that was going to create a lot of pain to the economy that was not going to be avoided. you cannot manufacture -- a must for going to put a lot more people into homeownership, continue along those lines, that are sustainable in the long run, you were going to be a vote to avoid a major adjustment for the imbalances that have been created during rebuttal. now at the same time, certainly there is -- there are moves going on in washington today to begin to work off the stock of

distressed area, the project we have in place to begin to finance investors more in a bigger way than has been in the past. i may come in the housing market is one where homeowners are no longer getting finance. let me just start off that if you're going to have principal write-downs, if you're going to have -- allow people to foreclose come you are going to have to find some way of financing this. government funds will have to be put in the picture. then you get into the fiscal problems were dealing with. so i agree things can be done to ease the problem, but there are costs. >> why wasn't this done? >> because it smells incredibly badly. we did what we did for the

banking system and it was a sorry spec to cool to watch the political process actually do t.a.r.p. we got to see it voted down in the stock market voted down and then we had congress holding it does in holding that make passion that he quickly changed his mind to recapitalize the banking system, which was the right thing to do in the first instance. so eventually tire past because it had to pass. it did not pass the smell test of democracy because it unambiguously was favoring a class that in the clear light of noncrisis they would not have gotten the benefit. and he says either you passive or we will have to pressure gone, too. your call. so tart past because it had to pass. it didn't pass the democracy. we didn't do what should've been done at the time is to look at

the households that are and it was basic unfairness. t.a.r.p. is unfair and it would've been unfair then and now to essentially reward government assistance those who should've been called not homeowners. we've taken so long to deal with it and the reason we do with it now is because it is at per minute dragged, and growing our economy. democracy demands some notion of fairness. >> it is logistically more difficult. it is far tougher -- >> that is true, but it's not the fundamental reason. we have done it because it rewards from a moral give those who essentially did what we consider to be on moral, which

is took which they cannot afford. if your bank if i was fine, but if you're a home owner, we want to punish you. >> quicksand taney -- >> i think there was an underestimation of the ability of the market to actually process the foreclosures in a timely fashion and deal with the problem. there was an underestimation of how difficult it is going to be and how big the stock would get an amish problem smarter marker servicers would be. i think we are in uncharted territory. you can just look at policy reactions at the time it very much was making along because he truly didn't know all the moving parts. i think there was a deep -- >> there's a lot of time to make up the story on housing. >> right, but after t.a.r.p. one person increase with missionaries problems in the

housing market and that's where it became in many cases politically too challenging to deal with it. so great example is if we look at the markets modification, about 25% directly held by banks and modified, about 2% of those in mortgage-backed securities, none of the mortgages at the government-sponsored entities have been modified in the last group is actually fit the 6% of the market right now. sleep and they became political issues and fairness issues that take dan. but i think at the start is actually underestimation of how difficult it is going to be for the market today with the the problem. >> there's a couple things, these moralistic paintings of what happened. part of this fairness debate is that we could've had a t.a.r.p. that exact get a lot more in the way of punishment in terms of replacement bank executives and

bank boards. and there is a lot of symbolism -- [applause] that would've made a huge difference, witness to the audience reaction in terms of how this went down with the public at large. the second is there is still a lot of discussion about the underside of the deadbeat borrower. it's now much more complicated than that. do people really take out the mortgages, the teaser loans, a lot of those have been foreclosed on. push the reset in 2007, 2008, a lot of people are gone. the people losing their houses in our mature people who lost jobs or had hours cut back or more normal situations like medical bankruptcies, things like that. on top of that is significant evidence which the administration hasn't wanted anyone to go there and there have been no investigations of service are driven foreclosures, where the banks and required fees inappropriately and will compound them in ways, for

example they will violate the first potomac the next month late and then morpheus kick and happiness. so nobody knows how significant is for people who represent homeowners in court say this is actually quite significant in the few cases where have taken hire accountants commit they found significant abuses. so the rowdy tale is a lot more complicated than they want you to believe. >> bear in mind the condition of the housing market and that we are not likely to see a hail mary moment in the foreseeable future, i would like to ask each of you about how you affect the quality of recovery. we've had three consecutive months of joblessness following bioassay quarter of a million. we're seeing growth of 3% from last year. recent markets responding and in

the oversight sustainable recovery. is it the kind of her country to be to have? on the other hand, japan's recovery, which sort of debate does each of you fall under? >> i will try to be sure. i am not a believer that we are underway to a sustainable recovery. we also had appeared at the begin of last year, not to disagree, but the numbers were better than the strengthening day. we still have more downside on housing. the site has been talking about a fiscal cliff will reach in january 1, 2013 redaction better be genuine, 2012, but some of the tax breaks on the lower payroll tax rates are pushed down another year. so we are going to have a most

other measures are taken will have fiscal spending fell off in 2013 and if nothing else that would be another drag on the economy. >> i would like to stay a little bit with the discussion we've been having because i don't think we been seen with the rapier but a ticket to policy in switzerland first. now there are three explanations broadly speaking that this problem out there. one is a republican american enterprise institute explanation which i call the government failure hypothesis. that means you blame the thread, too low, too long in the last recovery and expansion and you blame the government interfering in the housing market. fannie mae, freddie mac. the policy prescriptions that come to matter very clear. number two is what i call the market failure hypothesis and that is actually what we've heard so far that only believers

to fire. that's why spending so much time doing this. there is a failure in financial markets. the failure was due to inadequate regulation, too much deregulation and incentive pay arrangements that allowed and fostered low in pushing. by the way, that is that the administration folks we hear from later this afternoon, a market failure. let's fix it. this is your dodd-frank. because a deep recession, so therefore a ticket out of the deep recession we need very good fiscal policy. but for them, not telling you to continue doing. they've solved the problem can structurally, but now how do you want to continue? .there is a third he sought to get on the table and i'm afraid we will not get on now which is what i call the discretion of shared policy hypothesis.

in the 1980s we changed horses, changed her growth model and move to what i call a neoliberal growth model reproved the links between wages and in return we started driving the monolith in the economy with asset price inflation and debt instead of leeches driving the market. not that created demand, but we paid over the cat. this was the 30 year were talking about. this is the reality of the great adoration. the great moderation is built on paper and with flexural sparrow for pushing assets into the economy instead. it went on far longer than any of us expect it. >> are you saying that mainly concern as policymakers assuming we can just return? >> would have not fix the underlying problem. now that the thing has broken, we cannot go back to driving the

economy by price inflation. but we are doing is filling in the problem by having the public sector balancing and that is worked. as long as we can keep that going. if you start to pull back on the deficit, he will have a shortfall. we've got to tackle the underlying problem of the income distribution, where that comes from an labor market flexibility is >> this only keeps going temporarily. we are heading for a stagnation. and if we do what paul was is talking about in the green room about not doing 1837 all over again >> that's essentially the 19th 37 december sequestration scenarios that were potentially

basing this year. >> i think we have a recovery worthy of the name. will it be different than the recoveries of most of my lifetime? probably. but we are growing concern in the economy. with the income distribution issues that trouble me as a citizen certainly. >> but it's a real recovery. the key issue for me as a recovery that is founded on both the balance sheets of both the carrier and the public sector. and my biggest concern about the long chickadee of the recovery and robustness of the recovery is the mindset on wall street and also in this town is somehow that the government set to your should look for the earliest and first opportunity two-stage, which i coined keynesian or

guess. we did it in 1837. it did not turn out particularly well. so a subservient role for this sad relative to fiscal authority he think is an enduring part of our lasting as we accept that this is part of our new landscape. bigger government, fiscal policy taking the lead, not just cyclically until we can get out, but the enduring part of our new reality. then i think we'll be okay. we will not be an exuberant party, but the pass had a little bit too much exuberance anyway. the last 30 years of my life, which was always my adult life was quite a mirage. that is a little frightening to me. i just turned 55 yesterday. i want to learn today that something meaningful.

>> with verity solved the reason of the crisis. >> is it sustainable? it's already the weakest recovery in the postwar period. without question. and for good reason. this is the first time we have followed a financial crisis of this magnitude is supposed to have said engineer recession. but is that -- i will also note on the question vis-à-vis japan, we are not japan. the u.s. stock market is 16% ulloa's previous peak in 2007. japan is still 70% below its 1990 peak. there is a very different and what they are. we are suffering some of the same problems. i'm encouraged though. i look at what's going on with the recovery for the better part of three years at the top of the recession in 2009 and time is

the big killer in this one. we have had an extended period of time at home construction. less than half the rate you need to house the growing population and as a result we are working down with access to an vacant homes. home building can begin to rise to more normal levels over the next year or two and i will be a little extra engine of growth on the plus side. another major development, one of the key things everyone is worried about his household deleveraging. there's been a lot of deleveraging. the household debt-to-income ratio has come down at unprecedented rates. he rose a lot, but you look at what is happening under household finances of average household servicing is well below historical rooms. interest rates are very low if that helps and you are seeing credit quality improved and default rates declined sharply

in consumer credit after having declined for seven years is now growing at a pretty good pace and that is consumer spending. it's not a big surprise we see some moderates growth in consumer spending going forward. and that is at the heart as sustainable. i agree with paul. if we take this 3.5% of gdp cliff that is coming at the end of the year and we pushed tax cuts and the employment tax cuts and, all of it, then we are facing a problem. doug elmendorf had it right on the cbo director if we look at 1% gdp growth next year under current law. but i don't think anyone expects us to go through this without some major modification. the question is, do we begin to do the right things in washington next year? we begin to tackle the longer

run problem tax reform and entitled reform act of the market something positive to look forward to as we take away the near-term fiscal drag and probably getting downgraded with the rating agencies in at least if we move in the right direction if washington is to political parties can begin to communicate and make some progress, it's definitely sustainable. >> we can have a far more efficient pricing factor if you do average -- quicker than other domestic colonies and return to growth quicker. in terms of the entity, is very concerned that bears deleveraging going on too quickly in the consumer borrowing and the credit card bills are going back up, saving rate is losing some of its gains.

-- >> one of the core concerns of income growth and inflation is very modest. and that means that in order to spend -- there is enormous pent-up demand out there. people are saving as much and probably the personal saving rates needs to go back up higher. if we continue to see the labor market improved consistent with the last couple of months commotions start to see income rising a little bit better. in terms of this question about, is a recovery sustainable? is a japan like, you know, a normal business cycle with bad reception is usually 2% drop in gdp. and they are after up 4%, twice the rate of decline that. in this cycle the u.s. went down 5.1% that the average rate of growth recovery started is only 2.5%. what it is a reflection of his the legacies of the financial crisis, things that the housing

market is still have to be worked out and we're making progress on that, but we need to understand the magnitude of the balance built-up was so big that when the housing market correct it, as it unwound really quickly would've created a depression as the government cut interest rates and incredible stimulus and that tempered how deep the recession they came and helped to foster an economic recovery, but transform the personal savings problem, which now has to be dropped, which will constrain the rate of economic growth going forward, even if washington -- the washington gridlock diminishes. fiscal drive is going on the economy. so i think about the u.s. economy and to a five-year projection is part of our corporate planning, my assumption is the u.s. will continue to grow at a 2.5% pace. you feel is whether you're a glass half-full or glass half-empty person.

it is probably pretty close to trend. and so we are talking about continued growth. the problem is you never get the above trend growth you normally get in a cycle. >> capturing growth as well. >> is a port and also the japanese appearance. the stock market is completely different. japan basically went in the last decade. the growth rate has been trend because they have declining populations and you take a declining labor force and the return rate of growth is 1%. what is the trend great of growth for the u.s. economy? as population growth, strong immigration is an incredibly productive innovative economy. you add those components together in the japan experience for the united states economy's growth rate of about 2.5%. >> if i could ask one point there. productivity growth in the u.s. over the last year is is. the trend over the long run may

be 2.5%, but because capital formation of business at yours were so depressed and because we had a huge room and productivity early in the recovery, we may be looking at several years of very depressed trend growth. certainly some 2%, labor force right now with the aging population is growing about three-quarter%. maybe we get a little bit of rebound in labor force participation to discourage workers, but there is no question that productivity growth could very well be quite the press over the next several years, which says 2.5% gdp prayers see pretty close consensus gives you a fair amount of improvement and appointment and one final point is the data unemployment are very much at odds with income right now. a player is at a rapid pace. income has been surprisingly

pressed although the revisions are coming upwards. historically there has been an average of something like two, three percentage points upward revision to income over time. >> were going to have audience questions. >> just very quickly coming to mention capital spending and that's actually an important point that tie us to talk to palley's point about economic paradigm. one thing that is not discussed enough in the debate, there's the potok hopefully about business innovation and businesses to send more to take care of it. our intuitive is how sick you save and spend the household sector saving that is why you don't like government spending too much because of fears of a crowd of business spending and business investment. in fact, business continues to be an up saver. corporations have over $1 trillion of excess cash on a balance sheet and even in the last expansion, the business

sector was a nice saver. that's unheard of. the short-term incentive that major corporations have these days are actually impeding the prophecies that are more helpful for economic growth. >> and you mention businesses because you go down the road in washington d.c. to the chamber of commerce of the national association of manufacturers, look at the perceptive than that regulation of regulatory uncertainty is a very big inhibiting factor in the return to recovery. alas, do you agree with that? is the regulatory uncertainty been holding back growth click >> this is a thorough effect. i really think -- >> surely the chamber of commerce will raise this. to show the political body the economic policies are designed to share the interest of the people. this is not at the client-side

recession. with massive unused capacity. our rates are the highest in history. pushing the profit share higher does nothing. this is a demand-side recession that we need to solve the problem of demand. in fact come in an economy you cannot to higher profits. this is something that needs onto the public discussion. i can promise you a capitalist economy with a 100% capital rate will fail, too. we have defined in the middle. we have too much profit right now. firms are saving the profit. it's not coming back in capital spending. what will happen eventually, if this goes on too long, to demand shortage will kick in again and you will ratchet down in terms of investment spending. this is a very classic mechanism that is not part of what's going on. one last point, i do think we

have to change the discussion from sustainable recovery, which is much too small to share prosperity. that is what we lack. we can get a sustainable recovery. everyone here come the business sector people or former business sector people said that we need the crutch of 6% avocet plus continuous rounds. that's a pretty stretching meaning of the word to call a sustainable. i think we can get by with something less than that. but how do we get share prosperity on the agenda quakes that's the type of recovery we should be talking about. we should be raising people's expectations when we talk about it and downsizing people's expectation and that prevents. >> to be fair to those who are arguing the regulator and if we go back to where they started at

dodd-frank, if you ask five people in the industry where they think this will turn out, how the vocal role or come out of this process, you look at five different opinions. i mean, your industry, peter, this is low visibility terms of the environment and that is just the status. we have an immense regulatory changes nationally. >> there is no question that regulatory uncertainty and capital requirements, which i agree fully is due to the stability system down the road. there's an adjustment. that is going to be one that is not friendly to credit creation or the cost of credit and there are elements within the vocal role that would seem to be, certainly the prop trading and the extent to which you affect market rate varies, and the corporate bond market, there is

25,000 issues with corporate bonds as well that day in and day out isn't always a market there. you have to have firms of the scale going to buy for a while and so when a buyer comes along to make the market work. if you don't have that, the cost of business goes up substantially. >> business shows that regulatory uncertainty is contributing to the cautionary approach that businesses are taking. the mac is seems that -- >> that's actually where i was headed. the regulatory uncertainty shows up in surveys and is having an impact. but there's other things going on right now but basically make it an extraordinarily high risk environment from a business point of view. businesses are not confident that the recovery is going to be sustainable. only four or six months ago a

market pundits are predicting a 40% or 50% chance the economy would go back into traction. you have europe, which is a completely lost control of their fiscal crisis would create a financial environment far worse than late 2008. and in that environment, businesses are being very cautious. you can see the caution when he did below the surface. if you look at the payroll numbers we are getting, the reason why the payroll survey is a mess because of declining and layoffs. ..

>> about 15 or 20 minutes of questions but before we do, does anybody have some observation to make? this has been a very dour rigorous economic pessimism. wears a silver lining here? >> imed inherently an optimist. i was the house optimist and i'm still a house optimist. i think our economy is a growing concern. americans get up every morning and go to work to support their families, have aspirations for their children, enjoy romance. life is okay. it's not what we would like it to be, but our economy is

growing. our population is growing. we are benefiting from continual technology. three months ago i bought an iphone and i founded fascinating and i'm actually learning how to use it without making typos. life is okay. >> can anybody share without mentioning apple? [laughter] >> i am not the person to go to. >> we will have to go to the audience. >> the famous phrase of antonio, optimism is the spirit and pessimism is the intellect. that is the only way out of this. we have a problem and we can't dig your heads in the sand. there is a map out of this. it's not on the table right now but that is the optimistic message. let people know there is a map, they will demand that map and then we can do it. if we don't offer to them then i can be politically pessimistic

as well as economically pessimistic. >> we have got several hands here and i don't know who has a mic. >> if you would like to share your name and organization. >> do you have a comment while, while they are lining up? >> i was going to maybe throw, go out on a limb and say the euro will likely survive and certainly the developments are promising in the sense that you have both at the fundamental level policy developments in spain, italy and a recognition among the political leadership of what needs to be done. you also have the ecb that has obviously taken for the time being the risk of bank failure off the table, certainly being very supportive. these two factors continuing i think -- >> can see it. >> have. >> you have taken away amid your

downside risk to the time being at least. >> we have questioners lined up. >> you my name is eric low and i like the federal server. my question is for yves. i used to work in finance and i understand the point about wall street and everything and i share the pessimism because one of the things i got from people who used to work there think that you know talk about the reservation and it's not going to be in place. so this continues basically if we come back again. i totally agree with that one side you are talking about -- >> can you get to your question? >> it's not on the table so how can we get that just on the table? >> i'm afraid, i wish there was

a simpler answer. one is, and they don't give it very high percentage, but there are peculiar ways. some of the groups around occupy wall street and for example the occupy the fcc groups have been writing a volcker rule letter and that was done by a small group of 45 people. things get to the point where you have a citizens group making these regulatory process and the media has taken over other outlets have taken that up quite seriously and they are getting getting pushed back in unexpected areas. the second is and i hate to say it, is we have obviously had aggressive -- to keep the banking system help a -- healthy. for example major european banks were to fail i can't not see the problems ricocheting back here, and there would be a human cry for why didn't we fix this when we thought we could fix it?

>> i am with the naval postgraduate school. i want to build on that. seems to me one of the problems we have is that nobody understands how the system works and where do we find a collection like you that can sort of dried out? what is the process? who are the players in a way that the general public can understand how screwed up the system as? and maybe there is nobody that understands it well enough that can explain it to us voters who are also the victims of this process. >> a good question. who would like to take it? [laughter] >> that was a shameless plug. >> i am really interested in this stuff at a sixth-grade level. looking at the american voter, it has to be at that level.

[inaudible] the financial sector, can anybody explain why the politicians aren't -- who was i to take a? >> i would simply recommend to make as part of your daily reading three journalists. one is also on another job. paul krugman from "the new york times," martin wolf, from the financial times and "the wall street journal." if you read all three, you will get a nice flavor and easy terms of what is going on in our economy and they are not all coming from the same political theme. >> i like the second one. [laughter]

>> as i listen to the panel -- i said as they listen to the panel there was no mention of the word oriole. if you go back to what happened in 2008 increasing the price of oil undoubtedly had a role in this meltdown that we had, and now the price of oil is recovering and i think -- >> that is a good question and clearly we are already seeing impacts from the gas prices. how big of a threat is it? >> that is the issue when you are trying to do an economic forecast. the number one risk was europe and the number two was around fiscal policy and sustainability of u.s. economy recovery. oil wasn't even on the list of what the top three, top three to five risks were but all of a sudden because of the increased tensions in the middle east, oil

is now on the plate as a major risk to the economic forecast, and what we saw last year was when gasoline prices got over $4 a gallon we could see it empirically impact retail spending and when he got it got to the 4-dollar market started to temper economic growth. so higher oil prices, unquestionably acts as a drag on the economy. at this point if oil prices stay about where they are at only knocks down growth by about a half a point relative to last year, so as a result, the real risk though is what happens in the middle east and the one thing i can guarantee is you cannot predict with any degree of certainty although that doesn't stop financial markets from bedding and the financial markets are betting a 30% chance of a strike by israel against iran. but it is made up numbers. it's just pure betting on a speculation basis but if we did

actually -- we would go to $180 a barrel if we had a major crop lemon the straits of hormuz and it would be a major risk to the global economic recovery. that is not the not the most likely scenario. >> i and mary with a fund for global human rights. i am curious, at least one of you mentioned that the sustainable recovery and in fact we should be aiming for shared prosperity. which i happen to like and i'm just curious whether any of you would address what you think some of the steps would need that would be different in terms of going towards prosperity?

>> did someone have that question? how i characterize the policy configuration we have had in the last 30 years, i call it the -- in may put workers inside the box and we expect to give them a particular form of globalization and pounded them with an agenda. we have made in place and our in our golem push what is called a small government agenda. those are the issues. we have to read past that box. we take workers out, we put corporations and financial markets in and we have to put walls around them so they actually work with a social purpose for which their legislators -- there is legislation and law. that we need the federal reserve to take full employment really seriously. when times are good, not like times are right now but what happens when the tough questions are made?

we need what i call a solid market agenda that ties productivity growth and we need a social democratic agenda for government. >> you have made your point well. we have run over. thank you so much. [applause]

>> it our system is fundamentally undemocratic in a number of ways. one of the ways in half the states in the country, 40% of all the voters cannot participate in the primary and so, they have no say in who gets nominated and as a result, we get more and more extreme candidates on both ends of the spectrum.

>> they would wear garments made of homespun cloth and the homespun cloth would be much more rough textured and be much less find than the type that they would import from great britain. by wearing this homespun cloth women were visibly and physically displaying their political sentiments. nuclear regulatory commission chairman gregory jaczko testified on the recently approved rules to improve safety of the nation's 104 operating reactors. this comes one year after japan's fukushima nuclear plant meltdown following you made it to nine earthquake. u.s. plants have as many as five years to comply with the new rules. this and environment committee held this two-hour hearing.

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

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i am pleased to welcome the committee. a year ago this week in japan a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the coast of japan, triggering a tsunami that was reported to have reached up to

45 feet high, stretched up to six miles inland. the fukushima daiichi nuclear plant was hit hard. it lost power, multiple hydrogen gas explosions tore apart reactor buildings, containment structure to damage, reactors melted down and radiation poured out into the environment. people peoples people's lives were uprooted by evacuations to avoid the threat of radiation poisoning. many of these men, women and children have yet to return to their homes. sum 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 this hearing is to conduct oversight on the nrc's effort to ensure that the 104 nuclear reactors in our nation are operating safely and that these plants are swiftly implementing the lessons learned from the disaster in japan. i would liked to take a moment to discuss the safety issue

concerning the nuclear power plant in california. after i learned of increased deterioration of two they carried radioactive water into the generated as i wrote to the nrc and southern california edison and asked for focus on resolving the safety issue. if these tubes rupture, radiation could be released at levels that exceed safety standards. today the nrc and announced that its flying out of special investigation team to conduct a more intensive evaluation of the plant, and i want to say thank you. to each and every one of you. i have got 9 million people that live within 50 miles of that plans. it is critical that the nrc thoroughly review all of the safety implications of this problem and that the public is assured that the plant can operate safely before it is restored and that the nrc keeps

me up-to-date on its investigation. so today is the sixth time after the event in japan that members of the committee have gathered to conduct oversight of the nrc. in late march 2011 the nrc created task force to review our safety requirements in light of the events in japan. in july 2011 the task force may 12 safety recommendations to help prevent and reduce the impacts of such a disaster in the united states of america. the nrc staff prioritize these recommendations and said several should be implemented without delay. on monday the nrc sent three orders requiring these high-priority safety improvements of domestic airpower plants, so a couple of days ago we took this important action. the first-order requires plants to better protect safety equipment needed to address emergencies and to have enough equipment to address an emergency that puts all the

reactors -- for the second order requires plants to install enhanced equipment to better monitor the condition of the spent fuel pools and a third order requires 31 boiling water reactors in the u.s. that are similar to fukushima to improve on denting systems that help to maintain safe conditions within the plants. the nrc also directed the nuclear power plants to reanalyze earthquake and flooding risks, assess their ability to safely operate following such an event as well as their capacity to communicate with a prolonged loss of power and to address emergencies at more than one reactor. the nrc has said it will also issue to notices of proposed rulemaking in march and april on steps to take your if plants lose electric powered and to improve emergency procedures. i am very -- that the nrc has moved forward. it shows the public of the nrc is acting on the information

gathered since the fukushima disaster but i want to say something to you. i am concerned about the timeline for requiring the plants to meet the safety standards. the commission asked the nrc staff quote, to complete and implement the lessons learned in the fukushima accident within five years by 2016 unquote however some of the proposed timelines about allow plants to avoid meeting needed safety 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, the federal emergency management agency, 120 million people live within 50 miles of a nuclear or, 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 on san onofre are very -- to me. i've had a history of having to push hard and i didn't have to do that in this case, and they feel since i have been critical, that i owe you a thank you so that thank you not only comes from me and senator feinstein and i'm sure the whole congressional delegation but it comes from the people who are counting on you. they don't know your faces that they appreciate the fact that you care enough about them to send an investigative team to make sure that you understand what is happening with these tubes and why they are failing. they should not fail. they are too new to fail, and something is happening there whether it is the chemistry in the water we don't know but i so appreciate this and with that i will turn to senator sessions.

>> thank you madam madam chairman and senator inhofe and the armed services committee. good morning. i thank all of you for being here and appreciate the work that is being done that deals with the aftermath of the fukushima incident, to review that carefully. is an important challenge for us and we need to look at that. from everything i see you have been focused and working hard on it. i think we need to confront the fact that the administrative claims to be in support of american units but their policies continue to drive up the price of energy and the amount of energy produced in the united states. is certainly true with oil and gas production and also with nuclear power. he says he is committed to restarting the nuclear industry but the record indicates otherwise. i was disappointed that the

president's appointment as chairman of the nrc was the only member to vote against issuing the license for the plant in georgia. they drive up the cost, creative certainly and basically what killed the new restarted restart of nuclear power in america which we need for energy, for the economy, and for the environment. also i would note that the chairman has played a central role in it and astray shins efforts close down yucca mountains repository and endeavored it as it eliminates 25 years of investments, $14 billion in government money that has gone into that. on december 15 we hear testimony about the use behavior of chairman jaczko and his abuse of the law including the unlawful use of emergency powers, is withholding of information from other members of the commission, his abusive personal behavior baker and intimidation of staff

and we heard testimony about the troubling circumstances that led the other full commission including those appointed by the president to write a letter to the president, to the white house and told the president that the chairman's actions are quote causing serious damage to the nrc and are creating a chilled working environment" that. gets five months after that letter was sent the president did not respond in a responsible manner and regrettably instead of seeking to get to the bottom of this the present and the senate democrats have circled the wagons to protect the chairman from accountability. so i'm concerned i have to say and i think it's obvious that there are serious problems in the leadership of the commission in the chairman's office that need to be confronted. one other thing i would like to say, and i think president obama should act soon to ensure that

commissioner svinicki is force from the commission in june. she brings to the nrc a long and distinguished career as a nuclear engineer and public servant. she has worked at various levels in the state and federal government. she has held an important nuclear issues with senator warner on the armed services committee. she is a hard worker, confident and of sound character. recently she was willing to sign the letter that blew the whistle on the problems and the commission. the nrc needs a full panel of experienced qualified commissioners and i am sure and i'm convinced that commissioner svinicki should not be forced to leave. i would urge the president in to need renominate her and she has support from republican republicans republican seat in her support from from the republican leader. it would be a travesty i think

if we reached a situation where commissioner svinicki's service on the nrc is allowed to expire and it would keep the chairman who has created so much controversy. i don't intend to let that happen. i am not going to let that happen if i have anything to do about it even if we have to bring the senate to a grinding hault. so madam chairman thank you for having this hearing. you have been an open and fair chairman, and i am pleased, i know you are still celebrating that big highway bill. >> how quickly one forgets. >> well i know, 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 great credit for it. >> that is very sweet of you. i just want to remind everybody that this hearing what the title is, just to focus ourselves.

lessons from fukushima, one year later, nrc recommendations for enhancing nuclear reactors in the 21st century and with that i turn to senator carper. >> i just want to say to my friend from alabama who, this guy is my friend and i like him a whole lot. i concur with you on your views on commissioner svinicki. she is a valuable member the commission and my hope is she will be reconfirmed tonight expect to support her. i also want to say this commission has been through tough times. this chairman trying to figure out how to lead effectively and to play his role well. we had really a public come to jesus meeting here several months ago. you are part of that and i was part of that and my sense is that maybe we have a positive effect. we will find out. we have seen the license now

issued for not one but the first to nuclear power plants that will be built in this country for 20 or 30 years. i think that is pretty good progress, two out of three of the appointees of our president actually voted for that and i think that is a good sign. and so i just, i hope that this hearing focuses more on what can we learn from the awful events of fukushima, what we are doing about what we have learned, what is the timetable, what do we need need to do on the side of the dye is to make sure the lessons are implemented in a timely and effective way so thank you. >> thank you so much senator. senator barrasso. >> thank you very much madam chairman and one thing the american people to want to know is that nuclear safety has improved. the american people want is to ensure that there will not be a repeat of the nuclear disaster in japan here in the united

states. the communities across america are 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 that nrc of developing recommendations to improve nuclear safety here in the united states and i've stated before this process should be allowed to continue free of partisan politics. at her last hearing we learn from for commissioners who said that the agency is working as effectively as it should under this chairman's leadership and inspector general reports is pending. it's my hope that once the report is released it is 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 stocked with the best most experienced men and women in the field and is both senator sessions and senator carper have said in a bipartisan way that

among those is commissioner svinicki. she is very well-qualified and i hope that her renomination is not being stalled by the white house or others for political reasons. that would not serve the public interest in keeping folks save. 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 aisle to make sure that happens. second, in a february night speech at the nuclear energy conference in rockville maryland the chairman spoke of two futures for the nuclear industry. he spoke of one future 20 years from now where there was a continuous process of construction of new reactors. senator carper just mentioned that. the other future was one where 20 years from now we would see

an industry dominated by the process of continuous decommissioning and embarking on a process of long-term trend of continuously decommissioning. the first option to me is the only way forward for america's energy future. is the only responsible course of action where this committee to follow if we are serious about providing affordable domestic energy for seniors, working families and small business owners. the president is called for an all-out all of the above energy strategy at this this here state of the union address. the president if he is serious, will join those of us who seek to strengthen the support of energy source and staff the mission was qualified and experienced people. i thank you madam chairman and i look forward to the testimony. >> thank you so much. senator sanders. >> thank you madam chair. thanks to the members of the commission for being here. clearly we must focus continue to focus on the need for safety

reforms after the unthinkable disaster in japan happened, reminding us one of the issues we have always had to be aware of is 99.9% safe is not good enough but today thousands of people remained evacuated from homes, tens of thousands from the three fukushima reactors the suffered meltdowns and areas that has elevated radiation areas from everything from fish to rice to vegetables. you use the word incident. i think for the people of japan probably it was not quite an incident. i think it was a disaster impacting their country and when we understand that, we have got to understand how serious we must be in making sure that we empower this country to be safe. in a letter to the president following fukushima, i called

for a moratorium on license renewals until we could examine what happened and lament reform and i'm especially concerned about that because in the southern part of my state we have a nuclear power plant with a similar design with what is in place and fukushima in effect we have 23 reactors in the united states with the same ge mop one design as fukushima but licensed extension continues without accounting for lessons learned. safety officials express concern about this design in the early 1970s and the top nrc officials said in 1986 and i quote, mock one reactors had a 90% probability of her state should the fuel rods overheat and melt in an accident end of quote and that was in 1986. a week after fukushima the nrc, timing was extraordinary relicense the mock one reactor in my own state for 20 years

without taking time to examine the implications of fukushima. relicensed vermont yankee one week after fukushima. the nrc has granted 71 licensed renewals and has never rejected one. 71 and every single incident the nrc has said it's appropriate to relicense a nuclear power plant. the nrc voted 3-2 in secret in litigation against vermont's energy future. in my very short review the nrc's job is safety. that is what your job is. is not detailed the people of vermont or any other state how they go forward in terms of energy. in my state there is strong feelings and we want to go forward with energy sufficiency -- efficiency echo i believe we have their pride and every other state in the country is that right. if we want to move to sustainable energy and not maintain an aging trouble

plagued nuclear power plant i think we should be allowed to do that. finally i am troubled that the nrc recently voted with the nuclear plant license in this country since three mile island without requiring the plant to fully incorporate all post-fukushima this safety reforms recommended by the panel of experts by the nrc staff. the last time we had a hearing with the nrc we heard the chairman and we heard it again today was responsible for all of the problems associated. interestingly enough i would mention to my colleagues there was a 4-1 vote on whether or not to go forward with the relicensing of the new planet georgia and there was a decision. the chairman voted one way and for members voted the other. i was just as they did last evening that maybe the difference is not the personality of the chairman but a philosophical difference which exists about how the nrc should

proceed. the chairman, and i look forward to the question madam chair. >> thank you so much. senator merkley, welcome. >> thank you madam chair. is it my turn for questions? i wanted to ask a couple of things. particularly around the venting of gases because one of your orders requires improvement replacement -- >> senator this is your time for an opening statement. >> i went past the opening statement. >> that is fair enough. we will turn to our esteemed panel now and we will start off with her honorable chairman, jaczko and he will have five minutes and each member will have three. go ahead mr. chairman. >> chairman carper ranking member barrasso and member of of the committee on behalf of the commission i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you

to provide an update on the nrc's implementation of safety enhancement based on our review of the fukushima daiichi nuclear accident. i stress the commission continues to believe there is no imminent risk from continuing operations of power plants in the united states. at the same time however, our assessment of the event of fukushima daiichi leads us to conclude additional requirement should be imposed on licensees to increase the capability of nuclear plants and mitigate and protect against the extreme national -- natural phenomena. when we last appear before in december the commission was considering the staff reporter and prioritizing the recommendations of of the near-term task force into three separate tiers. tier 1 consists of actions to be taken without delay and for which sufficient resource flexibility including the availability of critical fuel tests exist. tier two ask that the issues be initiated as soon as sufficient

skill sets become available and finally tier 3 recommendations require further staff study for shorter-term actions to be undertaken first. is stress that these are not necessarily in a priority order. while tier 3 items may require additional staff study they are not necessarily actions that are less important to safety. as a result of public meetings with stakeholders including the industry and the public and with the visor committee on reactors there have been a number of enhancements of tier 1, tier 2 in tier 3 recommendations. on march 12 the commission issued three immediately affect the borders to u.s. commercial nuclear reactors. the order reflects a tremendous effort on the part of the nrc staff in the commission to produce a comprehensive package. the first order requires the plant to better protect safety equipment at install that their september 11, 2001 terrorist attack and to obtain sufficient

equipment to support all reactors at a given site simultaneously. the second order requires the plant to install enhanced equipment for monitoring water levels and the third order applies only to u.s. boiling water reactors that have marked one are marked to containment structures. these reactors must improve venting systems are for the case of the mark to plans which is a smaller number install new systems to help prevent or medicaid cord damage in the event of a serious accident. for all of -- licenses are required to submit their plans for implementing the requirements to the nrc life every 20 favorite 28, 2013 and complete full implementation no later than to reviewing cycle sector submittal or december 31, 2016 whichever comes first. additionally licensees are required to provide periodic status reports so staff can monitor their progress. now in addition to these three orders, licensees will also issue a request for information

to reevaluate the seismic hazards at their size using current nrc requirements and guidance and identified actions that are planned to address vulnerabilities. to develop the methodology and acceptance criteria to perform seismic and flooding -- though finally licensees were requested to assist the ability of the current communications to perform under conditions of on-site and off-site damage and prolonged loss of electrical power. is part of this initiative they were requested to access -- assess staffing levels and to implement strategies in the emergency plan. there are remaining tier 1 recommendations which address blackouts in the integration of emergency procedures and these continues to be worked by the staff. the station rulemaking is a high party activity with the goal of completion within 24 to 30 months from a sober 2011 and the staff has recently provided for finalizing an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking for that rule mike in. we anticipate beginning work on tier 2 recommendations when they have the necessary information about tier 1 activities and when we can free of critical resources for the severus. the issuance of the orders and letters is a significant step forward on her post-fukushima have recently and making strong progress. as always i continue to be impressed by the staffs dedication and expertise. there is still however great deal of work ahead of us for both the commission and the staff. this past year was very challenging for the nrc but it was also a very productive year for us. as we look forward to the agency expects to meet new and unanticipated challenges. we are confident that the nrc will continue to ensure the safe and secure operation of existing licensed facilities while also ensuring the safing can secure construction and operation of new nuclear plants are simply including small modular reactors. so with that appreciate the opportunity to appear before your not be happy to answer any

questions you may have. >> thank you, chairman. and the honorable christine svinicki. >> thank you chairman boxer, ranking member barrasso and members of the committee for the opportunity to clear fear before up here before you today on the topic of the nrc recommendation for enhancing nuclear safety in the 21st century. in his testimony on behalf of the commission chairman jaczko has described progress the nrc is made to further strengthen nuclear power plant safety. i also join chairman jaczko and it balloting the hard work of the nrc staff and their sustained effort towards the progress of the nrc has me today. as he is described we have now issued a series of quarters to the airpower plant licensees which require features to mitigate beyond extreme that -- natural events that require venting systems and greater capacity of measurement for spent fuel storage implementation.

we are also requiring nuclear power plant licensees conduct system walk -- lockdowns by teams are relevant experts and undertake substantial reevaluation of seismic and flooding hazards at their sites using current nrc requirements. licensees must also identify actions to address vulnerabilities found. the nrc will assess the results of these if i wish is to determine whether raykovitz reactions ernie. in implementing these recommendations the agencies broad set of stakeholders have been engaged in multiple public readings. we have benefited from the insights and respect as of nuclear operators. nuclear safety and environmental groups and the public. i believe that all of these efforts have strengthened the nrc said it goodies in response to the fukushima benson 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 underway and consider appropriate actions going forward. thank you and i look forward to this committee's questions.

>> thank you very much commissioner. the honorable george apostolakis. >> chairman boxer chairman carper ranking member barrasso and members of the committee, good morning. azide learned i find that my -- the first time i testified on the subject before you, i indicated that the accident was a lesson in humility. i said that as a community of safety analyst. we have been pretty confident there would be no new surprises at the fukushima challenge. as more information was obtained, the accident was asked not extremely low probability and not unthinkable and not on pristine. today the committee has reached a similar conclusion. for example the report issued by the endowment for international peace last week states quote,

the bloc would have withstood the tsunami had it been in accordance with state-of-the-art safety approaches end of quote. furthermore the american nuclear society special committee on fukushima also issued that last week in states quote the committee believes in responding to the accident of the fukushima daiichi plant human error and flaws in governance and regulatory oversight led to the severity of the action, end of quote are going light of these observations is reassuring to know that the nrc is a strong and independent regulator and our decision-making process is long recognized the importance of eight safety culture. however there lessons to be learned from the accident. for example, we are requiring plants to reevaluate their design basis and to strengthen mitigation strategies for

external events taking into account all the units on the side. i'm pleased with the progress the commission is made as well as the fact that the process in reaching 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, chairman carper, ranking member barrasso and members of the subcommittee, it's a pleasure to be before you today to talk about her work regarding the fukushima disaster. first let me say we are quite confident but as we reported during her last appearance before this committee her agency's move swiftly and systematically in understanding the events in japan and understand rigged her response to address the lessons of

fukushima. this has been a central focus of the lesser. the commission is about a large portion of its time his time and energy to this challenge. the chairman has our atlanta details of our response so i won't repeat that now. let me ultimately save while we moved quickly i'm confident in the decisions we have made are appropriate and fully implemented will address a large portion of any risk that we repealed by her insights gained from studying the fukushima event. this week we met with our international colleagues at the ready tour information conference. from my conversations with those colleagues it is clear to me the world's regulators have viewed these issues in much the same way and i expect the response to fukushima across the world will have several similarities with many countries. i want to point out the pursuit of this outcome. they worked tirelessly to review these complex issues in a holistic fashion working with their many stakeholders and the advisory committee.

i would like to recognize available contributions provided by this service chairman of the steering committee and the overall effort. he'd recently announced he will soon retire after 34 years with agency in this leader will ship will be sorely missed. finally i want to include my incurs men's to the citizens of japan as they continue to recover from last year's earthquake and tsunami. commissioner ostendorff and i visited the fukushima said in january and saw firsthand how what they would now call 311. i wish the colleagues the very best and and and success in their efforts. thank you for your attention i look forward to your questions. >> calistro siniora. >> thank you adam chairman, chairman carper, ranking member barrasso and members of committee. just over when he sends an earthquake and tsunami devastated japan led to severe

accidents at fukushima daiichi. last july at the fukushima task force included the sequence of events and summer to that experience in japan is unlikely for the task force concluded there is no evident risk for continued operation of the nuclear power plants. i believe those conclusions remain true today. nevertheless they continued to support the nrc's actions to make her plants even safer. the nrc has taken positive concrete steps to strengthen the nrc's revelatory framework and the response to fukushima. hmi colleagues here at this table and many demented women at the nrc for their hard work. i appreciate the chance to engage my fine for colleagues to my right. since i last appear before his committee in december it i submitted to approve the commission's and their brand is by others those orders were issued earlier this week. i think it's important that his committee to know that while we may have had slightly different variations on the basis of these

orders all five of us in a unanimous act approve all pre-orders and then i think that is a significant statement. to me these triggers represent sound policy decisions for nuclear safety. is commissioner would mention i think we saw in her visit to fukushima the importance of us taking strong decisive action as a regulator. i am confident that passed the nrc is on today and i think we are taking responsible actions. i appreciate the chance to appear before this committee and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you served very much. commissioner or magwood use that or nuclear plants are safe. i just want to point out that is exactly what the japanese said before fukushima so i think we need to be cautious. what i think the answer is, we are doing everything in our power to ensure that they are safe and that is crucial. so i have some questions.

chairman jaczko the nrc staff has proposed to rule makings to implement high priority safety recommendations. i'm very happy to hear everybody has supported these, and it is very heartening to me personally. and one of those rules would require plants to have the ability to safely operate when they lose all electric power in a station blackout. another rule would require emergency operating procedures and guidelines to address a severe accident. chairman when will the nrc proposed and finalize these rules? >> the station blackout rule, the first proposal is what we call and advance notice of proposed rulemaking is to be finalized and then to be released to the public. the emergency operating procedures and the second world that you referred to in advance notice, is also are planned for next month. the station blackout rule, the division is asked that it needs

done and 24 months from now and that would put it somewhere in the 2014 timeframe. the second row right now i think is on a much later scheduled to be finalized closer to 2016 or sometime in 2016, so i feel comfortable that we are on a good track with the blackout rule that is a high priority in the commission has recognized that. i certainly do have concerns that the second rule will be a challenge for us to not only complete the rule itself but but the amplification within the five years that the commission laid out so again i think part of our work in the next couple of years is to figure out ways we can get this work done a little bit more timely. >> the safety commission recommended that these all be done in five years. >> the commission itself in courage the efforts to get these things done within five years and we did have our pfizer committee concurred some of the room i roommate can be

accelerated. it is such an important piece of the fukushima response. stieg. >> you feel comfortable that on this issue you are speaking for everyone that you are striving to me that 2014 and 2016 day? let me just not put you on the spot and ask you does anyone disagree that those two rules, you should do everything in your power to implement the first 2014 blackout and the second 12016 station blackout rule? the nrc staff has -- we talked about the nrc told the staff described by 2016. so i just want to make sure that you keep us up-to-date on the committee on the progress being made so that if there is

slippage we would know about it. will you do that chairman and commissioner? otherwise we are going to assume it's on track unless you tell us. i don't want to be surprised and find out it's going to take 12 years or 14 because that is what happened last time after 9/11 recommendations. i took 10 years i think are more. >> i might just add one area where it concerned is that with efforts to re-examine the seismic hazards of the nuclear power plants. this is an effort right now that would probably push out to the earliest completion date around sometime in 2017 and the latest completion dates for the lower risk plants into 2019 so that is one that at this point does appear to be off target a little bit, and given the importance of seismic hazards as they think commissioner apostolakis said this is an area where we recognize there is new information that tells us the

plants may not be designed to the right size standards. for this one to be taking so long as a bit of a concern to me. >> at another time and place and also i will work with all of you, this is very concerning because in california we have updated reports that are not good. did you want to add something? >> yeah, i would like to add something. first of all i agree with the chairman's statement that there would be a lot of activity related to seismic upgrades. and right now the focus of the plants east of the rocky mountains where the u.s. geological job -- geological survey has issued data and would prioritize in terms of risk the to the spare so a lot of it will

have been accomplished before the 15 years. according to the staff and my understanding is that plans with low risk that we have to do some upgrades perhaps, that would take longer and the california plants by the way according to what they know today will complete their upgrades before the five years. >> one last question. chairman jaczko when the fukushima reactors release large amounts of radiation people were evacuated and many have yet to return home. does the nrc consider harmful impacts beyond the radiation exposure impact including such things as evacuations, the cleanup of contamination when determining whether to require safety measures at our nuclear reactors? in other words the benefit ratio with change if the nrc considered what it would take.

just look at my southern california plant. they are almost 9 million people living within 50 miles so i'm interested as to whether or not you consider harmful impacts beyond the public radiation when he determined the cost benefit of improvement? >> we really don't and our focus is really primarily on the direct in the short-term and the longer-term direct health impacts of radiation exposure. when we are me may care me keener safety judgments so this is clearly an area that i think we need to look at and we need to examine because as you look at the fukushima event that is really right now what is going to be the long-term impact and it is significant. >> i'm going to give everybody an extra 10 minutes because i went over. when i asked the sheriff that the sand on san onofre plant what she thought, she said, is that how do you get people out of here? she said if it were to happen, and earthquake were to happen during rush hour, you can even

move on that road. so it seems to me there needs to be more work done, because radiation is the worst of the things that could happen but being homeless is a whole other situation. not being able to evacuate. i would like to work with all of you on that. would you all agree that you would be open to looking at that thank you and i see everybody nodding. senator barrasso you can go forward. >> thank you very much madam chairman. i think we have heard u.s. plants are saved. there are steps to make them safer and we are on the right path and i have heard that across the board. there have been lessons learned so i do have a couple of questions and specifically there was a critical report that came out by a group called the union of concerned scientists, critical of the nrc's response

to address protecting u.s. plants in the report goes on and i'm going going to ask commissioners to comment on it. the u.s. reactors remain vulnerable to fukushima like severe disasters in the nrc is a plan to reduce vulnerabilities but proceed more expeditiously to implement the lessons learned from fukushima. there were critical reports unless the nrc strengthens measures to prevent and mitigate such the on design basis accident. is maybe only matter a matter time before a similar disaster happens here. i know you are very thoughtful on this and the views have evolved. i'd like to start with commissioner magwood and tell me what your thoughts are in this report that seems to be critical? >> well let me not overstate sort of a defensive reaction to that in defense of these things but i think the thought that in

cs is putting out which is we need to take action as an appropriate thought and the commission fully agrees with that. we have already agreed to take steps as a body and as an agency that will enhance the safety of u.s. plans to make sure the fukushima type scenario does not unfold. that said, i think that our infrastructure, regulatory approach, our practices, our equipment, our configuration, our design basis would prevent fukushima from occurring under similar circumstances in a u.s. plan. i just don't think it would happen. we can still improve, and we are going to improve. ..

>> great. commissioner apostolakis, i disagree with the statements or ucs. i don't think that what happened in fukushima can have been here and i repeat, it was not an thinkable. they made terrible mistakes. >> he did comment that over the course of the year, i think your phrase is my views have evolved. so it is helpful to know that people have not decided this is

a. we can learn more and views can evolve in ways. >> commissioner ostendorff. >> senator, i also disagree with ucs report. epic 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 here a few days ago does request that our staff and industry look at ways that make the alternatives to speed up this process. so i think we are all -- want to move forward as quickly as we can. that said we are doing it responsibly. the second piece that they could comment briefly, the chairman agree his comment on station

blackout, one of the things to throw into the mix here is the fact that if many of the nuclear power plants in this country, licensees have already ordered additional portable diesel generators, portable battery charging equipment and other steps taken to enhance the ability to do with the loss power is happening now. >> i noted that a member of congress company to allow read recently wrote a letter to the nrc asking the commission expand the evacuation zones around nuclear power plants to 50 miles, something that the churches mentioned in terms of the specific plants in california. the nrc has had a report on the nrc clarifies misconceptions about emergency preparedness. it is important to note the exact size and shape at each site is unique and is developed through a detailed plan and that

looks at the specific conditions at each site and demographic information. in addition ssb sounds are not limits and i meant expanded as necessary. you are shaking your head, mr. magwood, can you comment on that in your specific gods? >> that comment is accurate. emergency planning zones are just that. planning zones. they don't represent necessarily what would happen in the case of an actual emergency. we would respond appropriately depending on what was actually going on. so i'm comfortable with the regime that we have in place. but i should say as part of our post fukushima review, the staff does anticipate a look at the question of whether he should be expanded so we will be analyzing not. >> a final question to her commissioner he talked about the chairman statements february 9 about the two potential paths in

the futures 20 years from now, new nuclear plants licensed in the life of existing being asked and it, which of course is in my opinion the right path. the other future was for nuclear plants downward spiral of decommissioning. which path is the right one for us to be on now? commissioner magwood and we can run down but -- >> well, i don't need those pads will be decided by regulators. i think the pats will probably be decided by economic considerations that are beyond the scope of our agencies. and so, i don't really have much more to say. >> my time is expired. >> thank you, madam chairman. >> i want to place into the record the biography of the author of the union of concerned scientists report. his name is dave brock bond, one of the nations top independence experts and he has been quoted

into "the wall street journal" all of our major newspapers and he has studied the crisis in fukushima and issued this report. since you're bashing i would enter his credentials in a match that sickens anybody sitting across from me. i just want to say when we bash a report, maybe we'll just have to have them come up here. i think will have to do that in the near future. i will turn it over to senator carper. >> earlier in your statements they think you indicated, to if you traveled together to japan to personally visited the area where the incident or the disaster occurred. i think it's probably closer to a disaster may so. but just give us a sense for the views of the people of japan

towards our intervention temperatures the assistance we provide it for them. i'd be interested in hearing not. someone to help folks in distress. i say not providing enormous help for a million or so refugees. i didn't feel a lot of understanding or appreciation for that. i went to welcome that she felt in japan in terms of your recognition the work we've done to help. >> go ahead, commissioner ostendorff. >> i think all of us have had different interactions, but i think we have heard nothing but gratitude and tremendous thanks all for the united states government to the military to the nrc to other cabinet agencies. i know and commissioner matt cord and iran and japan we received a lot of thanks. i know a number of us are at the japanese embassy event last week, where we also received

dates along with other sectors of the government in this country and the chairman that a commemoration ceremony this past -- just three days ago at the nrc for the japanese ambassador of the united states also passed on his significant thanks to our country. i think it has been positive. >> commissioner magwood. >> i echo that. i've had a lot of conversations with people from japan and there is a great deal of appreciation for the contributions of nrc in particular. i think a lot of people recognize the expertise of nrc brought. really to the overall u.s. response, i heard a lot of positive things about our military and particularly the navy in response of the navy provided to the incident and hopping logistically and providing supplies. so i think that we have -- we've

made a lot of friends in japan in the last year. >> during the time that you repair in the time since, can you share with us how many lives were lost because of days disaster? >> because this fukushima? >> yes. that we are aware of, none. i believe there were two people who were killed at the plant on this anomaly swept in. they were drowned. but other than that i'm aware of no fatalities were no expected fatalities resulted from the nuclear incident. >> too many commissioners have different information on not? commissioner svinicki. >> senator carper, in addition to the two workers who understand were immediately drawn on site in the event, i am aware of two workers that have been engaged in a 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 in anti-contamination closing. it's very hot committee are comfortable and maybe they had a stress reaction, better up efforts to recover after the event of course require tremendous effort spent workers in underwear to workers was not the radiological event, but a heart attack from the extreme efforts they were making. >> just before i move onto my other questions come the united states the group of power plants were built, how many lives have been lost? anybody know, recalls attacker has? >> senator, the answer is none as far as any deaths due to radiation exposure to nuclear power power plant in this country. >> does anybody have different information? >> at the risk of being contrary

here, i think -- i think it is very important we not send a signal that fukushima was not a significant incident. >> i don't think anyone suggested not. i've been international meetings where people have asked similar questions in the simulated that it's really an event we can honor because of that. >> religious and arrest you. you can just die. think of people where they live in a radius around fukushima a 50 miles, the last been badly, badly disrupted and in many cases for years. i chair the subcommittee hearing clean-air. we've had in a number of hearings here in recent years. we've talked about the number of people not whose lives have been dissected to have been killed in this country because of dirty air that we breathe, put up by utilities, blow from the midwest tonight part of the country come

or senator sanders and i happen to live in represent people. so i think we need to put this in a little bit of perspective and it is sheet you out to do that. >> anybody listening to this, as soon as this is televised at least on c-span, but it was just listening to maybe what is in order, tears, letters, trying to make sense. can someone in a minute try to explain sort of the regular american citizen watching this hearing would know what we are talking about, please. >> senator, perhaps a layperson terms, an order is issued as a set of compulsory actions that the nrc has authority to issue to private entities such as nuclear power plant operators. so under her 30s to regulate nuclear safety we can issue a direct to order to compel actions in director jaczko has

determined. so when we say orders are separate from the bonn process of establishing a new regulation. >> how does an order differ from a letter, please? >> well, an order is a requirement that a power plant has to take. the latter is kind of the first step in gathering information. so it is some admit they have to tell us. it is information they require to provide to us. but in another self it doesn't necessarily direct in a particular action. in many cases it is the precursor to additional action is to gather information. >> housetop at this, but i understand in terms of the agreements among the commissioners as has been unanimous agreement on the workers that have been issued and essentially unanimous agreement in terms of what is tier one, what should the tier

two and tier three and a timeline, is there agreement on this point? that's good. that's encouraging. thank you. >> senator inhofe. >> madam chairman and members here, i apologize for not eating here. we are doing our armed services committee right now on if it is all right with you are going to pass for a moment to reprogram my mind. >> absolutely. senator sanders. >> thank you, madam chairman. i want to pick up on a statement that commissioner magwood made a second ago in response to a question from senator barrasso. when he asked them about the future of nuclear power in this country and as i heard mr. magwood said the decisions -- the future of nuclear power and america will not be primarily made by the commission but by economic

considerations. and i strongly disagree with what commissioner magwood said because the future of nuclear power 100% be determined by whether or not the taxpayers of the country continue to provide huge, huge financial support to the nuclear power industry for the indefinite future. that is the issue. i always find it amusing that at this moment in american history when we have a $15 trillion national debt, when her middle on how one property is increasing in many of my friends on this committee staff expect to cut social security, medicare, medicaid, just can't afford it. but when it comes to taxpayer support for nuclear power, there is no end in sight. billion of 2 billion of 2 billion. so here's my question for the commission. and correct me if i'm wrong now now. my understanding is that the

nuclear power industry is unable to get support insurance from wall street in the private sector because it is too risky. and now we have a price andersen piece of federal legislation, which guarantees that if god forbid they 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 unknot clerics to >> well, senator, the wheelchair or if it is really to tears to the price andersen system. the first tier is private insurance. >> absolutely. save $50 billion disaster at the taxpayers have to pay tens of billions of dollars? >> many of my good friends here say well, get government off the backs of the business community. so why does the nuclear power go

to wall street and get that insurance? mr. magwood, we believe in the genius of the year. where's wall street helping out the power industry? why not quite >> don't think i can say that i'm aware of, no one is actually described go to wall street. stocks of the federal government steps in because no one in the power industry can get on the phone and call up wall street and say we don't want taxpayers revealed like the federal government. no one has thought about going through the insurance industry? >> the price andersen structure has been in place for a very long time. >> that's right. >> would shoot as they would want to because of our deficit we may want to and price andersen. senator barrasso, you work with me on that? we don't want to get involved in private air. >> i have no comment. >> 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 involved in the genius of the air? why are we going to wall street is nuclear power is so safe and to make profits for the industry? am i right in saying that in fact with proposals for tens of billion dollars of loan guarantee for the future of the nuclear industry? anyone disagree with that? last point that i want to make, if we are going to get rid of the ways that exists in plants all over the country, it is a very, very expensive proposition do you think we can get the dirt to get involved with the contents of billions of dollars of federal money? anyone think that's a good idea? so here's the point, the point is that despite all of the top of many of my friends about how

the government should not be involved in picking winners and losers, of course the government 60 years ago picked the winner and the winner is the nuclear power industry. tens and tens and tens of billions of dollars of direct subsidies are going to then industry. my last question in disregard is one visit and? i am a believer and sustainable energy. it is absolutely appropriate when you have new technologies it does receive federal support. nuclear industry is now 60 years old. it is a mature industry. when do we get it off of the government welfare programs? when is it began to stand on its own? is 60 years enough? how many more years do you foresee the federal government having to support nuclear power industry? >> as i indicated earlier, economic issues are really beyond their scope. >> whose scope is that? is there another 60 are supporting these guys?

>> i would refer to the department of energy. >> company were used to think the federal government has to subsidize nuclear power? >> i see these as a policy deliberation that occur in the congress and the loan guarantee program is flawed and executed by department of energy. >> mr. chairman? >> senator, with a look at nuclear power plants, let's make sure they have the resources to be able to support safe operations. so it is important that utilities can finance the plans, devonshire appropriate workforce. some in the end, these financials have an impact on safety and it is important. >> why can't the to make them safe? by friends of are talk about the genius of the private sector. they don't want the federal government involved. i said why can't the private sector do that? >> senator, i think as you know,

we try and stay out of those specific positions in the name as an objective determiner of safety for no more would we want to make safety decisions based on cost eight inc. in a good way than in a bad way. >> mr. apostolakis, how many more years? >> i don't know, these are questions for the political leadership of the country. >> senator, i don't think i have anything to add to my colleagues have said. >> federal government has picked winners and losers. all of my conservative friends want the federal government not to be involved in energy a very silent on their desire to pump tens of billions more into power. i yield. >> senator inhofe. >> lemay first again apologize for not being here. let me start off by saying in

short response record friends, senator sanders is a disagree with everything he's saying. [laughter] what i would like to do, mr. chairman, i had made a request in december. i asked a question for the record that she sent me something talking about the allegation of harassment and intimidation that you are being accused of and i ask what actions he planned to take to address the allegation and intimidation for state managers. do you want to respond to that briefly? >> well, i appreciate your question and as i talked about the last hearing, if there's any time i've ever done anything unintentionally to cause an empty field -- >> the acquisition said they there. i'm saying how are you going to respond to accusations of intimidation's quakes >> as i said come at the last hearing i think bad 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 job and the staff is continued to be focused on our mission, that the commission continues to make timely decisions in an effective way. >> okay, that's what she said last time. let me just get to this thing -- the first time in 34 years with god -- we've issued license to new reactors. want to move forward with this. mr. chairman you said you'd split within the rest of the commission said i can't support issuing displacements assess fukushima had never happened. i want to ask and you get the other four commissioners would like to respond to this. number one, given the record nothingness happen before it came down here. the differences between the regulatory performance in japan

and the united states. i'm talking about the fact that they didn't have an independent nrc which we put together back in 1974. i would like to have one if you can't describe to us the differences. and what japan is doing now, copy and the progress have made. let's start with you, mr. ostendorff. >> sir, thank you are your question. i think commissioner magwood and i were in tokyo junior 18 and that with her counterpart, the nrc's counterpart agency in japan for regulation of their nuclear industry. we have long discussions with the leadership about their plans to reform the regulatory structure. i think they are borrowing heavily from the united states model. i would also say that they are looking not enhancing independence to try and increase

technical confidence in their leadership and the japanese to their own reports of the knowledge significant improvements they need to make. >> improvements based on some of the things we've done? >> and also an assessment of their system in some areas came up short. >> okay, okay. any of the rest of you want to comment as to the basic difference is they are facing over there. not you, mr. chairman. we are eager to do. the others in terms of what they might be getting from us? the point and try to make here is what happened over there and what happens here is two totally different things. a different system, different geology, maybe you could address some of these differences. because i keep hearing this and of course the chairman says we don't want to move forward until the export fukushima.

>> i think a couple of things is the first one is what you discussed with commissioner ostendorff. the regulatory authority was very weak technically and they didn't have demanded 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 is a report by some society in japan a couple years ago with the f. davison on the calculations and that was not done. but these two things seem to stand out. both organization issues and

technical issues. >> the fact that they had not ever put together an independent source like you folks right now at the nrc. any comments on that, mr. magwood? >> senator, this is something the japanese government is wrestling with right now. they are spending a lot of faster or to try to reform their system. they know that there are issues. i have discussed with japanese officials the issues of independent regulation, for example, the regulatory organization. and just to be honest, i think they are right in the middle of wrestling with this. so i hesitate to give much of a firm opinion on the state of things. but i do agree with the rest of your question.

those are issues, particularly independence of the regulatory agencies that i think will be essential if they are going to rebuild the trust that a regulator must have at the public. >> senator, i agree with the comments of my colleagues. one item that i would add is that i think that the japanese acknowledge that they are what i call command-and-control structure in this crisis situation was severely challenged and even in circumstances where decision-making is well-established and well rehearsed in times of crisis scripter capote. i think the japanese now understand that the decision-making mind that authorities were not as clear as they needed to be for severe accident situations. >> mr. chairman, i just want to continue to get on the record how important is that for developing nuclear energy. i said back in icu that it's

accepted now we have united states is the largest recoverable research of oil and gas in any place in the world are political problem that we don't exploit around resources. and i see a similar thing here too. we have an opportunity to really want to -- it was quite a number of years ago that the chairman of the subcommittee for the majority of the time but hadn't had an oversight hearing in 12 months and they started changing things -- i started moving forward getting in the safety of all of this americredit for the team that came along somehow people were assuming that that threat is here when in fact the point to want to keep hammering is that it's not. so between the opportunities that we have out there with oil and gas and coal and nuclear, we can solve this problem. numerically with all giving

speeches as to how long it would take people concerned about resources in a very important part of that is nuclear energy. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i was born in west virginia. and i take pride in the fact that the united states recognizes call and given what we're learning about or natural gas resources, it appears through the saudi arabia for national gas and weird position to to begin for this to to begin exporting natural gas. like my colleagues here, i believe we have for a long time believed that nuclear energy has three important components of our portfolio of sources of energy in this country done right.

i worked hard to make sure we use that it's done right and it's not perfect. but it's time to make it better. one of the reasons why and i'm sorry senator sanders had to leave, but one of the reasons why we think it is important to make sure we have a vibrant nuclear district going forward is what i alluded to earlier. i am not aware of anyone -- i asked how many people asked in a history country. one of the virtues of nuclear powers is that it does in that sulfur dioxide, mercury, co2. we have to worry about contribute to global warming, isn't poisonous bygones. read on a folks dying because we are ingesting the ways that comes out of smokestacks of other utilities around the country. and in terms of the money, i

don't know if anyone has ever sat down beside her and often try to figure out much money we have saved out of the 100 or so nuclear power plants. we don't have to pay for medicaid or medicare for folks to go to the hospital for doctors offices or treatments for funerals, enormous. it would be interesting to run the tab and see what we ran up to. there is a rationale for investing federal dollars of loan guarantees for the opportunity cost to afford health care costs that are otherwise burdening in helping to bankrupt medicare and put in a huge burden on states for medicaid costs. so i just want to get that out there. i'll say this to our panel. it is my understanding that the commission has decided to move ahead with the rulemaking to address with a facility should do if it experiences a loss of oil for electric power referred to his station blackout.

however, the nrc expects utilities will have up to december 2016 to comply with this new rule once it is final. it is my understanding that is enough for a long time is behind the failure fukushima. i questioned is the nrc requiring the nuclear power plants in this country to address these issues in any way from now until whenever we become final quiet >> well, as was mentioned, we did issue an order which requires additional equipment to authenticate the impact of the last of all electric powered. that basically means you have additional portable generators, power supplies and feel of these kinds of things in the ability to connect that power to the vital system.

so that is kind of the short-term enhancement that would be very to get us through to the point of which are the more permanent changes made. but also at the right now we do have a requirement that plants do with this complete loss of electric power. right now we think those requirements are not sufficient. they don't require them to deal to do with the situation for a long enough period of time the fukushima shows us much longer days rather than hours to cope with the situation. there's not completely avoid the requirements in this area, but we don't think right now it's really where we wanted to be in a few years. >> to any other commissioners want to add to that? dynax question is during the december 15 hearing about three or four months ago i asked chairman jaczko today today nrc staff work was being compromised on the fukushima staff

recommendations and specifically asked about the licensing process for new react tears and the relicensing process for current reactors. there is some delays in the reprocessing due to the constrained resources. i followed up with a question for the record. you asked how many staff are looking for relicensing big enough to the fukushima crisis and how many are working on relicensing today. you outlasted many that 82 employees were working on relicensing before fukushima and 77 are working on it. that doesn't seem to be a large shift to resources. but i ask how many additional staff are needed to ensure they're not any delays than 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 the staff working on fukushima recommendations? do you expect to leave the licensing and a relicensing of that they reduce performance, what you need if anything to fill in those gaps? we would just go to their aid. >> senator, i am not aware of any significant impacts at the fukushima this happened in licensing. their small impacts. i think billboards should be examined for director of operations is doing a very good job of managing priorities for staff for. i am not aware of any significant impacts. >> commissioner apostolakis. >> i agree with commissioner

ostendorff. >> well, there certainly are impacts we have put a large number of people working on fukushima offers proof of priorities will not be done in the area of licensing, probably the most significant extended power. those will likely take longer than we originally anticipated. again nothing would have an impact on the safety and our safety oversight will continue in that area. so if there is a shortcoming, it's not so much in the financial resource. simply expertise and staff expertise that we just don't have inside additional financial research. >> thinking. commissioner svinicki. >> commissioner, i have no additional information on the response i provided on march march 5th.

but it would just emphasize my agreement with chairman jaczko. it is resources for critical skill sets winning some issues require mitch expertise and we have a limited number of experts. >> thank you. commissioner trained for. >> i don't think i have much to add except to say that i've asked this question multiple times within the agency to make sure i understand how are fukushima efforts have impacted things like license renewal activities. and it seems that one of my colleagues mentioned a minute ago that staff has been able to manage this very fact delete them has been able to wear particular person is necessary to be moved to few cushy mat. there's another person ready to back so that was prepared to take on that work. we been able to manage this effort without a major interaction of our important work. >> thank you for those

responses. we've been joined by senator from new mexico, senator udall. welcome. you recognize. >> senator carper, thank you dream that an thank you to the commission for being here. i first wanted to ask about several of the priority recommendations from the nrc task force may not be implemented until 2016, four years from now on five years after the fukushima disaster. the average american, it seems to me, expects the government to keep them safe from disasters and nuclear power plants. why does it take five years to implement the short-term safety recommendations following the worst nuclear disaster in a generation? >> well, what area right now where we know there'll be challenges in the area of seismic in analyzing the seismic

earthquake risks i think the simple answer is 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 we probably paid enough attention to in terms of updating our requirements, obtaining standards, a beginner skill set and knowledge base. that is clearly been exposed as a weakness and that is why it's going to take us time because there's limited people who can do these analyses, so they will have to be shared among the licensees they need to do this work. so i think that area in particular, it is part of the reason. >> are there any other reasons why? in that area i can understand that. >> there is a certain point at which this is technically complex than it does take time to do these analyses. it takes time to time understand

that the problems are japan and the proposals need to be made about how to fix those changes that ultimately need to be made in the plants themselves. over does take some amount of time and we can't and for showing to these overnight, but it's reasonable to share for a target to get it all done within five years. and that means getting all the parse the plants changed as well and i'm not confident rainout that we are on target to do everything we need to do. >> to any other commissioners have comments on that question by what the chairman said? please, go ahead. >> senator, i appreciate the question i would just like to comment that a foundational element to the commission's actions here have been a near-term task orders find beans that there is no imminent risk from continued operation of our existing power plants.

if there has been a fun in that race, we shut them down. but did not find imminent risk. and so a more measured approach is appropriate given that foundational entering assumption in finding. >> i would like to add that may be the impression is that we are doing something about seismic now. this has been an issue that has been of concern for decades. and the plants have been found safe by our staff. there is some new information for the u.s. geological survey that now is being evaluated. so it is not like we are looking at the issue for the first time. but they are safe as far as i'm concerned. >> commissioner trained for. >> i think one of the things that is to emphasize connecting

commissioner apostolakis mentioned this in his earlier response. the agency goes to the process, we will be prioritizing based on the hazard and risk presented at each individual plant site. so i think you will find as we move forward, you will see us having greater dignity on sites after we go through the initial hazard assessment, we will do with the plants they need to be dealt with first. so i think that where the risk is highest will take action sooner. and i think that is the perfect way to proceed. >> thank you. i understand dozens of nuclear power plants across the country's whose operating licenses are about to expire. these plants are seeking to extend licenses for another 20 years beyond the original predicted lifespan of the plants. to all u.s. nuclear plants have to meet all of the newer safety

standard or two older plants get exemptions from these standards? mr. chairman. >> well, in general, i speak at their requirements, we will in some cases require plants to update to the requirements in some cases it depends on the particular issue and the particular way in which the plant was licensed. if you go back to the very first plants licensed in this country, we are not licensed at a time when we had a generic set of the six safety requirements or basic design requirements. so some of those plants are licensed to a very different type of standard than other plans. so there is variety in the way the plants are licensed in the requirements that have been applied to plants. when it comes to the relicensing is so, we don't do kind of a de

novo review. for instance when you get a drivers license every five years to have to get 10 years or whatever the frequency is to get your drivers license, often you send something into the mail and get a new license. well, i license renewal is not a brand-new licensing action, much like going and taking the driver stefan doing all the written algorithms has to do initially getting a drivers license. we don't require that for license extension. we require programs in place for her review to ensure the science will deal with the aging of the component that are important to safety. that is the decision we have made and really the basis for decisions about leigh seems extension. >> to any of the other commissioners come into your thoughts or comments on that question i of what has been said? >> i thank the chairman is right that we look at the subset of their requirements for license

extension. but once the licenses extended, then they are subject to all of our orders and everything else. they are just treated like any other operating plant. >> the point here though is if they have been given exemptions in the past and most fukushima, are you going to look at those and see at those fees in light of what's gone on? are you going to learn from a process in the accident click >> i am not aware of exemptions. he offers this week apply to everybody. >> can i do wonder questions? >> senator grassley was here. i didn't see him. >> we are just here to listen to you. [laughter] >> mr. chairman, nuclear power makes up about 80% of the french electricity supplies. the french nuclear industry is

quite different than ours with much more above this you will note government rule. i was interested to learn the regulators they are going to require safety equipment designed to survive disasters even worse than what the place are designed for. in the u.s. the nuclear industry has taken the lead in a ratings emergency equipment prior to the nrc action. when is the nrc going to implement a similar requirement in the u.s. and what are the key differences between the two national approaches? >> well, i'm reluctant to too much characterizes the french are doing because we focus more on but we are doing and that is occupied a bit of our time. but the basic ideas i guess for what we are doing here is really too good at preventing this kind of severe access, which is making sure the plants can handle the external hazards for earthquakes, flooding, other challenges like that and really

i mitigation. so if you get a situation where mother nature does something we didn't plan for the you can minimize the likelihood of a very severe act, which means the equipment, new procedures and other enhancements to the system to deal with that. the last pieces to make sure we have a robust emergency preparedness system to respond in the event that i does other things planned for feel. it's that is really the approach we've taken to try and bolster each of those three areas that the requirements in some regard. my limited understanding about the french are attempting to do is if you vote to kind of hard and everything, make everything a little more robust, a greater physical infrastructure to protect equipment from external hazards to ensure you have an additional way to control the react to. that is in a hardened facility. some of the things they are doing are things we ever be

acquired and even before fukushima for similar plans. sometimes it is a little hard to compare the changes they're making to the changes we are. i think in general and the international congruity there's a lot of consensus about what needs to be done in a general we are moving forward relatively consistently. but their differences because if you think this of each country. >> thank you on that. the thrust of my question is just to get to the issue of safety. and our other countries pushing hard to safety in hindsight were to have or which none of us wants future disasters or is it going to be found that they took actions that they have to say this plants? all of you have said over and over again with a very safe nuclear plants, so i hope you are looking at everything we do from exemptions to additional policies that are going to be put in place.

the licensee to make sure we have the safest nuclear plants in the world. thank you for that. i very much appreciate senator carper are your courtesies, senator barrasso are now going to slip out for a meeting here, but i may come back. >> let me just say you've asked excellent questions. one of the things we are trained to do here is to learn from disaster. einstein used to say that first lady lies opportunity. opportunity for us to learn and make sure we can avoid problems in the mistakes that they made. and you refer to francis and i had the opportunity to go over and take a look at what they do in terms of reprocessing and that kind of thing. someone around the world is going to figure that out. i'd only just how do derive additional energy and reduce the amount of time they have to be

stored and folks up at m.i.t. were dr. apostolakis comes from in other places as well. the french have been working on for a number of years. and i hope we do of course. but i think we'll probably need some repositories from from a country where we can store the stuff for an indefinite period of time. we don't need it immediately, but the idea that they can learn from us and we can learn from them as well. >> senator carper, i did like you. i went to france and i spent two weeks in two or three nuclear plants and the big question i have because as you probably know, new mexico has the first four transuranic ways, the least isolation product and so i was trying to find out from the french because they are putting all their eggs in the nuclear basket. where are they moving in terms of the permanent storage of waste? after i kept asking the question

please stuffer place in group after group, they said we were waiting for america to find a permanent solution. >> when were you dare click >> i was there in the period when a state attorney general had the opportunity to travel on a program that was an exchange and i think is fair in 1995, 96. >> thank you. >> senator barrasso, anything else? >> one of the ways i would like to close the hearing like this is to invite the witnesses sometimes to just offer a closing statement, something that has come to your mind, something that because of the interaction of the questions you think you would like to add is a benediction. suitably think about that and ask one last question of chairman jaczko and will do that. chairman jaczko, we no thought about what happened in japan and have adopted lessons learned here in the u.s.

we are still working about continued to do so for some time, maybe a long time. based on the continually continual information from japan, how has the commission to ensure that the nrc will continue to evaluate and analyze the information so it is incorporated into the current process? >> well, we have established an organization from the japan less about what trip is going to be working on the identified issues and part of their -- [inaudible] >> why don't she will go ahead and give me a closing thought.

chairman jaczko can be used maybe a minute or so if you will. >> i would just say, today you think is thursday, the first day of the march madness basketball tournament and i think we are in our lessons learned enhancements in the first round of the tournament with a long way to go to get to the final four in the progress we've made has been substantial, but we need to keep the focus and the effort of making progress. as time goes on, perhaps i might sign up for, interest wanes rather than increases in its report that we not lose sight of the need to complete these actions and move on because there's other challenges we have to deal with. >> bridge ostendorff. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with him. we need to keep focus on these issues and there is a long road ahead. but i will associate that i am

very comfortable with where we are as an agent d. i think the process is the father today tested us in good stead. the approach of the staff in the committee have really put us in a good position and i think along with other colleagues we have had a chance in the last two days apart in a regulatory information conference to meet with international counterparts. i've met with 12 in the last couple of days in the situational awareness of what is happening elsewhere in the world, and very comfortable where we are. >> commissioner apostolakis. >> thank you, senator. i do agree with my colleagues about someone. but i would like to say something else. senator barrasso caught it earlier from the union of concerned scientists report. and i disagreed with the statement that is contained in the report and chairman boxer implied that we were bashing the author david bob baum and i

would like to correct the impression. great respect for david. look forward to good reports of the offers. usually there is something good there. i don't agree with him all the time in this particular case i do disagree. but i have great respect for human funds. yesterday invited him and that within for 15 minutes to see what he thinks about the current state of affairs. it is the respect for a half for him. >> thank you for saying that. commissioner svinicki. >> my comment was going to be the same as commissioner ostendorff's will which is had tremendous confidence in the discipline process that the nrc had commission and staff have followed to get us to the point where we have, i think, prioritized appropriately. we are moving forward high-priority items in a think we have done a very searching review of lessons learned and

things focus on the right things. not everything can be pursued at the same pace. we put the emphasis appropriately in the highest priority items and i think we followed a tremendously vigorous process getting very here today today. thank you. >> commissioner magwood. >> thank you for the opportunity. a couple thoughts. first, it is always easy, since we are at the center of this is the regulatory agency of the united states to think that what we do is very important and it is. but there's so many other people have taken a role in thinking about issues, including the american society for mechanical engineers presented some facts 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 is really important that the american people understand that the

nuclear industry really has been very forward thinking in this. they have not resisted what we've been doing in effect is offered very good ideas on the room. i think they should be recognized for the good work they've done. but he also wanted to close just to let you know that while commissioner ostendorff and i visit fukushima site, i think the most lasting impression for me really wasn't what i saw at the site. it was what i saw on the way to this site. in the band reached the 12-mile evacuation zone as he went to neighborhood after neighborhood, going past business after business and realizing there's no people they are these the strong impression on you. and for me, the image that stays in my mind is that when i look at the house is going by we drove past, i noticed the last thing people seem to do and they left their homes baby for the last time astride the creeps to a close.

i'm not sure what reflects the reason the human psyche that bring that out, but that is what i saw it time after time. and from the end is very clear that we have to do everything in our power to make sure nothing like that ever happens in our country. so i've completely devoted myself. >> that is a very poignant commentary. hopefully we will never have that -- if we are vigilant we will never have to close the drapes his state did and hopefully think i'm accountable for their drapes again. i read in the newspaper the other day that we've been conducting -- the federal reserve has been conducting yet another stress test for some the major banks. with the committee makes an 15 passed with flying colors and four others have similar to do in the work continues. i think the nrc has been going through stress test of its own in recent months and in terms of

how to grapple with fukushima, how to be supportive and helpful to the folks over there and at the same time make sure we've learn whatever lessons are to be garnered from the tragedy and to ensure that we infused those lessons. on train and deploy them appropriately with their nuclear power plants. and i am encouraged by what you've shared with us today, and that we are doing pretty well with respect to the stress test. we have a couple nuclear power plants have been licensed for the first time in some 30 years. ..

>> my last thought goes back to mr. magwood and japan. on the border of pakistan, up against afghanistan, one are two years ago, with the terrible

flooding they have had, this is a new refugee camp camp, 150,000 is still there. through the went red cross we provided the resources. nobody knew that we had done that. and the elders from the tribes, they said would you like to address them? i said sure. i talk to them three translator about the golden role. win you have no food or your children have medical care hours don't when you have no place to live neither does hours. i think they got it.

that is part of their faith as well. even with the commissioner commissioner, chairman also to keep in mind the golden rule to keep each other whether commissioners that work with you or for you to keep that in mind and say that again today. i also share this with my colleagues a lesson to learn and relearn every day. this concludes today's hearing. thank you for joining us. for the record colleagues can still submit materials over two weeks and witnesses please respond promptly so they can become part of the hearing record. we appreciate the work you're doing and your attendance into macquarie to work with you and everything

we do is better. we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> our system of fundamentally undemocratic. one way is a closed primary. half of the states in the country, 40 percent of all voters cannot participate in the primary. they have no say who was nominated. as a result we get more and more extreme candidates on both sides of the spectrum.

>> i was quite a radical as a young person. i thought singing we should overcome was not an effective way to gain civil-rights. i thought more confrontation was needed. day shabbily radical is anybody who believes in personal liberty, individual freedom, limited government. that makes you a radical. airways believe people should not interfere with me. i can do my thing without violating the rights of other people. >> c-span's q&a. >>

>> for over 15 years. an economist by training a well-respected public policy expert best-selling author and political commentator. and "newsweek" called him one of the masterminds of the tea party politics. it leads to frequent appearance is to fox news, nbc, cnn, msnbc, c-span and pbs. the of the scribe he is co-author with dick armey give the celebrity at tea

party manifesto. please help me to welcome matt kibbe to introduce a 99 clough platt -- c.l. bryant. [applause] >> anybody believe in free them and the government spends too much does not have? this anybody think sometimes as frustrating as it is it have to be to the republicans before you beat the democrats? [laughter] just making sure. after lunch we are showing the colorado premier of the movie i am proud of called "runaway slave" showing after lunch. the money back guarantee. it is worth your time. it is powerful, you may get choked up you will be fired up.

so stay for the movie. i first met to c.l. bryant september 12th, 2009. may both walked from freedom plaza one point* 3 miles of ticker capital for what turned out to be the largest fiscally conservative protest i believe in the history of the united states. we did not know each other but there with 1 million of our best friends. he got to this stage before i did. but i heard his voice. has anyone heard him speak? you are in for a treat. he may melt off your face. we prepared. [laughter] going up to the stage and c.l. as much as anybody captured said tea party those.

something about men and women who rise up to take their country back. more importantly to put their personal lives, family is, careers on the line for what they believe them. c.l. represents all of those things. i could not be more proud he is my friend, the work we have done together over the last two years to take the country back. please get around of applause 49. [applause] >> hello patriots. it is good to be here with you today. 91 to two have you join me before we go any further to

think the finest men and women on the face of the earth. the american soldiers me 17 i want to thank matt not only for that introduction and his friendship with freedom works and what we have meant to each other, of the also chairman shaffer of ll's christina. and four friends and have met to i want to thank you for your hospitality. i am very happy to be here with patriots like yourself and people like you who want

to see a legacy in that country. i understand 20 years ago that idea has grown into what we experienced here today. 20 years ago became to the end of the reagan-bush era. our nation but had fallen asleep. unfortunately fnma crap 10 among us. planting seeds of discord among the american people. over the last two and a half

years three must've learned something and i have a feeling we learned if you take for granted liberty and freedom, they can and will we view and we as americans must understand we have enemies all across this world. they hate us because we are free. they hate us because we have the right to to pursue liberty and freedom. those covet what we have here and in this country.

they come with our success, lifestyle, they covet our wealth. somehow when they see us, and looked around places like this, a fine place, how they think this they hear a message that america is a place if he were bold enough, brave enough, you can still secure quote we know as the blessings of liberty. not only for us, but for our children. i came here this afternoon and i want to make certain. you understand that the

islamic threat to israel. and the security to our country is real. it is time that we wake up. it is time we understand we must defend our country against all -- all enemies foreign and domestic. we must take that stand right now. right here today. [applause] there are those who visit our land and see what we have accomplished. but i want you to understand but a thought occurred to me a few days ago.

if we became russian citizens, we still could not become russians. if we go to denmark to become citizens, we are still never danes. argentina. if we go there, we would never become argentine hands. but the most important thing and the most beautiful thing about america is a does not matter where you came from. we are all here. if we are i richard english african descent we all now unite in this country as america. that must not ago way. we must hold on to who we

are. [applause] to achieve the american dream that while we slept slept, an enemy crept. i need you to understand their is an evil among us. among americans. and our way of life for govett evo is called multiculturalism. that is something that will destroy the fiber of our country if we don't pay attention. there are those who covet what we have. they want to come here to our country. they don't want to americanism. they want our staff.

but they do not want to assimilate. they do not want to become americans. you and i a we understand the american dream and what that means. our movie "runaway slave" goes deeply into and examines the route to but to examine the freedom that we have banned the a idea that america is no way and but

you here today graduates of el d.r., and you know, what is necessary to preserve our nation and freedom. i bring a warning. to all conservatives, it is time we take on a different type of posture. it is time we take a posture of offense. for two long, we have been in the defensive posture. the enemies of conservatism, the republic, have been assaulting us.

abusing yes, and insulting us. matt and i have been called all types of names from all corners of our country. that is okay. but we must understand one thing. it is time for us to man of those americans to go on the offensive as conservatives to defend who we are and who we stand for. [applause] you apologize far too much. the progressive liberals will try to put to you on the defensive. but i tell you this. stop being on the defensive.

we who you are. it did cause this country to be the greatest country the world had ever known. >> there was a time in the nation that we could defeat any enemy. and we could always identify our enemies. we research and whatever enemy attack desk, we could we could repel that ended may. i have a startling revelation now. our animes they're very

unidentifiable. and has a former president but in a time when we were pursuing the school district in federal court. they are not getting both sides of this segment. i broke with them because i came to the realization it was not to control my a agenda but to their object was to control me. then to use made s but that

is the message. of the mother analogy has in fact, controlled soapbox of grief will for over 50 years. if you continue to sleeper ago . and not pay attention to what is going on, the very methods they have used to enslave that group of people, believe me, they have the same design on the entire country. and this afternoon in fact, in our efforts to take back the white house and the senate 2012, than our

country will be fundamentally changed. and we cannot afford for her to go way. that is why. we need a leader. who can gain respect again that is why it would be important to but americans are tired of apologizing for who we are. i tell you right now we do not need to about down or apologize to anyone. we are the greatest nation on the face of this earth. [applause]

we need a leader. our friends and foes will respect. we need a leader to put to swagger back into the american industries. we need a leader who was proud to be an american everyday of his life. not just when it is convenient. [applause] we need a patriot. we need a patriot who will not about down to anyone. that leads me to our children. if i may for a moment tell you i am very concerned about our children. i was the had an interesting

conversation about our children. but to come to the country and they want to our stuff. windows in the classrooms and we entrust to teach our children, have poisoned their minds. while we slept, our children have been taught by those who have been schooled in socialist doctor in.

that america is not an exceptional country. put by the use understand america it is the problem in this world. just as we try to expose been "runaway slave" many of your children and grandchildren for sure, are under the impression somehow you sitting in this room are wild eyed and hysterical.