we should be chomping at the bit to do this legislation. now, i, having said that, know that there's some very good work going on right now across party aisle on the background check, and i am hoping that senator manchin and senator toomey can come together because that would be a breakthrough. but i certainly believe that whether that agreement is forthcoming or not, we have to take up this bill. we have to. this bill is not controversial. it talks about making sure there are no straw purchases where someone comes in whose qualified to buy guns and gets them and turns around and sells them to someone who's not qualified.

doesn't pass the test. we have to increase the penalties for that and, of course, as i said, the school safety provisions. i will be supporting my colleague senator feinstein's ban on assault weapons. i have not heard one person explain to me why weapons of war should be on our streets. i don't -- i don't see it. i mean, the most i can get out of the other side is, well, that's just to start. if we start there, we'll go there, we'll go there, we'll go there. that's ary duck us will argument to meevment -- there's a ridiculous argument to me. we don't need weapons of war on our street. we don't need high-capacity clips on our street. and so i commend the judiciary committee for doing its work, senator leahy -- i know how hard other senators on that committee, senator schumer,

senator feinstein, are working. i, myself, and my staff were working with senator graham to even boost up the school security piece. but we need to respond to 90% and 85% of the people. otherwise i don't know who we represent here. we are sent here by the people, and the people are looking at this in their sorrow and their democradetermination to do someg about it and we cannot fail the test. president obama, i started to say before, he has not taken his eye off this ball, just like he hasn't taken his eye off the immigration ball, he hasn't taken his eye off the north korea ball, the syria ball -- i mean, you name it ... the economy, getting our fiscal house in order. this president has been handed

quite a deck of cards and he is working on all of it. and i believe he has done what he promised he would do when he made those promises to the parents of the sandy hook elementary school. and i know he's bringing them here to the hill. let me tell them now, you don't have troug to come and see me. i will witi will with you. don't worry about stopping by our office. just tell us what we can do to help. when i watched the judiciary committee, i was so interested because senator cruz made a point that this is a right to bear arms, it can't be messed with, period, end of quote. and the committee pointed out to him, which i thought was, you know, quite right, that no right is unlimited. mr. president, we have freedom

of speech, but we can't scream out in a theater that there's a fire -- unless there is a fire. you can't do that. you can't slander somebody, you can'can't libel somebody. with every right comes responsibility. so, my belief is, there is a right to bear arms. people who are qualified to have a weapon can have it. they want it to defend their families, they want it certainly for hunting. that's fine. that's fine. that's fine with me. i support the sensible gun laws we have in california. if you want to carry a concealed weapon in our state, you've got to go to the sheriff or police chief and make your case. i support that. other colleagues don't support that. i respect them. but the bill that of this a worked on so hard in the committee is -- it really is not

anything radical. it is commonsense steps so that someone who has a severe mental illness can't get their hands on a gun. and someone who knowingly sells guns and ammunition to a criminal or someone who's not qualified, they get punished. that's important. and we make sure there's a background check if you buy a gun at a show, a gun show. so, i am, i guess you can tell, a little perplexed as to why it is taking us so long to bring this up. but the good news is colorado passed sensible gun laws, connecticut did, california has sensible gun laws. i'm so proud of those states, but let's face it. we don't -- it doesn't do much good if you're in a state that has these protective laws but

you live next door to a state that has no laws and the most violent criminal can go and get whatever kind of gun, whatever kind of clip that he wants. i say "he," i don't say "she." i don't want to ever have to say "she." so i'm going to say "he." and it's time. i just came back from california where i spent the break and listened to people. they are rooting for us to get something done. quite clearly. we've had our tragedies, oh, my god, in scus schools, in restau, in law offices, and we understand. we have 38 million people, mr. president, in our state. it's crowded. and we have to learn to live together in peace, and if we

have disagreements, we have to work them out. so sensible gun laws, that's at work if our state. but we sure would like too see those sensible -- but we sure would like to see those sensible gun laws across our country, so our people are truly safe. people talk to me about that. they talk to me about immigration reform. ired ai had an incredible meetin los angeles with the groups of people who are going to be impacted by that. and, again, we are so hopeful that we will have that legislation before us soon. and in our committee, the environment and public works committee that i chair, we are ready to go to work with a water resources development act bill. this is a little bit of a lighter topic. it deals with our water infrastructure, making sure that our ports are dredged, making sure we are protected from storms. with the extreme weather we've had -- and hurricane sandy was

just certainly the latest example -- we need to pass this water resources act and we are ready to go as soon as we finish the gun debate. we're hopeful, i spoke to senator reid, that we'll be able to go to the wrda bill. well, i'm going to close with my monday night talk on climate, and i have to say, we've faced a lot of threats. i've talked about one huge threat we face, a society that has too many deaths from gun violence. we also have a very different kind of threat that you don't see as clearly, and it's called climate change. and it's dangerous. when i started this -- is this my third -- fourth speech on climate, the first thing i did that -- the first time i took to the floorks floor, i talked abe fact that the "usa today" is doing a year-long report on

climate, and they call their report, "why you should sweat climate change." and it describes how climate change -- they call it "climate disruption" -- is happening all around us. i talked about a report on another talk entitled "the 2013 high-risk list" that was released by the g.a.o., government accountability office, a government watchdog agency. and it informs us that climate disruption and the increased frequency and intensity of extreme western events lik weate sandy, threaten our nation's financial security. sandy was $60 billion, $70 billion, $80 billion, that we stepped up to the plate and helped, as we should have. we can't keep doing this. we are struggling to get this economy on track. and then i also spoke about another aspect, which is the

effect of too much carbon in the air on public health. today i want to talk about another issue that i find kind of intriguing because whenever i try to bring the subject up to clerkcolleagues, except for ther so of us that really care about this, they say something like, well, it's ry ridiculous for uso work first. what's the point of us taking the lead? that is an insulting argument to america. i don't want to wait for china to take the lead on anything because they don't share our values. we don't wait for china to act on issues like human rights before we protect human rights. we don't wait for china in terms of the way they treat their

workers -- you've read about that. we don't wait for china, especially on environment al issues. -- especially on environmental issues. we have to act. china is not a role model. we should be the role model. china is already suffering the serious consequences of a failure to address pollution in the course of its economic development. remember, our colleagues are saying, wait for china. you may not be able to see anything on this photograph, because i can hardly see it -- and i am standing health care s- because of the -- you and i am standing next to it -- because of the smog and filth that is in the air in china. when i made a trip there on climate change and other issues, i never saw the sun. one day we went out and our guides were so excited, they said, "it's sunny today!" no, it wasn't. there was this layer of smog and a little bit of light was shining through.

so you're telling me, i say to my colleagues, who tell us to wait for china, we should wait for them? the worst actor in the world stage, before we tan take up the most dangerous challenge that we face in terms of science? now, china has hazardous levels of air pollution, toxic emissions. they don't care. the only reason they're trying to do something about it now is that people don't even want to go there. and people are getting sick and dying there. and they need to work their people to the last breath. and the the las last breath is a little early. according to a new study from the health effect institute on leading causes of death worldwide, outdoor air pollution contributed to 1.2 million premature deaths in china in 2010, which is 40% of the global total. so here it is.

outdoor air pollution contributed to 1.2 million premature deaths in china in 2010 because their air is so filthy. what makes my friends believe they'll go after carbon pollution any more than they went off smog or soot? they're not. it's going to get worse. urban air pollution is set to become the top cause of mortality worldwide by 2050 ahead of dirty water and lack of sanitation. 3.6 million people could end up dying prematurely from air pollution every year, mostly in china and india. and, mr. president, i am so excited to have you in the senate. you're such a strong support of our landmark environmental laws. we face rollbacks of that's laws every day right here in the senate. i feel like saying to my colleagues, go to china. let's have another picture of that again. i mean, go to china.

this is what you want america to be? i represent los angeles. it used to look a little bit like this, not quite as bad. but we did what we'd t we had t. we said to the polluters, clean up your act. er you have to. it's part -- you have to. it's part of the cost of doing business. just as emitting carbon has a cost. carbon is the cause -- too much carbon is the cause of climate change. so we've got to put a price on it. and people who pollute it, should have to pay for it. and that will drive us to clean energy. that's the way it works. now, the cost of environmental degradation in china was $230 billion in 2010, or 3.5% of the nation's gross domestic product. so the people there, i mean, the people there are very afraid to

speak out. so when they speak out, you know something is really, really bad. in january outrage boiled over as air pollution in north china reached record levels well beyond what western environmental h agencies considr hazardous. cost of environmental damage in china is growing amid industrialization. the u.s. embassy in beijing has -- oh, yes, i saw this myself. the u.s. embassy in beijing has used air quality monitoring technologies in and around their compound so they know if they have their little kids if their little kids can even go outside to play. we're working to help the chinese understand what happens when you have too much pollution. now, we know it because we're the leader. they're not the leader. they are the culprit.

and my colleagues say, don't do anything about carbon pollution because, you know, they have to do it first. don't wait for them. they don't get it. and maybe by now they're starting to get it. but i'm not waiting for them. we have to do what the president said, is take the initiative. now, decades ago the cuyahoga river in ohio was on fire. massive air pollution hung over our cities and our lakes were dying from pollution. decades ago. the american people demanded action. we didn't wait for china or anybody else. we passed landmark laws. the clean air act, the clean water act, the safe drinking water act, super fund; all of these great landmark pieces of legislation that came from the committee on which i serve, and i stand on the shoulders of those former chairmen, republican and democratic,

including john chafee, who i loved, who was so strong on this. and, by the way, strong on sensible gun laws too. now, people said, oh, they predicted terrible things would happen to our society when we pass these landmark laws. but guess what happened over the last 40 years? america's gross domestic product has risen by over 200%. so this is not a choice between economic development versus environmental cleanup. they go hand in hand. because if you can't breathe, you can't work, mr. president. if you can't breathe, you can't go to school. and i would tell you, when you're next in your state and you go visit a class, any age, but particularly the younger ones in the elementary school, ask them how many of them have asthma or know someone with asthma, it's a shocking thing that happened to me. in an area that has very clean

air -- san francisco -- but not clean enough obviously, because at least a third to a half of the children raised their hand. so we know we're doing the right thing, but we have to protect and defend against these constant environmental riders we face them on the budget. we face them constantly, and they want to turn back the clock. and it makes no sense because we've seen a lot of environmental technology and growth of jobs. 3.4 million people are employed in clean technology. so it is in our nation's d.n.a. to turn a problem into an opportunity and not say, well, yeah, this is bad. super storm sandy was bad. we know it's bad. 99% of the scientists say this is bad. we see what's happening in greenland and we see what's happening in the arctic.

and we see what's happening with heat waves. and we see and we see. but you know what? we'll sit back because the oil companies like to do business the way they're doing it. they don't want to lose any business. they don't want to see us move to those clean cars, to clean energy. and i'll tell you, it is sad. and to say wait for china, the next person who tells me that, i'm going to make him look at this picture. i'm going to force them to look at this picture. wait for china? you can't see anything there. now, we have to rise to this challenge. according to the national oceanic administration, in 2011 there were 14 extreme weather events. what do i mean by extreme weather? terrible floods, droughts, storms, wildfires. each of them cost at least $1 billion. and we had 11 such disasters in

2012. i heard governor cuomo of new york say we thought that this was going to -- we prepared for once a 50-year flood and we're getting them every year. this is what's happening on the ground. these extreme weather events reflect an unpaid bill from climate disruption, a tab that will only grow. i talked about the $60 billion tab from superstorm sandy. now we have started to address carbon pollution. that's the really good news, because president obama working with senators snowe and feinstein did something very important to make sure we have better fuel economy, and the standards going into effect between 2012 and 2025, they will provide huge benefits. and guess what? twhe program is -- when this program is implemented consumers will save $8,000 over the life of their car. why?

because they're getting better fuel economy. i drive a hybrid prius. in california, i'm getting about 140 to 150 miles a gallon because i do my little trips, then i come home and i plug it in. and it's really remarkable. it's saving our family money, and it's helping to save the environment. this is a win-win, win. but if you listen to my friends, they look at it as a lose, lose, lose. they're dour about the idea of taking a lead. we have to take the lead. what we do here impacts the world. when our nation reduces its carbon pollution, it makes a difference. we account for 20% of global pollution. yeah, china accounts for about the same. but i'm not waiting so that our society looks like this. and, mr. president, here's the great news. when we reduce carbon pollution, there are side benefits, and the side benefits are we're not

going to look like this because we're also going to shift over to those clean technologies, have less smog, less soot, and our people will be able to breathe. so peer-reviewed scientists forecast that the u.s. could significantly contribute to reducing the likelihood that will avoid extreme impacts of climate disruption. we know we're already facing some disruption. but the quicker we move, the more we cut back on that carbon pollution, the better. addressing climate change will have many, many investments in solar, in wind, in clean energy, strengthening our domestic renewable energy sector. i'm so proud of california. we're really moving in that direction and doing well. according to the pew charitable trust, clean energy policies could provide up to a $2.3 trillion market. let me say that.

not billion. trillion-dollar market for investments in renewable energy. so we can ignore this opportunity to be a market leader in renewables and then take those inventions all over the world. we can ignore this or we could do it and benefit our economy. i saw today that former secretary of state george shultz, who was a resident of my great state, who was part of the reagan administration, he pend a really -- he penned a really important article about why we should go to a carbon tax a. carbon tax, a simple thing. you produce carbon pollution, you got to pay for every ton. and his idea is give that back to the american people. help them pay for those transition periods of time where we're going to move toward that clean energy i'm very pleased that he wrote that article, and i'm hoping to get him before our

environment committee to talk about it. we've got to step up to the plate on climate. every one of us has an obligation to do it. and i know it's hard because with the exception of the storm, a storm like sandy, and then heat waves that are just outrageous, we don't think about it. and i understand why it's not pleasant. we've got so many challenges on our hands. budget challenges, education challenges, immigration challenges, gun violence challenges, we've got all these challenges. so if it's not right in front of us where we see it every day or read about it every day or it's not hitting our state every day, i understand why some people would prefer to ignore it. but, mr. president, we owe it to our kids and our grandkids to be

leaders here. this is our time. we didn't pick it. you didn't pick this time to be born, to be living. you didn't pick it. i didn't pick it. but here we are. here are these scientists telling us, wake up. do something, or we are facing a planetary emergency. and so every monday night that i can be here, i will be here. i want to make a record at least for history, if not for political action, which is what i really want, that we do something. and i hope that the president -- and he visited san francisco recently -- i hope he'll continue to do the right thing. it's lonely for him because he doesn't have a legislature that gets it. but let me say to colleagues who are definitely, i can assure you, not watching this but who may read about this speech:

don't ever say to me let's wait for china, because that is an insult to america, and it's an insult to our people. we're going to wait for the country that doesn't care about its people enough so that the people have to run around in masks because they can't even see anything, it's so smoggy and dirty there. don't tell me wait for china, because that argument, or as they would say in certain parts of the country, that dog don't hunt. i don't say that in my part of the country. what i say is that makes no sense whatsoever. and so, i will continue to come here in the hopes that we can come together on this issue, in the hopes that president obama will keep on moving, in the hopes that my state and the northeast and other states are

going to move on this issue. and i will protect their right to do it. i will defend anybody -- i will defend against anyone here who comes to roll back the clean air act, which unfortunately, senator inhofe came at us with an amendment in the budget that said that e.p.a., the environmental protection agency, should no longer have the ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. imagine. imagine. and we had more than 40 votes for that position. that's scary. that's like saying we should stop worrying about smoking and get 45 votes to say, well, it's no big deal. this is a big deal. and i'll just keep on making the talks on monday nights if i can. and i want to thank my staff. they're working so hard to put

this together in a coherent way so that perhaps after six months of making these speeches we've got a story to tell from beginning to end that will be compelling enough so that no one will ever say to me "let's wait for china to fix their problem." and people might actually come up and say, put me on as a cosponsor on that sanders-boxer bill or the sheldon whitehouse bill that puts a price on carbon. so thank you very much for your patience, mr. president. i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i've often come to the floor to talk about remote and sometimes dangerous places around the world where you are usaid and foreign service officers serve. we know about the difficult places our brave military personnel serve often at great sacrifice. we sometimes lose sight of their civilian, diplomatic and aide colleagues working side by side. i'm always impressed that no matter where on the planet one travels there is an outpost of american ideals and talent dedicate toddy phroepl is i, human rights and helping the less fortunate. these civilians serving abroad can face a variety of threats,

yet they do it with dedication, patriotism and a belief that the united states should always be a voice for good in the world. sadly today i come here with a heavy heart as the life of one of the brightest officers from i am tphoeu was cut -- from illinois was cut short. 25-year-old ann sddinghoff was clear-eyed in her determination to make a tangible improvement in the lives of those around her. after two years in the embassy of caracas and venezuela. ann was a bright spot on the embassy impound known to friends and coworkers as an intelligent, caring and optimistic young officer who worked hard to help afghan women and children. on saturday ann traveled to za pw*u l to donate books to a

school and a suicide bomber detonated near her convoy and ann was killed along with four other americans, three u.s. service members and department of defense civilian. several others were wounded. ann leaves behind her parents and sisters as well as countless relatives, friends and coworkers who deeply mourn her loss not only personally, but also as an example of the deep dedication that our diplomats demonstrate every day in outposts around the world. i know my colleagues join me in our heartfelt condolences to her family and our ongoing appreciation for the sacrifices made by our diplomatic corps. mr. president, i ask consent that the next statement be placed in a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, this morning, i went to a funeral in chicago at holy name cathedral. there was a large -- in fact, it was a huge crowd. it was a tribute to america's foremost movie critic, roger ebert, who passed away last

week. it was my good fortune to know roger and his wife chaz and to be one of his greatest fans. like myself, he hailed from down state illinois. he was born in urbana. in his memoir, "life itself," he tells an amazingly detailed story of his youth growing up down state, how he finally made it to the big time, to the "chicago sun-times" in chicago. after he had been editorial of the daily illini on the campus of the university much illinois. roger came to movie criticism almost by accident, but in no time at all he set the standard not only for the united states but maybe for the world. rahm emanuel in the tribute to roger today said at the service he wanted to personally thank roger ebert for sparing us from going to see so many terrible movies. so many of us would wait before we went to a movie, as the medicare said, to check the time of the movie but also to check what roger ebert thought about

the movie. he was a go-to person when it came to movie criticism. as you came to read the book about his life, there was much more than that. he was a brilliant mind. from a very early age, an insatiable appetite for the world around him. he used that in his skills as a journalist at the "chicago sun-times" and in analyzing the whole genre of movies, from the earliest classics all the way through the most modern. that life experience really put him in good stead when it came to taking a look at movies from a human perspective. he of course became famous on television with siskel, roper and so many others, and most of us watched that program with a lot of joy as the two of them would squabble from time to time over whether a movie was worth seeing. but there was much more to roger than that. we came to know today in tributes that were paid to him his deep sense of social justice, not just in the way he

analyzed things but in his life itself. he really was committed to fairness and to helping the little guy, and it showed in the way he lived his life, in the way he set a standard as a journalist. chaz, his wife, came along late in life for him but became a true partner. the two of them were inseparable and they were a dynamic team together in so many ways, but the thing about roger's life that impressed me the most, the most, was after he was stricken with cancer. it was a devastating cancer. he went through a series of operations. he eventually had his face literally deformed by the surgeries as he lost his jawbone. then he lost his ability to speak. then he lost his ability to eat. to eat. and yet, he soldiered on. he continued to write, reviewing movies, using computer-assisted

voice translations so that he could express himself through a keyboard in words, and he wrote a blog every day that i used to go to from time to time, not only because it was so good, so many insights into things that i had never thought about, but also because it was inspiring that he would get up and go to work every single day when others in that same circumstance would probably just give up. roger never gave up, and that to me showed that he not only had a great mind and a great heart but a great spirit. what a turnout today at holy name cathedral for roger ebert. the balcony was full, if there had been a balcony, of fans with two thumbs up for a great movie critic, a great human being and a great son of illinois. i'd like to ask consent to put in the record at the close of my remarks here an excerpt from roger ebert's memoir entitled "life itself" in which he talks about death and very boldly says

i do not fear death. it is an inspiring message which he pinned over -- penned over a year and a half before he died. it's an indication of the kind of spirit that he brought to his life and a spirit which we all admire to this day. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president?

the presiding officer: assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the rules committee be discharged from further consideration of s. con res. 10 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. con res. 10 authorizing the use of emancipation hall in the capitol visitors center for an event to celebrate the birthday of kamehameha. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to consideration of senate resolution 93 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: s. res. 93 designating april 4, 2013 as national association of junior auxiliaries day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection the senate will proceed. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., tuesday, april 9, 2013, that following the pledge, the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day and following any leader remarks the time until 11:30 a.m. be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees with the senators permitted to speak for ten minutes each. at 11:30 a.m. the senate proceed

to executive session under the previous order and finally that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. tomorrow to allow for the weekly caucus meeting. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, there will be a roll call vote at noon tomorrow and confirmation of the nomination of patty shwartz to be united states circuit judge for the third circuit. if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until

here on c-span2. if the it's structured the it's got a wireless division and it issues an annual report required by congress on the state of wireless. and the hidden assumption or the influences assumption behind the congressional distribution the wireless market is somehow separate from the wired market. in fact in the world of broadband, these have increasingly converged. >> one thing that stands in the way, for example, unlike the canal companies they are beholden to a special tax and this is of sometimes called legacy regulations by which the maintain two separate networking a copper networking or grandparents who insisted on having a copper landline telephone and the broadband. it's a diversion of the resources. and it is not kind of trivial diversion significant

diversion. if they were freed from the obligations they would have billions of dollars to back and invest and expend in the broad band networking. tonight on ""the communicators" at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. they a political marriage much like john and abigail. so she would lobby in the halls of congress. she was careful to say my husband believes this and my husband advocates that, but she herself was doing the pitch. and one of her husband's opponents said he hoped if he was e lengted president she would take up housekeeping like a normal woman and she said if james and i are ever elected, i will neither keep house nor make butter. >> tonight one of the most

politically active and influential first lady. we'll take your questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. first ladies, live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span and c-span three also on c span.org. the carnegie endowment hosted a nuclear policy conference in washington. the chairman of the nuclear regular regulatory commission spoke about safety at nuclear power plants. it's almost forty five minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] good afternoon, everyone i'm here to give you all injection we had an interesting morning we're going have an interesting

afternoon. our luncheon speaker is dr. allison mac far lain who chairman since last july. the president recently announced he was nominating doctor for a full term and she was explaining to me over lunch if congress doesn't act by june 30 she turns to a pumpkin. we trust the senate will get the act together. she's a geologist. she's the first geologist at the nuclear regulatory commission. it's appropriate since a lot of the problems facing the industry right now are agree logical in nuke nuclear business people say you know when you are trouble when the specialist is in geochemistry. they are learning about new branches science it wish it is didn't have to deal with. doctor comes to the nrc from george mason university and before that from m.i.t. and the

blue ribbon commission on -- to figure out what to do next. i'm sure we'll get in to that in the q & a session. and without further ado she'll have some opening remarks. i'll ask questions and turn the audience loose. thank you. [applause] thanks, matt. thank you very much. okay. so it's an honor to be here today and a pleasure for many years i have attended this conference and having the opportunity to stand on this side of the microphone is indeed a true pleasure. so i thank you very much for these invitation, guys.

it's a real pleasure because i have so many friends in the audience and it's wonderful to see you all. this is a fantastic opportunity every couple of years to get together and have discussions about very important issues. around nonproliferation, et. cetera. as always the agenda for this year's conference reflects a number of timely and significant topics. many of course related to nonproliferation. it's been interesting for me to come to the nrc, which plays an important role in fulfilling u.s. nonproliferation objective through various aspect of the missions. as you're well aware, since the 2010npt review conference there have been renewed emphasis on ensuring a mutually reinforcing balance through the three pillar

of npt. today i'd like to touch on the important role of regulators in ensuring safe and secure use of nuclear material there by supporting the peaceful use of these materials. the benefits of nuclear technology are far reaching. it's important to remember that although proliferation concerns with nuclear power gate lot of attention, other peaceful uses of nuclear materials in commercial enterprise, in medicine, and academia provide important societal benefits. the civilian nuclear landscape has the potential to change considerably in the coming years. some country, as you know, are seeking to expand small existing nuclear power programs. others are developed countries that have identified a need to diversify their energy mix, still others, which the iaea

expressed some interest in nuclear power have significant work ahead to establish the basic critical infrastructure. of course, thed a vented of small reactor designs could lead to the introduction of nuclear power in places of small or regional grids that may not otherwise have considered it. the development of any major new technological advancement can come with competing or conflicting objective. nuclear technology with improve people's health and livelihood, as we know. it's understandable that governments would put want to put access on the fast track. this they outpace the development of regulatory control, safety, security and environmental projections are jeopardized. it's essential. now we emphasize the

responsibility that accompany the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purpose. regulatory body like the nuclear regulatory commission have a critical role to play in the discussion which is linked to the peaceful uses commitment under the nonproliferation treaty. regulators provide a critical function in the global nonproliferation regime by ensuring the safe and secure use of nuclear material and technology. we need do more to dispel the notion that regulatory controls are bureaucratic designed to limit or hinder rightful access to peaceful uses when actually the on sit -- opposite is true. for instance, strong and effective regulatory control enhance the efficiency which nuclear materials can be safely and security used. a lack of export material can delay shipment in reaching of

their destination or allowing them to fall in to the wrong hands. the final product may not adhere to the codes and standards necessary to ensure that a plant is crurkted and operately safed. and failure to provide proper training to medical technician can lead to patient or worker overexposure. each of these scenarios not only impacts -- but has security and nonproliferation implications as well. and to that end, i believe regulators must play a significant role in the npt community. regulatory perspective must be part of the broader government nuclear security safety and nonproliferation policy decision making. the highest level of government must make nuclear safety a priority everywhere. regulators must have confidence

that their decisions will be given due weight by country leadership while preserving their independence something i'll touch on more in a moment. this is a element in ensuring they maintain a direct connection to the broader nonproliferation regime and the right and responsibility associated with peaceful uses uses are dually considered and well understand. many countries with established regulatory programs are already in a position to inkeys their involvement in these important discussions. for countries embarking on new programs, we have an obligation to provide insights about the regulatory development necessary to make that program safe, secure, and successful. all countries that wish to use nuclear technology for commercial purposes must develop the appropriate infrastructure to ensure the safety and security of their programs. this includes a strong independent well funded

regulatory body. for countries considering nuclear power responsible development also includes an industry that is responsible for first line safety and security recognizing the importance of quality assurance in all aspect of a plant's construction and operation. on a related note, i believe that all countries considering nuclear power need to consider the ultimate disposal of their nuclear waste at the beginning of their planning. with a clearly -- integrated to the licensing process. in addition the establishment or expansion of nuclear power programs must include input from all interested parties in transparent and open dialogue. within the regulatory community, we have networks available for emerging countries to receive the assistance necessary to

establish an effective regulatory infrastructure. there by fating their safety and secure use of nuclear material and technology. we also work together with emerging countries to ensure that they have a common understanding of their obligations related to importing and exporting nuclear materials so the materials are appropriately protected. in the united states, the nrc plays an important role in implementing u.s. government nonproliferation objectives. we applied aiea safe guards at the licensed facility. maintain a robust security program and all the facility and we are responsible for the licensing the import and export of nuclear materials and technology for civilian use. we are also actively engaging internationally with the regulatory counter part providing by lateral and

multilateral assistance to emerging countries. after i'm finished here today i'm flying to a conference to meet with the counter parts. the nrc's international engagement plays significant role in forming our work. there's a lot to learn from what others are already doing this has been approach to us time and again particularly in the area of operating experience. conferences like that are important for the same reason. i want to note there a quite of few folks from the nrc attending this conference. i see table full over here. [laughter] regulatory bodies provide an essential perspective in the global nonproliferation discourse. it's the absence of regulatory control that impede access to peaceful uses of nuclear technology not the other way around. the more we are able to advance that message, the greater the chances will be that nuclear materials are being used safely

and security worldwide. this in turn will contribute to continued sceflt implementation of the npt. i'm thankful for the opportunity to share these thoughts with you today and i'm looking forward to my discussion with matt and my discussion with the rest of you. so thank you. [applause] thank you you are now running on 94.9% of the budget. the rest is sequestered. i'd like to ask about two questions, one is what question expect from nuclear power want to be question countries with less mature political system after fukushima we an advanced industrial society with mature government that seemed to confuse the policy goal of heavy use of nuclear power with a

safety goal. if they can't get it straight what do we hope from third world countries that may want to buy a modular reactor or full-scale reactor where they have no background in this kind of regulation? >> well, as i said i made the remarks to emphasize the importance of well funded government-backed independent regulators. i want to note again there are quite a few assistance programs bilateral assistance programs through the iaea available to help countries establish a good, independent regulator. i think that seeing that in action. okay. let me ask about the united states where we are hoping to build modular retack or its and export them and i hear the manufacturers say that one of the benefits is the nrc approval is the gold standard.

is the export product becoming regulation? can nrc regulations become an american export product. i don't know that it's an important export product. i think that, you know, certainly we work with a number of other countries and provide assistance to a number of other countries. we have a model a particular model. i think other established nuclear countries regulators adhere to the similar principles we do that you have government buy in. that you have a body that is barked by the government you have a body that is free from undue influence from industry and the government who is regulated. so you a body well funded and well staffed. and i think you find that in many locations.

in the early days of nuclear power, the united states has great influence because there was u.s. origin nuclear material, there was origin technology. the united states no longer dominates the markets way it used to. will the united states -- how can the united states continue to be a player in technology questions nonproliferation questions, as its role in international nuclear commerce declines? i don't think it's the commerce piece of it that bears on the u.s. participation in the discussions. i think the u.s. will always be an important player in these discussions. and i know can't comment took on the commerce piece of it. it's not part of our business. we certainly have a lot of work at the nrc, you know, dealing with import, export, dealing with the materials security at the facilities that we regulate.

so there is, i think, the u.s. has a big piece of it. >> do you run in to this issue if it's a piece of business an american sup plyer is seeking to do with a foreign country if we don't do it someone else will. someone with weaker controls? you know, that's a concern. but we, you know, we try to emphasize that it's important to have these controls. that they as i said they certainly advance progress in a lot of these relationships not impede it. something else you talked about is country going from the nuclear power is think about how they will dispose of the -- [inaudible] is there a case of do as i say not as a do? [laughter] i think not at all, you know, -- [laughter] the u.s. has actually been engaged in dealing with the

disposal of high level nuclear waste and all nuclear waste with, actually for in years since the late '60s really there's been an active program. so we have a long and rich history, as you know. [laughter] in dealing with many of these issues. and i want to point out that the u.s. is the only country in the world that actually has an operating repository. it's not for high level waste. it's a deep positive story. we're the only country with that actually experience. >> do we have -- we have a long history a long, rich history, as you say it hasn't moved the ball too far far. do we have anything to learn from other countries on this? >> we, certainly, i think we do. here as i speak as a former when blue ribbon commission member. i had the opportunity on the

blue ribbon commission to travel to a variety of cubs. look at what they're doing thinking about. the blue ribbon commission learned a lot of lessons from looking at other folks and what they're doing. and codified those lessons to the report we issued. >> what is your impression of the impact of that report, the progress we have made toward either implementing those relations -- recommends or finding substitute can move the ball forward? >> i think the, you know, the administration came out with a strategy. i know, there's activity in the senate, we'll probably be hearing from them soon on this issue. and certainly, i think the own us is on the congress and administration to move forward, and i hope they do with all great good speed. >> apart from that, the nuclear regulatory commission has a proceeding going forward to

reform the waste confidence proceedings, which means what -- how will the united states continue to do business without a repository? can you tell us what that means and how it's progressive. >> sure, so last june, i think it was d.c. circuit court of appeals -- let me see. made a decision which remanded three part of the nrc waste confidence decision. it said we needed to go and think about what would happen in the case what would happen in the case of no repository being available. it's more than a possible. it's a -- i think we at the

commission and decided not it appeal the issue. and but to work quickly to resolve these three issues in particular. and so we established took a number of staff and sent them aside and you are only working on this for the next two years and so we ask they do this within two years. so by accept or so 2014 we should have a final issued waste confidence. and we're working diligently and on schedule to do this. in the meantime we at the commission said that licensing activity and reliancing activity can continue tbhaw no final -- that no final lesses or license extensions until the waste confident is resolved. >> before blue i are bonn

commission, you were an advocate if i are the idea of greater use of -- perhaps unload the to lower the level of risk and to move more of the fuel to cask to reduce the risk of accident, attack, et. cetera. the proceeding you described among other things, i would imagine to determine the dry cask can be saved for decades to come. when it's behind us, should we be moving things more rapidly to dry casks or should we don't use the current practice as other look to us for the prangtd is. to the fill the pools as much as they will hold and move things out only as absolutely essential. at the nrc it's an active area of study now and, you know, as after the fukushima accident, we had a near term task force who issued a report within three

months, which had twelve overarching recommendation. the commission prioritized those recommendations to three tiers and this particular issue occupies some of the tier three activities, and the commission is going to be begin to look at the staff are going begin to look at the issue and see what the, you know, boundaries are on it. and so this is something that is an active area of research for us. >> let me shift gears slightly. i have the distinction of working for "the new york times" one of the first agencies public -- by the people liberation activity. i would like to ask about nuclear plant and cyberthreat. how do you know when a reactor is protected adequately this? this is a fascinating field, it takes the nrc years to gate regulation out the door. how do you know -- whether they

are secure or not? >> first you should realize that the computers at the nuclear reactor where not expected to the internet. hopefully that will give you a sense of calm. actually the nrc in 2009 issued a cybersecurity role for power reactors, and the final impliation will occur in 2014 or 2017 depending on particular out age plants. nonetheless there are basically eight step in this case had work through. they had to work through seven of the steps and they were to complete the seven steps bit end of past december 2012. rein the process of inspecting when they have done. so we have been thinking through this. we also have a cybersecurity team dedicated to anticipating new issues as they come along. so we're taking this very

seriously. and now we have developed very recently a road map for fuel cycle facility, dealing with cybersecurity issues for and test reactors and for by product materials, licensees, for the set of folks as well. >> which is a six to eight year implementation period. cybersecurity -- . >> a lot of the reactors -- >> at the end of eight years, in a computer field it's hard to imagine a standard set eight years is still valid. is this like checking boxes? so you have this, that and the other. >> putting both. >> okay. all right. may i ask what they are still working on this? i don't recall it's a longer complicated issue that requires

more information before they are able to implement it. >> okay. one more question and we'll got audience which is we have a group of american -- american manufacturing competitors would like to build small mod your realready or it. they are not designed are the american market. they are designed for export. is the wide spread adoption of nuclear reactors around the world -- is it positive for proliferation, negative proliferation. neutral proliferation, how is it for safety? it's not my job to evaluate some of the questions. [laughter] we will issue a design certification if and when we get applications. we are expecting the first application summer of 2014 from

cmw that was founded bit dod. certainly, you know, on the trade side of this, to other countries, the one, two, three agreement has to be in place before that happens. that's outside of nrc's realm, of course. under conditions required for the u.s. it means in term of security requirement that we require of all power plant in the u.s. i wonder if boeing sells an airport some small airline in third world. it's concerned whether the airline will fly it correctly or crash it which will be a black mark against the airline but also against boeing.

you are not going to build them. you are going to license them. should we be look with any sense of anxiety. with are hoping to support a new class product that is complicated to run and keep safe? i don't know that these things would necessarily be more complicated now than the regular power reactors. that's correct. have no retack or actors at all. that's why we're glad we are full circle back. it's important before you embark on any kind much nuclear program to have a established regulator that is backed by the government. that is well funded. all i can see is lights. in the back here, the lady with her hand up. >> jessica from the monterrey

substitute of national study. thank you for your remarks. i'm interested in what you're talking about with regard to the nrc's outreach to nuclear newcomers. i teach nuclear energy issues to a number of students that are from those countries. one of the discussions we have is how is the u.s. involved in this nuclear market and usually there isn't a sense on the part of students from the countries of the u.s. is a player. curious if you have encountered problems in best practice sharing effort with country where we don't have industry involvement as well. uae is an obvious country where we part of the contract with south korea and i can imagine that there's a lot of interaction going on between nrc and then them but, you know, turkey where there's essentially russian-driven contract. other countries that don't have involvement with the u.s. industry. how do you do that kind of outreach to those countries is it generalled welcomes?

in general what are some of the challenges to be overcome to be effect ninth partnership. >> great, good question. let me be clear that we're not industry. we're the regulator. so we have a specific role that is not industry's role and therefore, you know, there are other parts of the u.s. federal government which would have other kinds of relationships the department of energy, the part of the administration, et. cetera. so keeping that aside, on the regular regulatory side i meet with counter part from my counter part from other countries on a regular basis. recently met with the turkish regulator. i also meet with the russian regulator and discuss issues. i that's one way my fellow can have direct conversation with the folks. and exchanges.

we also have a number of programs assistance programs that where the nrc provides assistance to emerging countries, there are other programs like the multinational design evaluation program. turkey is not a member of that now, but in the future could be. it's this is a group who get together and discuss new reactor issues so there's an ap1,000 group where you have regular -- this is just for regulators where the regulators from the u.s., from china from other countries interested in building ap1,000 get together and discuss issues with construction. and operation of these plants. so there are a variety of different -- we also work on the multilateral level through the iaea and a number of other

programs like that. there's a variety of ways we actually do engage quite frequently. >> if i could ask to to elaborate. it sounds like you're doing peer-to-peer at the top, do you send to the sectors on exchange visit? why we go. we have exchange programs where we host inspectors or staff regulate regulatory staff from other countries. we send our staff to other countries. there's those kinds of programs. there's a lot of work on the international side. many of the staff here today, i think there are thirty plus on the international side looking at them right now. >> do our guys defect to places where the nuclear picture -- [laughter] who has the microphone behind you?

.. i don't think even you would approve of the nrc going around evaluating other countries programs. that's why i think a peer-to-peer discussion, the iaea certainly set standards for

regulatory programs. there is no way in which one can do that. i know there are some that i celebrate you later some other countries are concerned about this issue i would like they are to some way of having marvin pat and say you're doing a good job, you're doing a bad job. on the industry side, there is something really that. the world association of nuclear operators, wano, with the nuclear industries regulate each other with that kind of an evaluation that i think would be very helpful. there is some of that going on. i think you're right. we should think more creatively about how we could do more.

>> filing that the u.s. transportation is, they will make up for an aviation regulator. you'd have reserves is to regulate and you're not allowed to fly here anymore. just the threat of that influences foreign government to fund their regulators better. would there be some equivalent that would be good here? >> it's an interesting idea. i'm not sure what the equivalent would be. you always want to keep talking. you don't want to start talking. we're going to start over there. >> thank you had formerly with iaea on the security side you thank you for your comments. my question was one of the few

cushing's accident to install boiling water reactors. i read in the media on the basis of cost, size wondering what for you is the trade-off of the safety and the cost to industry for adding one additional seat measures. i was pleased to hear you're going to my home country, canada. canada is the only country that fired its regulator. i don't want you to comment on that, but she made a big deal several times, which is what iaea does as well as having a fully funded and completely at regulator notches higher the regulator. >> there was a split decision in.they are macfarlane on the losing side. >> thank you for reminding me. in terms of the recent decision

to filter your company presented it as this is that all countries are doing. that may say what the recent decision for the nrc was twofold. partly with the decision to issue an order to further harden. so he issued an order last march, basically requiring hard in advance at all water react to mark what i marked two containment designs. so these -- now we have further enhanced that order, but we will look at 60 days, by saying we want defense to operate operate under accident conditions. at high temperatures, high pressures and high radiation conditions. you have to be old to operate them under all of these

conditions. this is an order will be issued. the second piece of what the commission did recently wise to basically require a rulemaking on filtering strategies and other strategies to either prevent or reduce their release or filter the release of contaminants from a containment in an accident scenario. >> question over here. thank you. i should say also that the outcome of events is not clear. the commission ended up doing the same. we will require them like that. we may require some later on. >> thank you. and the vice chairman chairman of the nuclear authority of argentina.

i have to say that i don't agree with the canadian solution. [laughter] but in the same way that the coming of the agency is considering the fukushima lessons to be made into having to make in considering the interesting number of countries that are trying to achieve nuclear technology is reduced, for instance. don't you think we have to make a strong commitment to share about the importance for the dependence of the republican body. maybe i have a country where i received to knowledge he and

thinking more in the technology issues. don't you think we have to assume that kind of commitment may be shared with those new countries of the importance the independent with those who respects the witnesses of the japanese body in these issues. >> certainly. i think it is very important to separate the regulator from the promotional side. in the u.s., our history as the atomic energy commission, both regulator and promoter and it finally dawned as in 1970s this is probably a bad idea. there's a conflict of interest and certainly now we very much

encouraged at all levels of the u.s. government, other countries to follow that example and keep separate the regulator from the promoters. >> we have time for one quick question. go ahead. >> thank you for your comments. we're at a junction where everyone is looking for confidence building measures. as a purely confidence building measure, which he be with the iranian regulatory? >> i don't operate completely separately from the rest of my government, so i have to take a race from them. >> do we have time for one more? go-ahead. >> i was a nuclear disposed and my question is regarding iran as

well. in the case of bashir, you have a plant that sees 30% german, 30% uranian, 30% ration. he spoke to quality assurance and everything else. the dangers taken place eggs is probably higher than fukushima because release in it started three times has been shut down and they played the german pumps and so one with the number of issues involved. is there a way the united states can participate or at least get involved in expecting because the dangers that not only to the iranian citizens with iran, kuwait. it's an important issue an engineer times regarding that.

so can you comment on that? >> only to say these kinds of inspections to the iaea are important and there are a number of very high quality regulatory bodies in different countries that give advice, support to the iaea and the iaea does an excellent job itself. >> should be renamed pm to 10? [inaudible] >> to have a view. ray lahood is for industry. >> they are a member of wano. i stand corrected. thank you all. i'm told we are going to transition to her speaker, our next session. thank you very much.

[applause] >> they had a very political merits, not lake john and abigail. so she would thought the in the halls of congress. she was always very careful to say my husband believes the and advocates that, but she herself was doing the pitch and one of her husband's opponent says he hope if genes are ever elected president, she would take up housekeeping like a normal woman. and she said of james and i are

ever elected, i will neither keep house or make better. >> transportation secretary, ray lahood spoke at the import expert banks in washington d.c. he tacked to the sequester spending cuts in their effect on air travel. secretary lahood said expanding high rates fail in the u.s. >> i will be brief and an introduction. this minitel introduction. we are very fortunate we were seated next to each other at a program that did not turn on time so we had a good 20 minutes to know each other and have been fast friends send and gotten to

know the secretary very well. he spent just a great fellow traveler in the obama administration in the brief introduction i was since last year working together, the secretary said we want to make sure transportation is helping the expert initiative and double experts. we formed an agreement with the maritime agreement at the department of transportation to make it easier for u.s. ships to make sure we stay competitive and meet delivery deadlines. let's just give a round of applause. [applause] >> on the thread start their comments so i hope some of you get invited sometime. i doubt if he can invite all of

you. but if you ever get an invitation to further dinner parties, they are the best and the best wine. >> let me ask you this question since you're theoretically wrapping up your time. what has been the best part about the job? >> we came into this job four and half years ago and the thing about president obama is he's a big infrastructure president has a bold vision for infrastructure and we launched for the president's high-speed rail initiative. people in america have traveled all over europe and asia and with the trains come back to america in a white or have them? if president eisenhower signed the high-speed rail or passenger rail bill, would probably have the trains you have in europe and asia come up with state-of-the-art interstate system that's the best.

what we try to do is implement for high-speed rail and safety in almost a transportation. planes, trains, automobiles, buses and safety is a strong part of our agenda. we ought to have the privilege in the beginning within 30 days of the president sworn in, which are part related work. you may have seen articles that it didn't work. that's nonsense. it did work. in two years it took 48 billion, created 65,000 jobs. roads, bridges, streetcars, projects all over america. what we do creates jobs. what we do creates economic opportunity. that's what infrastructure does, whether it's modernizing an airport. the greater part in america

keeping arose and a state of good repair. implementing a streetcar system or light rail system in atlanta, detroit, charlotte, all over america really. so we create opportunities for economic development, jobs and improving the local and state economies. our best partners or governors and mayors and i've been to 15 or 16 countries looking at high-speed rail. the vision for the president is to connect america over the next 25 years but passenger rail and not so relate to next generation. the next generation for america's passenger rail. to do what we've done in the northeast corridor. get good, comfortable trains.

amtrak is making money. it's because they are providing a good service. >> when you get that train trip from washington to new york? >> we are. we've made $3 billion worth of investments on the corridor for new equipment to fix up the infrastructure so we can get a little faster train. in california they have a plan where we've invested $3 billion. they have over $10 billion invested. on the train from san francisco to san diego in the next 10 years thanks to the leadership of governor brown and the assembly another real disease. we're going to have faster trains and we are going to have on-time trains. >> how does this job compare when you're a house member? >> best job i've ever had.

i wouldn't go back to the house of representatives of the well-liked to me. being congress is a job. in four and a half years we've done a lot of good in terms of putting people to work, building infrastructure, creating economic development and it's just because we can make decisions. you don't have to get 535 people to agree with you for 218 in the house, which is what it takes to pass the bill. i love my work and the house and i still have many former colleagues and friendships. this is a great job, mainly because the president believes in infrastructure and believes it is a way to get america back to work and create economic opportunities. >> you actually answered about six of my questions already.

>> see what you want to say. >> i think there's a microphone roving around. someone can stand up and speak with a loud voice. >> while you're thinking, what do we need to do on the freight rail side? >> great question. we've created a great rail policy committee within the department would just come out and solicited to the advisory committee. the freight rail policy committee will set policy for freight and be very inclusive, all forms of transportation so we have a great freight rail system. the best in the world with our class one freight rail and what they do and the jobs they provide. the really deliver goods goods all over america coming from the outside into our country and we

need to make sure there's a lot of court nation between trucking and our maritime industry and freight rail industry. the freight rail policy group within the department will rely on this advisory committee, which would just solicited. we've got a lot of interest to help us put together a very strong court native freight rail policy that includes all modes of transportation. >> without a question back there. >> i commend mr. secretary. alan levin from bloomberg. >> alister and the media. we need to let these people pay to get in here to ask a question. >> let the record show i deferred -- >> e.g. pay to get in here, alan? >> i don't know how much it

paid. >> you get a free question. we don't want to stand in the way the first amendment here. alan covers d.o.t. come as a great reporter and is always very thorough. we've never had a complaint against him. that's why he gets a free question. >> i won't go into the complaint. my question is on the 787 and your eventual role in putting it back in disguise. do you have any sense on a timetable that once boeing completes its task like >> they are doing the tests now and we've agreed with the test they are doing and when they complete their task on a give us the information and make a decision. i know you wanted something more

definitive. so does boeing. [laughter] want to get it right and make sure everything is done correctly and show these are safe. we think the plan was a good plan and they are carrying it out and we will see what the result are. >> while we are waiting, safety issues. >> here is that we say about safety. thousands of people poured planes, trains, got an automobile today and what they didn't think about the safety. that's what we think about d.o.t. think about all the people who got in a plane. people don't think about safety. but we do. we want to make sure when someone boards the plane, the pilot has the experience that the plane is mechanically okay. that's what we do at the faa

when it comes to transit systems, transit safety. we make sure automobiles or save and if not, we hold the automobile company although they want safe cars, too. we take our safety agenda as one of our top priorities because we know people just don't tank about it. they take it for granted. it's a very, very important part of the work we do. we people get up every time come to d.o.t. and the thing they think about his safety. >> in her travel, seen in safety we can stimulate your? >> we have lots of countries coming to the united states, working with our safety people, particularly when it comes to cars. we have just taken a group of bus companies off the road

because there fly-by-night companies. the slap another name on their bias in their back the road again. we've taken that as one of our top priorities to make sure we get both companies said their drivers are properly licensed. we do the same with trucking companies. trunk in trucking companies take them as they are priority. we actually have a lot of folks who come to us because we are the experts in safety. >> a questionnaire and then in the front. >> i've got a question about the high-speed rail. and from the east coast of southern california now. 200-mile an hour train. the east coast is a dense area. california and the western states are not a dense area. what is the plan to make them cost effect is?

i think what is happening is it's kind of losing steam. it probably will happen, but probably not as fast as the administration would like it to. are we going to make it cost effective to get from los angeles to san francisco when there's really nothing in between? the east coast got four or five major cities in between new york and d.c. >> part of what we are doing in california, part of the plan in california is two-time transit so people can use the system in bakersfield wormer sat in nature there is a common activity between cities where they may not necessarily be a stop, although they would be for bakersfield said the transit systems can connect. that's what they do in asia,

china, japan so people have a way to get to the trains on the corridor is a part of california is really planning and it is an important component of it so you just don't have a straight line, but there's ways for people to have access from cities where the train may not start. in illinois, my home state, we've invested $3 million to get trains to a faster speed and 79 miles an hour to 110 miles an hour and they're going to be stopped. my home community. is not going to have a train stopped there. we are going to provide so people can get back and forth. that has to be a part of the

plan. i know there is a recent poll in california and i don't know what the questions were. i can tell you they're still very strong sentiment from the people. the people are ahead of the politicians. people would love to have the opportunity to get on train and some speed for an on-time arrival. that's what the plans are in california. i think it's going to happen. >> neck right behind you. right up front. >> let's take one quick second. we've got a number of advisory committees they are. can i take one second because they do a great job and now is the data.

[applause] >> there's another 10 or 12 beyond them. >> mr. secretary, how much can we expect the impact of a successor to have an air travel clinics >> sequester is going to have a huge and night. i know there is a recent article that had had any impact. it didn't start until april 1 and for example at the faa we have defined a billion dollars. sequestered is no to do that. so we have to find $600 million that the faa. that's a lot of money to sign and makes it very difficult and that's why we look at closing towers unfurling some of our faa employees, which is a tough thing to do. it's not any wo