i would have to you is to what extent was the fbi involved in that investigation, and did that investigation indicate any reason that the prosecution should not go forward? this is just really sad people back in alaska. they cannot understand why the department justice has dropped this, and i attempted to get answers all the way up the chain and simply have not been able to get any. do you know any reason that based on that investigation the prosecution should not have come forward. >> i do not. that is something we would have to get back to you on. my expectation -- i shouldn't say that. this is a part of the oh p. r. as much of the allegation and series of events of that particular allegation would be addressed in that arena. i am not familiar with the court's report that was issued

earlier today. i do not know -- or was a subject of that particular investigation. >> and i would ask you because this is a matter that has really gone far eon and most of us could have imagined, did you not only look at the report that was issued today, but also do some follow-up in terms of that. the fbi investigation and where we are. the office of professional responsibility. the concerned that so many of us have is that the allegations against mr. allen are unfortunately not isolated in alaska. we have had a great deal of concern about trafficking within the state, with young native women, and within what has happened with the bill allen case.

the government's failure to prosecute bill allen sends an awful message to other creditors that might be out there. if you are a young woman, in particularly a young native women. you don't stand a chance when you have been victimized by a person of political influence and financial means. we worry about the situation of sex trafficking. again, if an individual doesn't feel that there's any recourse out there, it makes the situation very top. this goes beyond the bill allen investigation. i know that you have good folks within the fbi that are working these issues. i have worked with them. i have talked with them. but again, i think this is something that needs further attention to detail and in if you can give me assurance that you will look into that, i will appreciate us.

>> yes. i will look into this. when the issues came out in terms of the violation -- we have gone back to make sure that everyone understands the violations in the brady rule. when it comes to human trafficking in alaska, we have persons that are working hard on that state local law enforcement. we believe it is a priority, and any young woman, and for that matter, young men, lights can be saved by working with local law enforcement. we certainly want to be a participant and driver of that. >> i appreciate that. >> thank you general. >> thank you, madam chairman. the. >> just to add one more question to lisa's line. i think she had taken the lead on this and properly so. i do commend the fbi agent who

came forward who just couldn't sit back and let a person being accused of a trial, lose an election, and then all based on very bad misconduct on the part of agencies. agencies that we look to for complete integrity. which would be the department of justice, the prosecutors, and the fbi. there were others that were annotated with the fbi in some of the alleged misconduct. my question to you is, what are you doing to deal with the allegations, which i assume will come out in a report or if the oh pr report. if the agents are found to still be in the fbi and have been actually, to your satisfaction,

part of this scheme that was put together to convict senator stevens. >> at the outset, the justice department opie are led the justice investigation. we participated and contributed to that investigation to the extent that individuals within the bureau where indicated. along with justice investigated that. there is at least one individual who is still going through the process. let me just put it that way. i can tell you that that process is monitored, that goes through our process where the person has an opportunity to respond to the charges and the findings, and that process underway. at the end when it is resolved, we take a look at it and determine what lessons need to be learned, what is the appropriate punishment for whatever wrongdoing was

undertaken, and doing as we do in any case. we find that a person does not it here to what we expect in the fbi. >> i would ask if you would share the final result of that investigation and your actions with this committee. >> i would have to look into that, but i would expect that we would report to you on what we have done. >> i would ask that you do so. i want to go back on a couple of other points. number one on cyber security, there are different bills that have been put forward to deal with cyber security. i think everyone in both bodies, the house and the senate, and both parties, the house and the senate, agree it is critical that we address cyber security.