note, i'll let it happen. and chairperson stab in i'll certainly wasn't working extreme hard on her site. i was working on my side. we're going to distinct me and said i think we can get regular order. i think you can get your amendments up. nobody believed me. we had 73. we did it in two and half days, and once that tipping markets with people withdrawing amendments, why, you get your work done. but the minority at every opportunity you to offer amendments. so a year ago considering the farm bill, the first amendment was by senator rand paul, considering the pakistani who helped us with regards to the osama bin laden raid, and he was in prison. and so senator paul that is good at it told the a to pakistan until they released the presenter. what did that have to do with the farm bill? nothing. but it was the first amendment considered. it didn't pass either way.

and many other amendments that came from folks would never had an amendment brought up and discussed, those amendments were discussed in the farm bill. i would say that probably of the 73 that were considered, there were 300 offered and people would get up, they would have their say. they discuss the amendment. they knew probably it would not pass, and they would withdraw it. but they at least had the opportunity to represent their states and their constituents, and we had that opportunity. this year's farm bill, was in 73 a maintenance. voted about 10 times. senator thune, respected member of the agriculture committee, senator johanns, former secretary of agriculture, senator grassley and myself, we all had a total of about 12 amendments. we withdrew those from consideration from the committee

markup and said we'll take them up on the floor. except the majority leader cut it off saying, timeout, no more. none of us got those amendments. as a former chairman of the agriculture committee in the house, and the ranking member last year, what's that all about? ..s with regard to the direction of the bill, and bingo, you're just cut short. that causes a lot of frustration to say the least. now, i've -- i haven't gotten into the weeds on this simply because of your friendship and advice which i treasure, but your willingness to speak from the heart to demonstrate to our friends on the other side of the aisle, think about about. --

think about this. think about why we're doing this, because if you break the rules to change the rules -- what is happening is we're packing the district court here in washington which is the appeals court, probably more appeals court, probably more on all some of the more important than the supreme court al tsheo theat regulatory matters that come up in the president's executive orders and the president's clavers and interim final rules or any agencies we have government by regulation. the do not have the government by legislation today we have government by regulation and this court becomes the senate and so it was an even number of judges and now we are going to have three more and so consequently the president says i can't work with republicans because the point where cliff republicans are going to have their way instead of being jammed down our throat and i know when i go back to kansas one of the top issues we hear

about, any economic sector of our economy is what is coming on with all of these regulations? somebody wants a piece of paper and says are you aware of the regulation and i said no i'm not that i will check on it and what is our ability to deal with it? almost nothing so we have the government by overregulation. that is what this is about so that that agenda by the president for more regulation to get his agenda done is going through the courts as opposed to the senate of the united states and that's why we are faced with this situation and that is why i was here talking about i -- iran and you were talking about the biggest issue and i appreciate it thank you for coming to the floor and making these comments. i just wish people would understand why we had this frustration and i think a more

accurate reflection of what is going on here. i know that is not reflected much in the media treated i understand that that that is simply the case. i think my colleague from kansas -- i am glad he mentioned his own personal experience and experiences together. it's more than about the senator from indiana or kansas. it's about this institution. it's about the institution of the united states senate. what kind of the body are we going to be? are we going to be the senate that has been the senate for 225 years with the rights of the minorities being able to express our majority leader can look across the aisle and say the former chairman of the agricultural committee and former secretary of agriculture can have a say in with the farm bill says. it's a treasure shrove of experience. it's a treasure trove of

knowledge of the whole agricultural sector and the majority leader simply says what you can do and what you can't do. four get your adjustments to this but that leads us to the most egregious power grab of all and that was when under total democratic control both in the house and the senate. democrats decided they are going to tell us how we should reshape our health care system and readjust one-sixth of the entire economy. and by the way, we have all this expertise here or we think we have this expertise and we will wrap this up in a 2000 plus page build and run it down your throat without any input from the other side.

we had input, but the rules were adjusted, the vote was changed and it was passed by a simple majority and therefore it has no constructive impact from those who didn't think this was the right way to address the health care system. now look at the mess that we are in. we've been talking for days about calls not reflecting just our view but from constituents saying what in the world is done. the reason i ran in 2010 is because i was upset about two major things one the way the democrats essentially said take this health care bill, don't worry about reading it as nancy pelosi said. you will find out later and boy are we finding out about it later. frankly those i wrote it are finding out about it leader and the people that it has been imposed upon, the people we represent are finding out about

it later and i got a whole packet for love it of responses i don't know if they are republican or democrat liberals or conservatives all i know is they are from my constituents who i represent. all of then trying to represent and they have flooded my office with tweets and all this social stuff i have trouble grasping right now. but letters coming in, people say what have you done to us? what are you in opposing? i can go through here and read order stories about people and the broken promises, the broken promises on this. i think as the senator from kansas understood we have been in this business for quite awhile. you've got to be careful if you fall in the trap of going home and promising what you can't deliver. it's easy to walk in front of groups and say i know what you

really would like to hear. and so, it is -- i want you to like me and vote for me at the next election so i'm going to tell you what you like to hear. esen as you go home and promise something that makes people feel good so they will feel good about you, but you've got to be careful because if you underperform and under promise they are going to say wait a minute. and no one, no one has more overpromise and underperformed than this president of the united states regarding health care. you know, when you say if you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor, pure period a bit the president wishes that he didn't say period. >> let me finish and i will be happy to yield. >> i'm sure he wishes he hadn't said that if you have like your doctor you keep your doctor. i have thousands of people in

indiana that basically said i can't keep my doctor? mr. president, you promised. and you said period. what does period mean? ticket to the bank, count on it, no more questions need to be asked. i'm telling you if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period. nothing more needs to be said. and the same was true about don't worry, you're premiums will go. you won't have to have a more expensive -- you keep your plan if you like your plan you keep it hidden but how many hundreds of letters have i gotten from people that said i love my plan. why do you think i chose it because if i didn't like my plan i wouldn't have selected it and now we get a letter saying that your plan is no good. you have to go to the government's plan, you have to go to the obamacare plan. it's going to be affordable. don't worry, no money is going

to be spent. were we told about the $400 million was spent just to fashion the website? can you imagine how if they screw up the website after trees and a half years of notice they can't even put out the website which are continuing by the way. if you can't do that how are you going to manage the program if you ever do get people signed up? so on and on it goes with this idea of promising and now having these promises broken just is the lack of the cynicism, of a lack of trust among the american people in the institutions of government and in their elective representatives and presidents. and that is just a cancer in this country. if you can't put your faith and trust in the promises of what is said by the people who are representing you and taking tell-all that you have to comply with, that is a sad day.

so the person and again has asked me to yield and i would be happy to yield back. >> i did the answer is when the president said if you like the plan you can keep it, pure co. it wasn't that we really. it was if you like the plan you can keep maybe or maybe there was a parentheses. if you like your plan you can keep it if i like it. and if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor if it's possible and we think it's all right. >> if i could add to what the senator said, if you don't like your plan, and if you want something different, we won't tell you what you have to like and what you don't have to like. it is no longer your choice. we will tell you what we think

you need. but you cannot make that decision for yourself. >> if you look at our plan if you want something different and want to go to the insurance company and work something different out for you or your employees or employment sponsored plan, forget it. we know more than you do because we rode along and the reason is because we don't think you have the intelligence or the ability to take your help what is best for yourself. >> if the senator would yield, these were called linen plans that were denigrated even though the families involved worked on the plans and have a plan they liked i'm sure more people lost their insurance and signed up and were happy with the program. nobody on our side of the aisle wishes or doesn't understand the

fact that we have a lot to do with health care reform and i would say almost every senator has a five-point plan on what they would like to do but it's more market oriented and it isn't top down. what is supposed is the advertising for this, some of which is unbelievable. every day in the media and thank goodness the media is watching and the least paying attention to this, but there is a group that is on television that said it's cruel to sign up for obamacare. why are the taxpayers paying for that when every day secretaries sebelius is changing it and the president has changed the plan about 17 times, maybe that's low now, but i think a lot of these changes are unconstitutional but at least this gets me back to your basic point what would have

happened had we gone ahead with regular order and sworn in as the new senator from massachusetts and then it wouldn't have been on a one-vote margin with regards to obamacare or the affordable health care act or what was called back then the patient protection affordability act and i think that pretty well sums it up. at any rate, had that happened, you would have had to have some kind of a bipartisan agreement, which is really what we are talking about and breaking the rules now so that you don't have to do that, but then they would not swear in the stock so there we were on christmas eve. none of us knew what was in the bill because i was in senator harry reid's office. as a member of the committee i was privileged to consider this bill. we've worked hard. i'm worried about rationing.

there are four i'm not going to get into that. it is the number 1i worry about now. they decide the medicare reimbursement. the doctors and that's why in the finance committee we are trying to do the reform and the fix but any rate, we were on the health committee and i had three amendments all three defeated by the party line vote. that markup i don't know where it is right now it's collecting dust. it then went to the finance committee and i had the same three amendments and i wanted to offer the amendment on the floor. we were going to have a lot of problems with these rationing boards making decisions as opposed to the individual patient and their doctors if they can find their doctor. if they can have their doctor, pure period. it gets back to the regular order and respecting the minority rights and get back into protecting the minority

rights. and had we had those, i think that this bill possibly could have been worked out. i now believe that this bill was proposed by those who really prefer national health insurance and this was dead stock for the national health insurance. i don't think anybody on that side of the nile realized that this bill would be like thelma and louise guinn of the canyon, but that's what's happened. so now we have all of this mess on our hands and every day we learn about something new. the secretary just cannot yesterday with additional changes. it doesn't mean anything. she is urging the insurance companies to go back and talk about those folks that you're talking about the plan that they would like to have or would like to keep and she is just saying to the intern's companies we urge you to do that. what's that all about? the toothpaste is out of the tube. i don't know how you can get that done. there were other suggestions. i am getting off the subject here because you start out

saying that the rights of the minority. and this bill didn't pass with any republican votes and very little republican input, and i think that in part is why it has crashed into this and is burning right now. if that has not happened, if we had just had a regular order input during that particular time, i think you would have been a better product. i probably still would have voted no because i don't want the national health insurance. now i feel a lot better that i expressed my rant to you, and it's been a better morning as a result. but i think anybody listening to us could finally understand the depth of our frustration of wanting to be a part of the senate and having the right to be part of the senate that having that right and privilege that everybody had to wondered 25 years has now been taken

away. and it will be interesting effect pendulum would swing back and republicans were in control of what we would do. what we go back to the 225 year or what we say what is good for the goose is good for the gander i don't know what we would do. i would hope that we would go back to the president as would be the right thing to do but it would be interesting to see. thank you for allowing me to -- >> i think the senator from kansas, the longtime friend why had the privilege of serving with. and of getting to know on a personal basis as he and his wife and his family were both here with some experience under our belt. and unlike many of our colleagues who may see only one side of the story, we have been on both sides. i think about, you know i had my

differences with the senator in west virginia there was no greater defender of the rights minority than the democratic senator who served his lifetime in the united states senate. i wish there had been respect for what the senator said. i can see him standing on the floor saying it doesn't matter how partisan this is. these are engraved in stone privileges that we have learned in our founding fathers have learned through adverse experience throughout history about the minority of the voice and right to participate. this never would have happened if he were here. i know there are new members that haven't experienced what it's like to be said sit down and shut up. we will tell you what the amendment you can offer if

anything. to be told time after time after time because as all of the bills come up and you have five things you'd like to get done this year on behalf of your constituents and to wait for the next bill to be brought up and say mr. leader can i have an amendment on this bill? sorry, done. we are going to move forward. okay, can i have it on the next one? here we are at the end of the year the cycle is over. i'm sorry. you can't represent your constituents with what you think they want to do. maybe they will not prevail but you will have been in the fight and people would have to put their yes or no pity i gave it everything i had. i didn't win but i'm fighting for you and i was allowed the opportunity to do it. and now we are told you are going to run and say that i wasn't even allowed to express

your interest. you my constituents' interest to offering an amendment to the bill as a member of the minority. i mean, the history of this place, the history of the democratic leaders when they had power is a respect for the right, for the right of the institution. it's not about pat roberts, it's not about the current state of the republican party in the united states senate. it's about this institution. it's about what goes forward. if you want to turn this order into we've got the power, then you might as well just go home. that's what the frustration is and i hope the new members to look at this say this should be a more efficient place. how else can we express to you our appreciation other than just at least having the opportunity

to slow things down maybe you will go to some of the -- i wish they had listened to the senator that respected democratic chairman of the armed services committee came down and said we shouldn't be doing this. they had a very compelling argument. the republican leaders and the democratic leaders and whether they were the majority were the minority leader who both came to the agreement that these rights need to be protected so there is bob dole or george meshaal trent lott or tom daschle of a sudden we are tasked with the situation which is sit down and shut up. we've got the votes.

tough. that's our frustration. and i would just tell my colleagues think about this. think about how we can get back to what the senate has been and what it might be like for you. you're going to want to go home and told your constituents the other party rules and i don't have any power at all. any ability to represent you at all. i can't offer any amendment expressing your wishes or any other chance to get into a code. i just have to go home and say that i was denied the opportunity to even put it through a vote. i remember the senator from kansas and senator roberts knows this well. he would say it's the united states senate. you have to pay top votes. you're going to win every one. going to have to go home and explain those votes.

but don't take tough votes because he wanted to explain it to people back home. stepup, the date. you might win and you might lose but we are here to vote and give everybody the right to have a vote on how they think that they can best represent their constituents. we didn't come here to avoid this. to hide behind the desk and say this might affect the next election. so anyway, i came down here to talk about the debacle of obamacare and i got all of the letters all you have to do was turn on the television or radio or read the newspaper or talk to your neighbor. the word isn't spreading through the media because the media hasn't really -- i think now the media is realizing what it

debacle this whole thing is that i got my termination letter yesterday. still don't know what i'm going to do more i tried 21 times to get into the website and can't get in. you know what no one is talking about the fact that ironically those who wrote the bill the president of the united states and his executors' don't have to go into obamacare. i don't know why this hasn't been more publicized. is this the ultimate in the hypocrisy? you are the american people and we decided that this is good for everybody except for us by the way. so we are exempting ourselves. the president of the united states or the cabinet secretaries, his political appointees, the major staff, and even some of the stuff that wrote the bill exempt

themselves. how can you write a piece of legislation and posted on a 300 million some americans and say that's not for me, that's for you but since i'm writing it i can read it here in an exemption for myself. i don't know why the media is all over this. i don't know why we have not had an amendment from the democrats' side saying this is wrong. how do you go home and tell people that might president, my majority leader staff is exempt. i wouldn't want to go home. >> it isn't as if we haven't tried. as the senator knows, senators are under that obligation and their staff, the committee staff is different, the leadership staff is different and as you have pointed out, the executive is different.

what's that all about? it should be uniform or not at all and it should be uniform for everybody that had a hand in this debacle. i even thought about an amendment i voted against this three times watching the health committee and the finance committee and once it can out of perry leaves office. the bill had been changed so he had to wait through it and that is a different advance their problem led to two problems and we are still finding out about that. but back to your point we can name the senators and there are others that set look let's make this uniform. it's good enough for america so it's good enough for us and that has just not happened. >> i have spent hours trying to sign up in the d.c. exchange

which i couldn't sign up on the indiana exchange or any other. i was mandated to sign up on the d.c. exchange and i just hope that if something happens i would rather be in indiana and then d.c.. that we had to go through this as members. people don't understand that. i went through this torturous process only after two hours with all kinds of technical problems and so forth and so on, hit the confirm button and not enrolled so we had to do it all over again. then i got a confirmation and i told my staff print that confirmation. if you are enrolled in the d.c. exchange. you are part of obamacare congratulations. i've got a piece of paper, my secretary was down to the office to confirm and it says not enrolled. how about this piece of paper?

i know it says you are but maybe there's a technical difficulty. does that ring a bell for anybody? the stories i have on that it took ten, 21 times to get in. >> my wife is much more add up at the media capabilities of it was up to her and i thought we were confirmed, only to find out almost before the deadline it was midnight and there was a desperation attempt on the part of my staff and myself. i needed help to get this done so i had to redo it. then the thought occurred to me that we were going to have to in there. one that my wife had. i hope that's not the case.

i'm not sure. so, we will find out. i hope we don't have to find out, but we'll find out. and i think that it's just a duplication of what everybody is going through in the country. and what do you do and you find out about your co-payments and deductibles and all this and you sign up and can't afford it. i'm repeating a sad story that i think everybody knows, but i think the senator from indiana from your heartfelt plea to make the other side understand. i hope we can fix this down the road. i doubt that will be the case and i don't think the country will be better off as a result. >> i think the senator and we mentioned a signing up the frustrations of many people have

had. kathleen from indiana called my office saying help. she said i've spoken to somebody at the health plan for the federal exchange 21 times since october 21st when she first began to enroll on the healthcare.gov web site. she called the office in desperation and she tells us i ask if i could be transferred to this advanced resolution group which was some other group said that to help people who couldn't get into the web site and the customer service representative said that he didn't know how to transfer her to the site. she said well i need help, how can i get? so she finally then called the

insurer directly to try to enroll and they said the only way you're going to get this done as if you bypass the obamacare ha website because we can't do it either so they finally figured out she had been rolled through the insurance company but she said we need to let the government oversight people know so they wouldn't put her on the list that she had to enroll. so she called up there and finally got to somebody they said fine and hung up. >> would the senator yield for an observation? many more millions of dollars are now being spent to hire more navigators so your constituents

should have had a navigator. in many cases the more navigators that are being hired from the organizations, some of which i really wonder about, but in some states only hundreds have signed up there will be more navigators' when people have signed up and so obviously it's gotten to the point of a buddy has a problem and the insurance ought to have the navigator. i don't remember how many millions it totals up and a brand new group of navigators and the advertising goes on and then the news media discovers more and more and i appreciate again to senator bringing this to the attention of the american people and the senator from nebraska is here.

>> i have about five minutes left and i want to rap up with one last story with doug from indiana. after two weeks of trying to get on the site. he was trying to create a log and name and password. then he had to try for another week to apply for coverage never successfully getting through. they then have security question sent back to him so that they could verify he was who he was records indicated that you lived on the following st in the last two years. what city is this an? industry to the list is where his sister lived and she doesn't even use the same last name, so i'm not sure how they came up with it.

how do you answer a question as stupid does that because they said well we can't verify you because you didn't give us the answer. he said i've never lived there. question number three included are the only previous employer listed was actively misspelled so they said how do we answer that and question number four said the records indicate that you purchase the pet insurance and what is the name of your pet? you can't make this up. if seinfeld were going this could be a great episode, one of the greatest episodes ever. , said he hadn't had a pet for over ten years and he's never purchased pensions but they said

what penchant did you have? i have a dog and i don't have insurance. so he put down and none of the above and since he put down none of the above the said sorry since you can't answer the questions we cannot enroll you in obamacare. you can't make this up. it's a hollywood script writer's dream for a soap opera or comedy or seinfeld it said were stolen this would be unbelievable. if it wasn't -- it's comical but it's sad. it's an overreach by government that there are limits to what it can and can't do and we've

reached the limit on this one. and i think that we ought to step back and say let's do it with bipartisan support and allow people to keep their doctor and to keep their health care plan if they like it and will provide a means by which we can address the uninjured and those that need insurance, but do it in a way that is based on that tested free-market principles, not on the government that says we know better than you and we have chosen that isn't true.

this is a very delicate and diplomatic moment we have one of the most pressing national security concerns that the world faces today with gigantic implications of the potential conflict. we are at a crossroads. we are at one of those hinge

points in history. one path can lead to a resolution and international community concerns about the nuclear program the other could lead to the continued hostility and potentially the conflict and i don't have to tell you that these are high stakes.

this is the train depot and if you can imagine 1976 the hustle and bustle you have the phones going off and letters going in and out of the area helping to run the campaign from this small building. this brigade was an off suit in his run for governor. it was a way to get the word out about jimmy carter using volunteers going door to door shaking hands and spreading the word. it was amended so effective that make

the house energy subcommittee yesterday held an oversight hearing for the nuclear regulatory commission. among the issues discussed, the safety regulations for the nuclear power plant get the yucca mountain nuclear waste facility and the legislation to change the management of the nuclear mcginn the tory commission. congressman shimkus chaired the two and a half hour hearing. >> i would like to call everyone to order and welcome the commission again and recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. we are holding this hearing today to conduct oversight of the nuclear regulatory commission to consider h.r. 3132 the chairman's bill the nuclear bigot three commission

reauthorization plan in the compliments that. the role in protecting the public health and safety and the environment is a vital one and we take the responsibility very seriously. thank you commissioners for making yourselves available today. earlier this year august 13th the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit granted, stating and i quote from the nuclear trigger the try commission must continue the mandated licensing process for yucca mountain yet it wasn't until november 18th 3 months later that the commission finally issued an order directing the staff to proceed and resume the licence review. while i agree with the commission's order, my question why the key and budget schedule the information is still missing. given the commission's history on the topic i wondered if they were dragging their feet on the issue or if this is just the normal pace of operation.

as it turns out it seems to be losing its schedule the discipline and a number of areas like new plant licensing, license extension and power upgrade reef use just to name a few. that seems odd given the budget and personnel over the past ten years the reduced number of operating reactors and the decrease in the material licenses and with the withdrawal of many new plant licenses. november 21st, we sent you a letter asking for more information to help the committee understand how the growth in the budget and the decrease workload hasn't fostered timely decision making. at this time i would like to ask that it be included in the record together with the response. without objection, so ordered. going forward i will work with the chairman to bring greater scrutiny of the ability to manage its workload and make decisions on a timely fashion.

with that i would like to yield the balance of my time to the congressman from nebraska. >> thank you mr. chairman. the independence of the nuclear safety regulator is paramount. this is one of the primary reasons why the nuclear - three commission is comprised of the five commissioners not a single administrator in 1980 during the consideration to reorganize one congressman raised concerns about how tipping the balance of power to far in favor of the chairman could have drastic consequences. i'm going to quote democratic congressman from his testimony before the senate government affairs committee. there will be to situations in the future, those where the chairman has the basic agreement with the majority and those where he or she is not.

in those cases where the chairman has a majority of commissioners who entered with him or her it's obvious that the chairman will not meet the extraordinary power tucked away in his plan to work his or her well. the chairman and the commission can move in unison towards the chosen regulatory policy. continuing, quote, but what about the other situation where the chairman is in the minority regardless of party affiliation with him a commission to into a majority of the commissioners opposed the chairman? isn't it equally obvious that there will be at that moment that the special powers will be most appealing to the chairman? isn't it clear that these powers are ever to be needed and utilize adel it is precisely by the chairman said on going against the majority of the commissioners? and that is the end of his

statement. during the previous chairmen should, we witnessed the turmoil that he for salles. the turmoil was documented at length by the inspector general. yy now we are all glad to see the commission functioning as collegial as it is now and should be, it is incumbent upon us as legislators to do what we can to prevent this kind of turmoil from recurring in the future. that concern is what prompted me to draft the bill developed in large part from the inspector general conclusions and with of the advice and counsel of the nrc itself and i yield back. >> i will turn to the ranking member for five minute opening statement. >> thanks to mr. chair and good morning to the participants at the witness table it is great to

have you before the kennedy. we have quite a full roster of potential issues in the hearing. among these is the bill to amend the reorganization plan that leaves out the structure and authority of the nuclear did the trick commission and defines the role of the chair and the nrc staff being h.r. 3132 which is offered by the colleague. the nuclear power industry and electric power sector in general are experiencing a number of sycophant changes. the low price and ready of a lot of the natural gas is good news in many respects but is shifting the balance among the different types of power generations. we have discussed the impact on cool but this dynamic has implications for nuclear power as well. it is aging and several are to be decommissioned in the summer being licensed and construction is under way with several new

plants and as members of the committee have noted a significant challenges with permanent storage of nuclear waste are still with us. in addition the tragic situation at the plant in japan has reawakened public concern about the nuclear power. these are all important items worthy of examination of their own and our subcommittee has focused on some of these in previous hearings. in light of these activities overseen by the commission, i am skeptical of the need for h.r. 3132. the bill does not appear to address any real problems and some of its provisions may indeed create new ones. the primary responsibility of the commission is ultimately to ensure that the fleet of the nuclear power plant is operating safely and that nuclear materials are accounted for and handled safely. there is no room for error. the public will not tolerate this and maintaining public safety and public confidence are

essential if we are to continue to rely on the nuclear power so as we proceeded to consider h.r. 3132 that is what we should use to examine the merits of the legislation. quick responses are oftentimes called for and in addition to the central focus on safety, i would observe that the reorganization time be productive and useful exercises but divert time and attention away from the main mission of any organization undertaking this task. again, i am skeptical that such a diversion would be beneficial given the other important matters before this commission. i understand that in the recent past, the working relationship among the commissioners was not good. that is a concern but there are ways short of free riding the operating rules to handle that type of a problem and apparently, the problems have been resolved. i believe that we should concentrate our efforts on the problems that require the

legislative solution. i am not convinced that h.r. 3132 can pass that test. thank you chairman and commissioners for being here this morning. i appreciate the important work that you do and look forward to your testimony and the discussion this morning and i would like to make available my remaining time and appealed to the gentleman from california mr. mcnerney. >> thank you and i think the chairman for holding the hearing. in addition to providing oversight for the nuclear regulatory commission, we are here to discuss h.r. 3152 to modify the organizational structure and internal procedures. i do appreciate my colleagues and friends efforts on this but i have some concerns. he already mentioned those concerns which lead to the

ability of the commission to respond in the emergency situations in a way that the bill would hamper that and i hope whether that is confirmed or not by the members of the commission this morning. another issue is the nuclear waste facility including yucca mountain. we heard from the secretary in july that he believes that the consent citing process makes sense and it's important in terms of public support for particular projects and i agree wholeheartedly we need to be able to discuss and address the safe technologies for transfer and storage. all of these issues are important for any nuclear product that we incur in the future and we should take every effort to make sure that they are addressed as we go forward. my time is expired. >> of the chair now recognizes the chairman of the energy

quality committee for five minutes. >> thank you chairman. i also want to thank you and other members of the commission for being with us today and we certainly appreciate the important work that you are involved in. i would like to point out that we have attempted to set up this hearing beginning in august and i know everyone has a very busy schedules but i hope that your chief of staff will work with us in the future. i know that we have set up some dates and we are not agreeable to the commissioners and your staff suggested a date in which we were not even in session and as i said i know we all have busy schedules but i hope that we can work together to facilitate these hearings. also i read recently that senator boxer was being critical of the travel budget for the commission and i would say at

think it's important that he will do adequate travel because the expertise we have been the u.s. on nuclear issues and nuclear safety is better than anyplace in the world so i think it's important that we continue to share our expertise. i would also say that if senator boxer is concerned about the travel budget i can't imagine that she must be thinking about the fact we spend 14 or $15 billion on yucca mountain and it's still not open and on top of that the judgment against the federal government for not being able to take that waste. but obviously, since fukushima you have been focused on the safety issues as you should as we want to ensure the american people we need nuclear energy we must have it but i believe additional regulatory should be

justified by wheel safety benefits. chairman shimkus mentioned in a letter november that we sent we pointed out that the nrc staff and has grown 29% over the past ten years and the fees recovered from the licensees enhance the customers has increased 58%. as we examine further we found in its annual review popular of the long-term safety trend it has not identified any statistically significant adverse trends in the safety performance and that is commendable and we are all pleased with that. but in spite of that, there are 58 new regulations pending. and then the received applications for 28 new reactors. licenses were issued to build

and the licenses for the 16 reactors have been suspended. yet they continue to cite budget constraints and delays in their reviews so i do agree with chairman shimkus that there seems to be a disconnect between the growth of the resources and what appears as a declining workload. we look forward to your comments today on the issues that you deem important and we certainly look forward to the opportunity to ask some questions and we look forward to work with you as we move forward. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i appreciate that. welcome to the commission. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the minority asked one ranking member waxman shows up that i allow him to do his opening

statement for the chairman there is competing hearings, so we want to welcome the commission. part of the challenge is always getting the pronunciation of the name right. with us today is chairman mcfarlane, commissioner. commissioner magwood, probably the easiest one and a commissioner austin. so we will try to get that right without much challenges. and now, just welcome you all will get a chance to be five men in opening statement from the testimony is on file and we will start with the chairman recognized for five minutes and welcome. >> good morning. >> is this on. okay. >> good morning chairman, german shimkus, ranking member tonko and members of the subcommittee

my colleagues and i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission. we continue to have a full plate of regulatory responsibilities from the operation and the decommissioning of reactors to nuclear materials, waste and security. the commission continues to function effectively and collegial lee today i would like to share a few highlights of the accomplishments and challenges. it remains the top priority. the vast majority as the chairman noted as operating reactors in the united states of performing wealth. while a few were enhanced oversight to ensure the safe and secure operation the construction of the units are well under way under the rigorous inspection. construction also continues at the unit number two and the staff is currently working towards an operating licensing decision for that plant in december of 2014.

we also anticipate that these nine applications for small modular reactors next year. as these plants transition from operation to decommissioning, we will adjust the oversight accordingly and ensure that the next steps are simply address while keeping the public informed. it's acted expeditiously to comply with the august 13 d.c. circuit court of appeals decision directing us to resume the yucca mountain license application. the commission carefully reviewed feedback from participants to the adjudicatory proceedings and budget information from the staff and on november 18th the commission issued an order directing the staff to among other things complete a safety evaluation report for the department of energy yucca mountain construction authorization application. the project planning and building of the technical

capability at the nrc is under way. i must note on several matters related to the review of the yucca mountain license application, my colleagues and i not be able to comment due to the pending motions and indications that participants to the had occasion may seek further relief and federal court. the nrc also continues to make progress in its confidence work. the proposed temporary storage rule and generic environmental impact statement or out for public comment until december december 20th. we have meetings in ten states to get feedback and address questions and to date the agency has received over 30,000 public comments. ..

we are carefully ensuring that this work does not distract us or the industry from the day-to-day nuclear safety priorities. the highest priority safety enhancements will be implemented by 2016. the nrcs of more than 150 public meetings to get input on our fukushima work and share progress. the nrc managed to fiscal year 2013 sequestration cuts such that they did not adversely impact the agency's ability to carry out normal operations. however, if sequestration continues in 2014 it will negatively impact our research, new reactor work and non-emergency licensing

activities, among other responsibilities. the recent government shutdown also had a detrimental impact on the nrc's operation. agency safety and security missions including ongoing inspection at our licensed facilities and emergency response capability was never in jeopardy. furthermore, with prudent use of carryover resources we were able to limit the impact of the shut down relative to other agencies. this centcom even a four-day for low of 94% of our staff cost more than $10 million in lost productivity. why we have accomplished a great deal, many challenges are still had for the nrc. i'm confident we can address these of the issues in the coming months. i would be pleased now to answer your questions. >> thank you, chairman. now we would like applause for a second and allow ranking member waxman to give his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i apologized bingley. the other subcommittee that is me at the same time started late. so i am here and i wanted to

thank you, and especially chairman macfarlane and her fellow commissioners for being here today. i want to use my opening remarks to comment on a really bad idea. that's the bill that we'll be examining today. the bill includes a laundry list of changes to the nuclear regulatory commission's interim procedures that dredge up old disputes that the commission has already worked through. after the three-mile island meltdown in 1979, congress in the carter administration recognizes the importance of centralized emergency authority in the event of a domestic nuclear crisis. the reorganization plan of 1980 addressed this concern and establish the basis responsibility of the chairman and the commissioners of the nuclear regulatory commission. that bill purports to codify the re-org session plan but it actually resends the plan and

ignores the key ledger from the three mile island that the united states needs a single, clear decision-maker during a nuclear emergency. the bill takes exactly the opposite approach by undermining the chairman's authority in the crisis, requires the nrc chairman to involve other commissioners in emergency decisions. the bill even prevents the chairman from taking any emergency action until she notifies the four commissioners, two congressional committees and the general public that she has declared an emergency. i think that's a troublesome idea. if a nuclear meltdown is happening at a u.s. reactor, we don't need a bureaucracy. we need the chair to act quickly and decisively. we should not required to call a host of commissioners and members of congress along with the nrc's website, administrator our public affairs office before exercising emergency authority,

the impact of this bill could be truly disastrous in a nuclear crisis. that's not the only troubling change in the bill. not long ago the commission was struggling with a nasty, personal conflict. while the commission seems to have moved past that discord under the leadership of chairman macfarlane, mr. kerry, the republicans committee can't seem to let go. that kerry bill reopen past disputes. we need nrc focus on nuclear safety, not constantly rewriting its internal procedures. the effect of virtually every proposed change in the bill is to shift authority from the nrc chair to the other commissione commissioners, and would even mandate that commissioners complained to the president and congress about any perceived violations of the bill required by the chair. that's not likely to encourage any collegiality. there's one interesting into procedure is not addressed by

the terry bill and that should be changed. but that should be changed. the commission recently revised its policy for how it handles a congressional request for nonpublic documents. previously nrc provided documents requested by the agency's oversight committees as well as individual members on those committees are with the nuclear facilities in their districts. under the new policy embassy will not provide nonpublic documents the individual members and may withhold documents from chairmen and ranking members as well. i think this is a misguided and dangerous holy see. if ms. capps wants to see doc looks really cute the outlook canyon, she should get a. mr. terry wants information about ford calhoun, he should get it. this is not a partisan issue. it's about the institutional oversight responsibilities of this committee and its members. that i encourage all fight commissioners to rethink this flawed policy and i look forward

to further discussing this issue today. mr. chairman, thank you for your courtesy. and i have to apologize in advance because i have to be at another subcommittee at the same time the subcommittee and cloning has not advanced sufficiently for me to be both places at once but i'll be back and forth as much as possible. >> gentleman yield pakistan. i'm sure a lot of people are glad you are not able to be close yet. so we will miss you though. i'm sure mr. terry appreciates your ability to comment on his bill. so with that we turn back to the commissioners. again well. commissioner svinicki, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, chairman shimkus, chairman whitfield, ranking member waxman, ranking member tonko, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity

to appear before you today at this oversight hearing on nrc management at the potential need for legislative reform. the commission's chairman, doctor alison the farm in her statement on the other the commission provided a comprehensive description of key agency accomplishments and challenges in carrying out nrc's important mission of protecting public health and safety and promoting the common sense and security of our nation. the circumstances in which we find ourselves caring out -- airing of this mission requires constant adaptation of our approaches. this point was communicated directly last month in a message sent from nrc's senior career official, the executive director for operations, to all nrc agency employees. his message was as follows. our future is likely to be dynamic and unpredictable, and the agency will need to remain highly flexible and agile as we respond to new events and external pressures. we will need to continually evaluate the work we are doing and give careful consideration as to how best to use resources

our main focus on safety and security. i agree with that statement to as any organization, as a workstation which embraces the precepts of continuous learning the entity consistently seeks to improve its internal organizational effectiveness. is a member of this commission i will work with my commission colleagues and nrc staff to support the agency's assessment of how we can accomplish our work efficiently and effectively with the circumstances and factors we face today. i am confident that the interest is dedicated and highly professional staff members are up to the task of meeting these challenges, as they have proven time and again over the course of the agency's history. i thank them for the sustained commitment to the agency, through its work and to each other. thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to appear today and look forward to questions. >> thank you. now recognize commissioner apostolakis for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

good morning, chairman shimkus, ranking member tonko, chairman whitfield, ranking member rushed, and distinguished members of the subcommittees. today i would like to offer a few comments on the issue of cuba to the effects of regulation. the agency's addressing concerns about to to the effects of regulation in several ways. for example, the inne amnesty's status of submitted enhancements to our rulemaking process. these enhancements include the concurrent publication of guidance with proposed and final rules as well as a specific solicitation of public comment on cumulative effects. when the agency publishes proposed rules. aside from the rulemaking, the nsc staff has also been receptive to industry proposals, for adjustments to implementation schedules for both fukushima actions when justified. in addition, in february of this

year the commission did direct the nrc staff to develop options for a lot of licensees to prioritize the implementation of writer toward actions as an integrated set and in a way that reflects their risks and the kids on a plan significant basis. the nrc staff and industry representatives are currently exploring in public meetings the idea of piloting this proposal. the rationale behind this initiative is come first, nuclear power plant risk is very site-specific. and second, focusing on just one area of regulation such as post-fukushima safety enhancements ignores other important safety significant work the agency is doing, such as fire protection. in closing the embassy remains keenly focused on its core safety and security mission, and utilizing our resources in a way

that would have the greatest impact on improving safety. thank you very much. >> thank you. now recognize chairman mike wood for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. good morning, chairman shimkus, chairman whitfield, ranking member tonko, it's a pleasure to appear before you today. would appreciate your oversight, even with the questions are because we think it's very important we have a chance to share our thoughts about these important issues. i won't dwell on that but as you can see, it's been a favorite busy time for the nrc. we've make them suitable progress in a wide range of areas in recent years, including dealing with waste issues, updating radiation protection standards, like in the first nuclear power plants since 1970. however, to this day most public congressional attention has been placed on response to get the disaster of the fukushima plan. since march 2011 the nsc has

learned very important lessons from this tragedy. it's taken clear and appropriate action to enhance safety. we've kept our pledge to neither overreact nor under react to the events in japan. i think we've gotten it just about right. at the same time, use nuclear energy is also -- has responded with strategies that once would have limited could provide safety benefits beyond our regulatory requirements. perhaps more important, the mindset of our licensees has changed in the face of fukushima. two months ago all achieve nuclear officers of the utilities traveled to japan as a group to inspect the fukushima site and talk with those who managed the disaster. the personal insights of a gain on this trip may have benefits far beyond anything that we can regulate. our challenge now both -- is to absorb the post-fukushima

activities in post-fukushima activities indoor no more advertise it a properly. doing so will require us better to understand events in college with enduring need to protect against much more likely accidents in the. commissioner apostolakis comments this morning points to an initiative that we have undertaken that will help in that direction. this is a big challenge. in the steps we're taking in this base was significant and far-reaching applications for many years to come. as we strive to meet the challenges the embassy will have as always the benefit of the recount to nrc staff and the highly trained people who lead. since we last appear before the committee the commissions appointed executive director of operations a new general counsel. both have already had a very strong positive impact on the agency and i look for to continue to work with them. thank you for your attention. i look forward to questions this morning. >> thank you, commissioner. tranthirttranthirt een, you are recognized five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. a chance to be before you today, the odyssey continues to facilitate oversight role by ensuring proper safe operation of our number 100 operating reactors and the five reactors under construction of across the country. as only our decision, nrcs are seeking to leverage operating experience. and as a result we continue to about the lessons learned from fukushima. and as noted by the chairman, our initiating safety improvements where appropriate. i am very confident in the decisions the nsc is made to date in this area and i believe the commission is functioning properly as a body intended by congress and the administration. others of our talk about the ways confidence remained. i would interceptor i will talk for a briefing about the yucca mountain licensing process but i think the issue ordered by the commission reflected very

careful thoughts and deliberation amongst these five commissioners at this table. i think there's a very solid order that was put out to less than a month ago. i expect we'll have sufficient funds to complete the safety evaluation report which i believe are important. we'll continue to keep this committee informed as activities go forward and monthly reports. i would also have many nuclear power plants in this country operating under challenging and different economic conditions than in the past. potentially costly repairs and low price of natural gas have a permanent shutdown of four nuclear power plants this year. and vermont yankee has announced they will shut down next because there are no longer economically viable. interest in new reactors as a matter fact is also weighing in the current economic climate. that said, brc remain vigilant,

and will provide appropriate oversight to the commissioning activities. as others at this table of noted we're also looking at the changing demands in the workload, responsibly to ensure our staff is a properly right sized. i appreciate this hearing, committee's oversight role and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you commission. now i would like to recognize myself for five minutes for opening set of questions. because commissioner apostolakis, because or your google on the going to ask you to respond to this is the question because they're basically all in direction to yucca mountain so we will go with chairman macfarlane and then from my left to right on the answering other questions. pursuant to your duties as commissioner, will you make every effort to fully and faithfully comply with the law, yes or no? >> of course i will make every effort to comply with the law. >> thank you. >> yes. >> absolutely.

>> yes. >> the d.c. circuit reaffirmed in its august 13 decision that the nuclear waste policy act provides that the nuclear regulatory commission shall consider the department of energy's license application to store nuclear waste at yucca mountain and begin stub quotes shot issue and final decision of proving or disproving the application. is that correct? >> we are now in the process of -- >> just a statement that this -- the d.c. court affirmed and this is what they have affirmed that you will do. >> the d.c. a court affirmed we would continue with the licensing process using the existing nuclear waste funds that we have. >> correct. so you agree with this statement, okay. commission? >> yes, i agree that the court affirmed that. >> i agree. >> i agree. >> in its november 18 order addressing the d.c. circuit

court, you all acknowledge that it doesn't have sufficient funds to complete the license of you and issue a final decision, is that correct? >> we do not have sufficient funds to complete the licensing review, that's correct spent the funds and as he has would be insufficient for making that decision. >> that's correct. >> that's correct. >> when an agency is legally bound to implement a statutorily mandated action but finds it lacks sufficient resources, do you believe it is incumbent upon the agency to request the funding necessary to comply? >> budget decisions are decisions of the commission and we'll discuss them at the commission. >> so is that a yes or a no? >> budget decisions are decisions of the commission and we -- >> let me just ask it again, just so we understand the question. when an agency is legally bound, as you all agreed, to implement

a statutorily mandated action that finds that lacks a sufficient resources, do you believe it is incumbent upon the agency, is legally mandated by law, that you would request the funding necessary to comply? >> i believe we are complying with the law. we are complying with the court's decision now, and going forward we will discuss any future budget decision as a commission. >> all right. this is where always get frustrated. so, your response is that even though you're legally mandated to comply with the law and you don't have sufficient funds, you do think it's incumbent upon you to request the needed funds to comply with the law? >> i think we will discuss this at the commission and go forward with -- >> why don't you just answer it's the law, we are required to comply and we need to add a

request to fund that the billy? >> we will certainly comply with the law and i will comply with the law. >> commissioner svinicki? >> yes, i believe that agency should formulate and request budgets that comply with the l law. >> commissioner magwood? >> i think will formulate a budget that complies with the law and we will consult with legal advice within the agency and outside the agency. >> i'm not trying -- not really a trick question. not trying to be tricky. just saying, budget may not get approved. it may not get presented for but the question is if the law says you've got to comply and you say we don't have the money to comply, i don't think it's a tough response to say, and i will ask for the money i need to comply with the law. commissioner ostendorff? >> i understand your frustration. this is a very challenging issue.

as an individual commissio commi live in a penny to estimate of the commission of also work with colleagues to my right. i think your question is direct with the fy '15, fy '16 budget process. will be request additional funds? i think we have an obligation to follow the law, but i also note that this will be a commission decision as to how we move forward with the budget. >> but the question to you is as an individual commissioner. >> yes. >> thank you. and my time is almost expired. let me finish with this. as a statement, the nrc has not as you noted submitted a supplemental budget request to the office of management and budget for additional nuclear waste funds based upon the november 21 letter that you sent to us. so my time has expired and i will not yield to the ranking member, mr. tonko, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, welcome. after the three-mile island

accident president carter convened a commission to identify lessons learned in order to improve nuclear safety and ensure more timely and effective response to nuclear emergencies. the panel concludes the new club revelatory commission was a clear leader. the panel also concluded that in the nuclear emergency the country needs a single unified voice to take charge to make decisions. i'm concerned h.r. 3132 texas backward and ignores these important lessons. the bill delete the provision of the reorganization plan that consolidates emergency authority with the chair. under the bill that chairman not exercised emergency authority unless and until a chair satisfies to cry too. first, she must formally declared a specific emergency exists. second, before taking any action she must notify the other four commissioners, the relevant congressional committee and the general public. i can understand the benefit of

a formal declaration, but if the chick is a call at 3 a.m. that nuclear power plant is in meltdown, why would we require her first action to be calling her congressional a fair and public affairs staff rather than calling for an evacuation? therefore, you think of requirement for you to notify this committee in the senate before taking any emergency action in response to nuclear crisis is appropriate? >> i think that the existing internal commission procedures on this issue are adequate. i believe that the commission is operating collegially, and i think that no changes are needed at this time. >> thank you. should an action to respond to record to the crisis be the first item on your agenda? >> no, i don't believe so. >> let me ask the other commissioners. do any of you think that the chair should have to put out a press release or update the nrc website to fulfill a public use requirement before exercising emergency authority when time is of the essence?

commissioner svinicki? >> under our procedures that chairman has an executive team that he merely begins to respond to the emergency, and i would just note that the nrc does not make the decision on evacuations. that is done by the governor of the state in which the action is occurring. >> and commissioner apostolakis? >> no. as you pointed out, it was a very clear message from three-mile island that the chair should be the decision maker during an accident. last time with fukushima there were some issues that were raised regarding when the commissioners were notified. the chairman of soon power. and certainly i don't think that the chairman should have to worry about notifying the other commissioners when she is notified that there is an accident and action needs to be taken. but some point later probably she will have to do that.

>> thank you. commissioner magwood? >> i think commissioner apostolakis' explanation is correct. i think it makes a great deal of sense to enable the chip in to take immediate action in the face of emergency. but i do also think that it's important that the chairman at an appropriate time during the crisis notify chairman's colleagues that emergency powers have been declared and there's a situation as such exists to provide clarity. because quite frankly when this was used previously there was a long breed of time where there was no clarity as to whether the emergency was actually declared or not. that create a great deal of confusion within the agency. >> thank you. commissioner ostendorff? >> i agree. >> thank you. let me ask the other commissioners. to any of you think the chair should have to put out a press release or update the nrc website to fulfill a public

notice requirement before exercising emergency authority in an urgent situation when time indeed is of the essence? commissioner svinicki? >> i don't believe a press release should be the highest priority item. >> know, she should not have to do that. >> and commissioner ostendorff? >> that should not be the first action. >> the bill requires that your to consult with the full commission before taking any regular or policy action during an emergency as appropriate. it elevates the involvement of all the commissioners in making decisions that quote may affect commission actions and policy beyond a response to a particular emergency. that could be interpreted differently by different commissioners and clouds the authority of the chair. during an an emergency would your time be better spent responding to the emergency or engaging in discussions with your colleagues about whether a particular response might affect

policy in the future? >> having personally practice emergency drills with my entity colleagues and staff, it's clear that time is of the essence and situations change rapidly. it's important to be able to be as responsive as quickly as possible. i would certainly and a pledge before to get my colleagues informed to my best ability of all actions and the situation. >> i note my time has expired so with that i will yield. >> chair now recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield. >> thank you, chairman shimkus. and thank you all for your opening statements and for as i said earlier being with us today. i'm going to ask the question relating to a comment i made in my opening statement, and that is about over the past 10 years the number of licensing actions and tasks have decreased by 40%, and yet the nuclear safety budget has increased by 48%. so you just look at those

numbers and i think a person could be quite critical of the agency and say, oh, you responsibility has gone down, your budget is going up come and the country has a debt now approaching $18 trillion. so i would just ask each of you individually if you wouldn't mind just commenting briefly, his criticism like this valid or is there a valid reason for budgets to go up that much and the workload going down? chairman macfarlane. >> thank you. i would like to submit this for the record. this is a chart of the budget, the nrc in actual dollars and in constant dollars from 2003 to fiscal year 2013.

this is $671 million versus in 2007 it was $680 million. >> your position, then, in cost of dollars are roughly the same or less. >> less, yeah. >> and the workload -- >> is higher. >> the workload is higher. >> yes. >> even though the abdication and licensing actions is going down the licensing is higher. >> yes. >> why is that? >> the workload is higher because since 2007, at least, we've had the yucca mountain,

and the fukushima accident, which has added on to our workload quite significantly. >> do you agree with that assessment, i'm assuming? do you? >> i would just note that there isn't a direct response between the budget amount and the number of industry-generated items for review in front of us. we have a number of constant stft -- activities that must be budgeted every year. you asked for a reaction to the criticism. i would say as noted by member of the committee in the opening statements this is clearly not the world in 2013 that nrc had the trajectory we have been planning for. i agree with the commission's statement. it's appropriate for the commission and the agency to look at the right siding and the application and resources activity. i think we attempt to do that on a constant basis. >> okay. thanks. i'm running out of time. i want to ask another question. in your opening statement, you

referred to modular reactor process to start considering those. i would like to ask each of do you comment briefly on your view of the potential of modular reactors, and whether or not they can play an important role or not. we'll start with you. >> sure. i think they're interesting innovation. and we'll see. we're waiting for the applications, and i'm very interested in seeing how this technology progresses. >> okay. >> our colleagues at the u.s. department of energy have the tough job of look agent the merits of the various innovations of the developers of this technology, because d.o.e. has programs to fund some of the technology development. but we expect as the safety authority to be receiving some designs for review, and we've worked hard to prepare the agency to be ready to do those review. >> well, the industry is spending serious dollars in developing the designs of the

reactors, so there must be potential there. >> i hon ally -- honestly don't know. like many people, i'm waiting to see. in the past the smalling reactor challenge. it's never been technical it's been economic and financial. and the products on the market are difficult to know for sure. >> thank you. >> i'll comment, chairman. we're ready to see the applications. we have probably down gone as far as we can absent the national license application and expect to get one. latter part of 2014. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think you gave an answer to an earlier question you may have intended another answer. shouldn't an action in response directly to a crisis be the

first item on your agenda? shouldn't responding to the crisis be the first item safety on your agenda? >> yes. for in the case -- in the event of an emergency? >> yes, of course. >> okay. regarding nuclear waste, ms. mcfar land. is open public and -- >> i think this is an area of discussion. the blue ribbon commission on america's nuclear future looked at the issue. they said consensus was an important piece of citing. that citing positions weren't just technical decisions but societal. i think if you look at the experience of other countries on this issue, ones that have been more successful recently, countries like sweeden and finland and france, that local consensus is important. >> do you -- does yucca mountain have local public assistance?

>> it's not for the nuclear regulatory commission to judge that? >> okay. that's fair enough. in november, the u.s. court of appeals the district rule that the department of energy can no longer collect the $750 million in annual waste disposal fees for nuclear operators. how would the ruling effect the nrc's ability to develop nuclear storage waste site? >> at moment, it's not going to affect us at all. >> i'm not sure which commissioner asked the question. how long would it take to get license reviewed for a nuclear power plant design? >> for a new power plant design? >> right. right. from scratch. >> umm -- design certification? >> right. >> it takes some months to a few years. it should. but it depends, in large part,

on the quality of the application, and if there are problems with the application, then we have number of interrations with the applicant. [inaudible conversations] >> i would like to comment. >> i hear stories about it takes five years or ten years. that's unlikely to be due to some area of the problem in the application. >> it does take around that time. sometimes longer but seven years. now, if there are really new designs like the small reactors, it will be several policy issues that have to be resolved. so i don't know how long that will take. >> is it -- there's no such thing as the average case with these things. but on average, i would expect the design is usually about a three-year exercise. but to actually implement that to build the plant takes considerably longer.

really depends on the situation. for example, if another applicant comes to build an ap1,000 plant which has been certified, as you noted which was under construction. it will be a more of a process than if somebody came with a new design. it depends on the application is. >> thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate your comment about the commission's challenge, and balancing the probably for low probability events versus the day-to-day events that need constant attention. how does the commission go about making those sort of decisions? >> we're working on that right now. >> thank you. >> one of the things you said was, i think quoting it, the cumulative effect of regulations, that sounds like something out of fox news.

could you clarify what you meant by that, please? >> we have, especially after fiewk fukushima accident and the regulations on the commission there were at lough complaints by industry we are issuing regulations without considering other that have to comply with. the decision of the commission is focused on the particular -- [inaudible] think about the cumulative effect. what is it do they have to do? do they have the resources? do they have the time? and is every single regulation or request by the nrc of equal importance? that's the issue of cumlative effect on regulation. the commission responded. >> okay. thank you. >> i county know my colleague

was a fan of fox news. [laughter] chair recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was presently surprised to learn that ncr can review a design application in a few months. you have three right now in five to seven years. might go back and put those out before christmas. that take about a month or two. i'm going ask the question a little bit different way. since yucca mountain is under review. and the commission indicates you don't have the resources to complete the review process, anybody want to estimate about how much additional funding you

might need? that's not a trick question. i'm interested. >> in order to assess and develop the order we issued last month at restarted the licensing process, we did receive some input. i don't want to say they a full if i dealty. we have attempted to submit by us the by judicatory award and the staff. some estimates for the activities. but i would not characterize, sir, we have a complete, current estimate to getting all the way to a final licensing decision. we know that restarting the adjudication would be a resource-intensive activity. >> i'm not flying to be cute here. apt general ballpark estimate. a few billion, million, some sort of a -- for nrc's activities alone,

again, this depends on how the department of energy is resourced to support our activities. because they're also a participate in that. it's very difficult for me to estimate the total dollar. before activity were us is mended our budget request from nrc were varying. they were approximately -- in some years they were close to $100 million. that began to take tamper down a bit. i think closer to $50 million a year. so based on where had been in previous year when the review was underway. i think the estimate of hundreds of millions is probably the area of very difficult to estimate. >> that's good. as commission or administration, is not the commission taken a position on mr. terri's reform bill? >> has the commission as a whole? no. it has not. >> do you have an opinion on this bill? >> yes, my opinion is that my

personal opinion is that it's not necessary at this time. it may have unintended consequences. >> okay. any other commissioner wish to give your opinions? you don't have to. i'm just interested. >> i'll comment, congressman barton. i think july of last year, i responded to qfr hearing to chairman and just my position was with chairman here, the challenges we as a commission at the previous chairman gone away that were offered hope and environment. there will be greater clarity. there's some aspects they personally told chairman my response dealing with clarification of invocation of emergency powers.

for instance, benefit from clear clarity in the statute. >> the last time the commission was here, i pointed out to the chairman you hadn't given a report on the fukushima accident, and you finally did ash report last week. so that's the good news. the no so good news, there's still loss lots of things the report didn't address. i'm just going to go through a quick listing of what the staff has indicated to me was not addressed in the report. you didn't address the fact that the u.s. had an independent regulator you're, japan does not. the u.s. has an institute of nuclear power operators to establish best management practices. japan does not. the u.s. requires severe accident-management guidelines,

japan does not. the u.s. requires complex training scenario sight specific and japan does not. u.s. requires water level procedures for boiling water reactors, japan does not. the the u.s. requires sight specific evaluation criteria, japan does not. and the u.s. has requirement for basic flood planning that japan does not. all the thing the u.s. does we can give your commission kudos for requiring that. that's a good thing. the fact that none of this was considered in your evaluation of the accident, my question to the chairwoman, do you consider the report that was issued last week to be the final word or do you agree with me that more work needs to be done? >> the report that was issued last week noted that it wasn't comprehensive. it noted there were similar design basis requirements

between the u.s. and japan prior to the accident. there were different approaches to beyond and severe accidents. at the same time, the report concluded there was no evidence that a fukushima-type accident would have been necessarily avoided in the u.s., and i go back to something commissioner mentioned earlier. i think maybe in his opening statement about the importance of operating experience. in the nuclear industry, operating experience is essential, and from the accident we learned that we had not taken in to consideration a number of important issues. we had not prior to that accident considered that more than one reactor could melt down at the same time, for instance, there were a number of other issues we did not consider, and i just want to point out it's not something unique to the united states and the nrc we discovered this. all other significant nuclear

regulators around the world came to the same conclusion. we are implementing similar changes as a result. >> my time is expired. i ask all the others to answer the question in bring write forking the record. >> all members are allowed to follow up with written question. the chair recognizes our colleague from the virgin island for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing it's always important for the committee to exercise its oversight authority over the commission as we do fcc but not to really interfere in the day-to-day decision making of the commission. the -- i want to focus on the bill for a moment. and overhaul the effective responsibility of the chairman and the commissioners of the nuclear regulatory commission and essentially rewrite the commission's internal procedure. do you think it's necessary or productive to have congress

rewriting the details of nrc's internal commission procedure? >> i think as i said before, the current internal commission procedures are quite adequate and that we need to be careful in any kind of changes that are made to the emergency powers piece because we don't want any unintended consequences. we don't want to go back to a prethree-mile eye situation. >> thank you. i know, that the commission spent three years debating and more than one year voting on the internal procedure. many of the issues raised by the bill were worked out by the commission themselves, yourselves and 2011. so i don't really understand why we want to reopen disputes that have already been resolved by the commission. the bill set inflexible deadline for commissioners to vote on atomic safety and board licensing review. the current did do not -- and allow for who need

additional time to reach a decision. chair, do you think it makes sense to have strict voting deadline without the possibility of extension? >> well, the nrc is adjudicate story body and some of the indicationing they receive are complex technically and legally. and sometimes they take quite awhile to resolve. i know, of know other court or adjudicatory body that has stage tour time limit that operate over the statutory time limit. >> thank you. right now they developed a budget and present it to the commission. under the bill, and our staff present a budget not the chairman. so, again, chairwoman, do you think it makes sense to strip the chairman of the responsibility to present an annual budget to the commission? >> i think it's important for a

body to function properly that someone has to have a leadership role. and somebody has to, in this case, present a budget. i think it's important for oversight committees to have somebody to hold accountable. and i would imagine that budget is development taking place with staff with the executive director. >> it does. i think you can my colleague to comment. the budget development that occurs since i've been there has been done in a collaborative. >> i want to try to finish up one more question. back in october of 2011 for nrc commission sent a letter to the white house to express concern about the chairman then. it was a -- break down of the relationship of the commissioners. and the bill requires commissioners sent future letter to the president if they believe the chairperson has not complied with the nrc internal procedure. so again, chair lady, do you think if makes sense?

it's going continue to -- among the chairman and commissioner? >> i don't want to comment on what happened before me. i want i just will say and maintain i think now the commission is operating collaboratively. and encourage you to check with my commission colleagues on that issue. >> well, go ahead. i have about a minute for you to answer. it. >> i agree that the commission is currently very colleague l body. >> i agree. >> i agree as well. let me take a second just to say that after having gone through the last few years, i'm extremely appreciative of what they tried to do with legislation. i think that it's -- for congress to take a look at the legislative background of the agency given recent event. i agree with the commissioner that there are some aspects of

the urbanization plan that probably requires some clarification. i think you have pointed out some things that could lead to unintended consequences. i think it's certainly something that in worth looking at. i think there's room for clarification. >> i agree, commissioner. the comments and add two piece. one, i think the chairman needs to be able to the chairman and exercise leadership role. and he or she has to have a appropriate authorities to do such. i think there are places where greater clarification could be helpful. i believe it's a piert of congressman terri's efforts in several cases here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ic that the commission itself has the authority and to wherewithal to make the clarifications. thank you. i yield back. >> recognize the gentleman from

georgia. >> vice chairman. >> thank you very much. i'm pleased to have the commission and the body because indeed we are too. as you know. chairwoman mac farland. i understand you spoke last week to a conference in japan, you indicated, and i quote, we have no ultimate plan for spend fuel dispositions, end quote. i don't know if this statement reaches the depth of the -- but if there is no plan, what was the basis of the dc circuit issuing a writ of law compelling the agency to resume the -- i think i was referring in general to the fact that globally there is, right no, no high level waste repository in

any country. i was speaking broadly at the workshop. >> if there is no plan, what is the basis for our electricity rate payers to pay $750 million to the federal government every year? i think the court actually has the overturn that. well, i assume, i don't assume, actually, i assure you, miami chairman, i ashoe you -- assure you there is a plan. there may be a few people that want to say there's no plan. there is a law. and 335 -- not just republicans, 335 house members voted for that plan this summer. i think what we need to see is your plan for fully and

faithfullying complying with the law. i would expect the agency that is statutorily mandated to complete an action. in this case, the license review to have a plan and doing so. failing to plan is planning to fail. is the nrc preparing this integrated plan that would accomplish all actions necessary and support of a final decision including detailed schedule, and resource estimated? >> we are in the process of carrying out the staff in the process of carrying out the order i referred to that we issued on november 18th. as i understand our staff is going to be providing the commission with a plan to move forward to care out a plan later this month.

starting from your right, would you support preparation such a plan, and if you would not, why not? i do support the development of these tips of estimate within the agency to inform as we noted in our order our future budget deliberations. >> as i understand, certainly. to be perfectly honest we have focused on implementing the court's distribution. where do we go from here? and i think you phrase we were talking about this yesterday very brief way. i personally support growing a

plan to see what it takes to move forward. >> the commission has directed the staff, and i quote here, complete the safety evaluation report using the appropriate -- underway on the ser was suspend napped is the staff should work on the completion of all remaining volumes concurrently issue each on completion. these are the my final questions. will that follow the previous schedule in place. the previous schedule when it was terminated. >> when it was terminated? the effect of the staff is developing their plan to move forward. they're going to be given that to us later this month. >> back then, volume three was the next scheduled for release. can you tell the committee

expect to see that volume volume three? >> we don't have that detail right now. and i don't want to say more, because right now this issue is subject of pending motion before the commission and maybe subject of legal action. we can't go great degree on the issue. >> mr. chairman, i i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from texas. >> i would like to take a minute. our colleague, congressman, it's the first time, i've seen you, fill. -- phil. and i know we share the loss of your mom. i haven't had a change to talk to you about it. i appreciate your friendship and what we do on the committee. with that, having been on both the subcommittees far number of years. i appreciate the panel both the chair and the members because over the last few years, that is not been the relationship between the chair and the members.

and -- i know congressman is trying to go with the bill. trying to solve a problem that a lot of us perceive in the hearing over the last few years. i have some concern about the chairman issue. and maybe we can look at that. i appreciate the partnership and the working relationship that the chair, instituted and the agreement that we have. i know, it's an unusual way we have an agency to do that with the power of being in the chair so much. but over the last few years, we've seen, you know, we haven't expanded our nuclear power base. we hope to do that. and frankly, i guess i want to go to some questions about what we have done as compared to fukushima, and i'll go those directly. you discuss nrc reactor oversight process and the five

column of action matrix in your testimony. column one consistent of the best safety and security performance. column two and three requires increases in the rc oversight and enhanced inspection. would you agree it means that there may be safety or security issues that require the commission's attention? >> certainly they require the staff's attention, yes. and the commission overall, certainly. >> you state there are 78 reactors in column one, and 78 in column two, and 7 in column three. would you agree the majority of our nation's nuclear reactors are meeting the highest safety and security standards? >> the majority of our nuclear reactors are operating safely, yes. >> recently they acknowledged there are currently 56 rulemaking under way at the commission. do you know how many relate to safety or security? >> i'm not sure, exactly.

if the majority of our nuclear fleet is meeting the highest standard what are involving leading to the rules? >> operational experience. >> okay. >> as you know in 1998, the u.s. government breech this obligation with respect to disposing nuclear waste. thus far every challenge brought before the court system agree that the government must fulfill the obligation. has reached approximately 12.3 billion. about 70,000 ton of waste. and the current level are nation