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

exceed the capacity even before it opens. in an cli123 '08 it was written the commission would take appropriations request under advisement in the course of the agent's budgeting process. with 30 billion in taxpayer funding and liability and waste that exceeds capacity, why would the commission not request funding for a licensing process for the yucca mountains? >> well, as i said earlier we're moving forward with the court's order, and any further budgeting decisions will be commission decisions. >> the court determined the commission must move forward. the administration determined that yucca mountain is not the answer. it that is -- if the answer isn't yucca mountain. how do we meet the obligations by the court? >> that's a policy decision that i'm going let you all wrestle with. >> well, i think the house we can probably deal with it.

we have some issues with the senate. the safety evaluations the nrc would be approximately six to eighth month and estimated $6.5 billion. in september 2013 the 12 months in estimated 8.3 million. in november it was reported the nrc staff estimated cost of 11.1 million. l.a. time the subcommittee addressed yucca mountain. we acknowledged the two through five -- is 8.3 the correct number? why has the estimate increased over $2 million over the last six months? >> as we said in the order, the staff's estimate has changed as a result of the proceeding being suspended for a number of years. and seeing anymore on the topic is not appropriate because the motion before the commission.

>> well, and i know if we guidance, mr. chairman, from the house side hopefully the senate would recognize there's a the court's decision we have to respond to. we obviously -- i've been to other countries. see their nuclear waste facilities. it would be nice if we actually lead in that effort even though some of our other countries are a little further ahead of us. thank you, mr. chairman. for your courtesy. >> the time is expired. the chair recognizes the patient mr. terri from nebraska. i think he wants to weigh in a little bit. >> maybe. first, i would like to note the issue what the nrc, the public has to have confidence in your, and there's been, i think question universally agree that there was a breach in confidence because you couldn't trust the nrc at one point in time. i really appreciate you creating

a atmosphere of -- if you aren't working together. i don't think you can be an effective body. i appreciate you restoring some level of rom rad rei and not a culture of distrust. on the other hand, it has been 33 years since congress has reallied to the rules and procedures. frankly, because of the breaches that occurred prior to your arrival, i think it is legislative malpractice to not recognize that there has been, well, now we know holes in the procedures. and i think probably the heart of that is the misuse of emergencies. and the heart of this bill is really about emergencies. i want to ask a couple of

questions here. morgan, would you lean forward? [laughter] appreciate that. do you believe there should be a deck will rare of an emergency? >> first of all, congressman, thank you. >> i'll do it -- that's pretty much a yes or no question. >> first of all, i want to compliment you on the work you put in to this bill and the thinking that you put to the bill. of course, one should declare an emergency. >> all right. that is not in your rule and procedure. that's one of, i think, probably the most important part of this is just to say that the chair does have to physically say there's an emergency. and not keep that from your fellow commissioners. now the bill says, and i kind of enjoyed some of the questions by

my colleagues. they made it sound like you have to declare the mrnl and right away call the commissioners. the bill actually says 24-hours. is that not enough -- is that too much time or too little time to november the other four sitting at that desk that you have declared an emergency? >> i think it would depend on the particular situation. i don't know we can imagine all the situations -- >> you imagine -- >> okay. and let me go -- because we actually then define in here what an emergency is. that's just simply it's a safety threat. or a security threat. we also are responsible for the security at nuclear facilities. i'm a little concerned about the security language in the bill, which requires the nrc to wait for another federal agency to

declare a threat. the nrc is responsible for security reactors. well, we practice this with our licensees. >> all right. >> well, then, i disagree with that interpretation, but if you would like to work fufort on that, that's fine. you have -- are you again the emergency provision? >> in this bill? >> yeah. >> yes, i am. >> you said it will have unintended consequences. can you tell me what the unintended consequences -- >> well, -- >> will you let me finish, please. of having to notify the four people on your right and left you have declared an emergency. >> i've said earlier and previously before the body and i pledge again to let my colleagues know in the event of an emergency and certainly let you all know -- >> well, if you have pledged it -- i think the next commissioner

should have the same responsibilities. but until we change the rules, i don't know if the next person that take over your role will be as responsible as you, and that's why your prior chairman has shown that we have a big hole in the spread yours. and the next one may be i think mr. green was kinder by saying imperial. but that's why we have to change the rules. i don't think a 2-hour notice to your colleagues and to this committee if there's a safety threat is that extraordinary? i think it's pretty reasonable. and the other part of that is you do have the power to declare under this the emergency. t only if it's more than 30 days where we want the commissioners to actually be involved. before then, for 30 dais all you have to do is within 24-hours

say there's an mrnlt. -- emergency and you are satisfied. it's hard for me to get through my mind turning to your assistant and say, make sure we e-mail our commissioners. that took five second for me to say. but that's ebbs the record their for you? i'm just having a hard time with that. i yield back. >> yield back the time. the chair recognize the gentlelady from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you all on the commission for being here today. as you know, i represent nuclear power plant. which is owned and operated by pge. it is a major contributor to our local economy. and obviously play an important role in our state's energy port follow you. but sit on two earthquake faults safety is obviously is a top priority. every power plant must be built according to a safe shut down earthquake sse standard, as we

know. which is the maximum ground shaking that key safety elements are designed to withstand so can safely shut down. at the condition of the operating license, the nrc required its safety systems to be evaluated using industry standards calculations and tests to ensure that it could meet the sse level. but the nrc did not require the same industry standard calculations and tests to be used to evaluate the same shut down standards for an earthquake along the vault. in other words there's new information which was predicted to be stronger than the reactor licensed to withstand. i believe that is sort of a commonly understood now. and since then, of course, we have discovered a shoreline fault. and the same region which is even closer to the reactor. and also not yet fully understood. makes a lot of my constituents very nervous.

to my knowledge, the nrc has still not required safety testing using the same industry standards methodologies that originally required the operating license. in other words, there is some inconsistency here. dr. michael peck, the nrc former senior resident inspector even filed a noncompliance -- nonconcurrence report with the nrc saying the reactor was not in compliance with it license. chairwoman mac farland, in light of the expert opinion, what is the nrc doing to assure it's in compliance with the seismic safety compliance? >> the key yab low can -- he's written the report i said -- i've asked you to an in light that have. >> right. and the nrc's rue is that the canyon plant is within compliance that there are actually three design basis

earthquakes. the design basis, the double design basis, as you mentioned, and the earthquake which was discovered in the 1980 the plant was reevaluated to sphee it would withstand that. it can. reevaluated? >> yes yes. and the shoreline fault was evaluated by independent analysis. and that -- an earthquake that could produce. >> by the by sis earthquake. the plant is are canned within compliance. but let me say that we're now we asked all nuclear power plant in the country to reevaluate their seismic hazard. they are in the process reevaluating. and the reevaluation is do in to the commission in march of 2015. will the new evaluation canyon they're doing themselves be required to prove that the

reactor can withstand the stronger shoreline earthquakes using -- are you use the same standard? we're using the most up to date meth dolls to dot size mack hazard reevaluation. >> do you believe they fully incorporate? >> i co. to the best of my knowledge. i can certainly take for the record and give you more detailed answer. >> it is a complicated issue. and this is justice a five-minute question. i want to make sure that you could provide me with a copy of dr. michael's differing opinion. are you able to do that, please. i can have a copy of it. i have to check on that, but i will take your larger question for the record here and give you more detailed answer. >> okay. your response is rather troublely in light of the

particular changes in the nrc tran parent sei policy. i'm curious to know whether this new policy the fact that only the rajiving her out chairman are allowed to ask for information how it affects your decision. >> i don't know i want to be clear here. we haven't significantly changed our policy. we are going to be as responsive and transparent as we ever were. and certainly when you have concerns about a reactor within your district. we are going to respond as completely as possible. >> i appreciate this. i know, mr. chairman, i want to make final comment, because i'm looking forward to getting these documents soon. this is a particular interest to my constituents. i'm pleased to hear in response to -- that in light of recent changes in the nrc tran parent sei policy you're still willing to get a response to us. but i am very troubled by the

new policies that really preclude transparency from members of a committee with oversight to be able to ask strictly for information both as a member of the committee and as the one with a nuclear plan in my district. i find the policy itself to be unacceptable. and that's with no offense to my good friends the chairman and ranking member. but i should be able to freely address your committee. >> and you still are. you still are. i appreciate it. but i hear your concerns. >> all right. thank you very much. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, for five minutes. >> i thank the chair and welcome the commissioners. 77.9 miles from my house, is the south texas project. there are two reactors there.

south texas project is in hurricane alley. and yet for 25 years now, they've provided safe, reliable power for southeast texas. and our whole gulf coast. i want to -- from the questions from chairman my district is home to ford. a large construction company looking at making some small reactors using that technology. as you know, these are smaller, reactors that could someday make new nuclear power are a available in more places. my first questions to you, mr. chairman, that's good but as the process goes it's sometimes too

deliberative. as chairman said, it takes an average of seven years. i know, they have a role in this. but safety is critical. can you tell me, what are some delays, what can you, the nrc do to keep the small reactor size tombly? >> thank you for the question. the design certification process is a two-way street, and as i mentioned before, we do need high quality applications. an so what often delayed the process is a questions that we have about the application because we didn't get a high quality product to begin with. to try to avert that in the case of small modular reactors. we have been working with the potential applicant. telling them what they need to

provide to us. and making sure they clearly understand that. maybe my colleagues would like -- >> that's my question. anything to add, madam? >> i would note that some of the are more innovative than others. i think the design is less similar to something we have previously aprued. it's likely we have a series of questions we want to ask to assure ours a safety. >> commissioner? >> during the review especially when the design was -- [inaudible] technical issues arise, but require response from the applicant and evaluation by the nrc staff. this happened with -- with the

general electric, and these technical issues, unfortunately, are of the nature that, you know, they are not resolved within a week, two weeks, or a month. i don't know when the issue is going to come up. i think, you know, five to seven years is not an unreasonable time. >> yes, i have to get the commission back and commission your answer for the record. i want to ask this. i'll call you a captain. as guy spend -- it's great to welcome here. and the fellow graduate and the university of texas law school. welcome, welcome, welcome, i know you are looking forward to this weekend. the football game happening

between your alma mater, the navel academy, and the army at west point. and with all due respect, chairman here, we are looking for 2012 straight victories. >> go navy! [laughter] >> there we go. i'm in support of nuclear power. coming from a state that needs more baseline power, we need more nuclear power plant. in south texas they have been trying two reactors for about a decade. stop and start and some things have back home in texas. i'm excited because we are building two new plants there in georgia and south carolina. who are so you learned? it's been a long time since we've authorized new reactors. what have you learned good and bad so i can help south texas? >> one thick i'll comment on. go back to my navy experience 33 years ago i was on the second submarine and shipyard and responsibility for supervisorring the testing of the plant and leadership yard.

and this was the 25th submarine being built at the time. 1980uss atlantic. where does it go? where do you put out? how do you do the particular wielding technique in the orientation? and very mature program for submarine construction at the time. recontinuing to learn lessons routinely. we should not be surprised if as we go through the process we learn new lessons. there will be some issues that come up not anticipated. >> i want to close by saying, go navy! beat army! >> gentleman is out of order. the chairman recognizes mr. dingell for five minutes. >> thank you. i welcome you and member of the

commission. i want to thank you for your recent response and a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle asking the commission to complete work on the safety evaluation report. for yucca mountain. i'm encouraged to finish the scr and look forward top. madam chairman, as i mentioned on november 18, the nrc or the staff to complete work on the safety evaluation report for yucca pown contain and take approximately 12 month. this time frame made a few assumptions. i would like to ask you some question about the assumptions. on page 11, footnote 38 of the commission's order. first, the commission of the ser be given a high priority. yes or no? >> it will be give a high priority. >> madam chairman, approximately

how long do you take to gather the necessary key technical review ers? >> as i was to be say earlier, we're expecting a plan from the staff on moving forward on this later this month. but saying anymore on the issue is not appropriate because we have some pending motions before the commission on our order. could you submit some quick response to the committee on that particular point? now, madam chairman, is your staff developing a plan on how to move toward completion of the srcr. >> we are. when will it be completed? the plan to move forward? will be completed later this month. it is my understanding that -- the ser order. does the nrc have sufficient funds to complete both the scr and respond to nine counties?

certainly all litigation matters come from the nuclear waste funds. in terms of specific amount of money. because of this motion before us, i can't go in to anymore detail. i have my great doubt you will be able to do so. soon you can tell us, you don't, or co, or need additional money would be appreciated if you can communicate that to us. we want you to have the resources you need to do the job you have to do. madam chairman, approximately how much is it going to cost the nrc to fully respond to nine counties? >> i do not know. >> if you get -- when you get back to the commission see what you can tell us on that, for the record? now madam chairman, in response to the question on the record from the chairman, from july 24,

2012 hearing, the commissioners who attended that hearing expressed general support of the internal commission procedures implemented in 2011. it's my understanding these procedures are advised every two years and the commission is currently in the process of further revising,; is that correct? >> that's correct. ..

>> yes, and we are. >> with the other commissioners please give us a yes or no answer on that? >> yes. >> yes. >> do the commissioners believe that it's working with you each answer yes or no? >> yes, but we do have the procedures where they might be improved. >> yes and no. >> yes.

>> yes but i agree with the commissioners comment that they were under review again. >> you believe that every commissioners' concerns and inputs have be considered during the current process in other words have each of you had your considerations considered in the process of? >> my colleagues evaluated mine and approved or disapproved them. yes we all worked together on it. >> yes. >> if the commissioner had suggested a change to you each believed such a suggestion would be considered in good faith yes or no? >> yes. >> yes. yes. >> i helped in no way do you feel distressed that the questions but i want to see to it the commission gets the full

list support of the committee and its responsibilities in the harmonious process because god knows you are having enough trouble doing the job. thank you mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. thank you mr. chairman and all of you for being here today. a letter was sent to the nrc raising concerns about the staff proposal to mandate filter systems. as it happens the proposal not of the field the cost-benefit analysis which there were serious concerns in regards to an understated cost estimate that the advisory committee expert advisory body also disagreed with the proposal approach. in the response letter received the nrc stated that had followed its process for ensuring that a sufficient basis existed for imposing regulatory requirements chairman mcfarland would you agree that the current practice

states that a sufficient basis for imposing regulatory requirements means the change has been shown to be necessary for adequate protection of health and safety or as required by the rule? >> that's correct. >> would any other commissioners like to comment on that? the issue is the staff has tried to override the quality of analysis related to the filtered even streetscape the challenge under the backfit rule by recommending the commit to order. chairman mcfarland is in that process reserved for matters that are necessary for adequate protection of public health and safety? >> i don't believe the staff tried to override the backfit rule or the cost benefit analysis. i think the did a thorough analysis according to the information they have. >> is that the opinion of all of the commissioners?

>> i think this tactic an outstanding job of providing a difficult issue to the commission for an hour decision and i don't think they tried to circumvent a around any rule i think certain matters that required judgment to the commission they made a decision and we moved it forward and i applaud our staff for their work on this. >> i'm not going to take off my time by offering my support for, terry's nrc reform legislation. we are working on language to condemn the use of orders for only urgent and significant safety needs. to ensure discipline and the agency process for the regulations can provide some actable stability to the issues. with that i yield back. the >> of the chair will recognize ms. castor from florida for five minutes. >> good morning chairman and commissioners. the commission plan was submitted for the crystal river nuclear power plant in florida. it's a distressing situation all

the way around because the utility attempted to repair the plant and exacerbated problems resulting in the cracks in the containment and the repair costs soared and so that utility chose to shut it down. it's gotten a lot of attention in florida and especially among the of ratepayers because they are on the hook because ball in florida that says ratepayers pay in advance for constructing the plant and now they are going to be on the hub for both costs and then some of the costs of shutting it down without generating 1 kilowatt hour of electricity so this is an important lesson for states and of the country to have safeguards if you're going to proceed to have an advanced recovery fee said the utility has chosen save storage as the

decommissioning option which will be estimate will cost $1.2 billion this will proceed over 60 years to 2074. can you review at this point in time now that you have received the plan what the responsibilities of our and review of that plan and public comment? >> it maintains an oversight role throughout the entire year decommissioning of the facility and we continue to inspect the facility during the active decommissioning. after we receive eight plan from the licensee we will hold a public meeting and discuss how the licensee decides to move forward and accept public comment on this and we also strongly encourage our licensees to form community advisory

boards for the decommissioning process and in fact i did meet with the licensees yesterday and encouraged them to do this. >> there are other plans are not the country that are currently in safe storage. i believe is one. name a few others. they are now actively decommissioning so. >> in your experience with the plans that are decommissioned and in safe storage what is the likelihood the $1.2 billion cost estimate at this time will remain static and what's the likelihood of the cost for decommissioning and attention to the planned overtime will increase? >> i'm not that familiar with the cost over a longer. of time so that we take that for the record. >> do any of the other commissioners have a comment on that?

>> on another topic the bill proposes to legislate all offical international travel by all commissioners is approved. some might argue that provision falls into the category of micromanaging the commission but if the majority intends to legislate in this area we need a better understanding of the commission trouble. according to information route provided some of them have been traveling abroad quite a bit. some of this is to be expected in the week of the fukushima the disaster. there were 23 days of official foreign travel to asia, south america. that is to months of international travel it seems like quite a lot, more than 100 days of travelling on official business over the last two years and that commissioner traveled for 43 days this year internationally. this seems to be bordering on the excessive and i think we are

going to need an accounting here especially when the primary responsibility is in the united states. i think it's reasonable you've got to understand what's happening in the field internationally but since we are expected to mark up legislation that addresses the trouble i would like each of the commissioners to provide for the record an accounting of the international travel and explanation of why it's worth of the hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars that it costs. thank you and i will yield back the rest of my time. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia mr. griffith for five minutes. >> appreciate you all being here and as i said before one of my first experiences was while there was a fight going on so we do appreciate what all of you have done to create an atmosphere of collegiality. in regard to the bill i have to agree with him it does seem like it is too onerous and perhaps

land which can be worked out if you will recall the language to make it straight but when i was a kid there was a tv showed lost in space and would say danger mr. robinson. >> i remember that well. >> it seems like there should be a way that you can say danger, will ostendorff. [laughter] i would ask you as well in regard to the inspector general's report june 6, 2011 and then the one on june 6, 2012 have you had an opportunity to read those? last time you just got started. >> i have read those speeches and i think the impetus behind the bill is in both of those reports it points out that there were some conflicts over what information could be given to the other members of the commission by the chairman, and that led to a lot of what was going on prior to your arrival.

i think while i support the bill ensure that mr. terrie will work with you to ensure that working out some of the glitches that are there that he's trying to do what's right and you're trying to do what's right and i'm sure you can all get that worked out. according to the practice requirements must be shown to be necessary for adequate protection of public health and safety were justified by the cost benefit analysis as required by the baxter rule. i'd ask the clerk to put up the chart of the implementation cost compared to the nrc estimates. when i look at this in the context of the cost-benefit analysis i wonder how the use of more accurate cost estimates might have impacted the analysis done in support of new requirements. madame chair or any of their member do you have a comment on that? >> i'm not sure where your numbers come from. i would be happy to examine them in more detail and get back to

you on that. >> if you could do that for the record i would appreciate that. do you have any plans for undertaking this review of the previous cost benefit analysis to determine and i recognize you don't know where these numbers came from deutsch but do you have plans to determine if there is more accurate cost estimates that might be done assuming these numbers to be accurate to you have any plans to do that? >> i think our staff does a good job with their cost-benefit analysis and of the rely on the best available information. >> if i could supplement the answer buy noting that the commission has heard evidence of great disparities in the but cost estimates and so we did direct the staff to work to find case studies and instead of arguing about estimates before the fact to take a case where we estimated the cost and the industry's already implemented

it, look at what were the actual costs of the particular item there are some sensitivities on the industry side to sharing some of this information that we asked for volunteers to perform what we were calling case studies and looking at some of the regulation that way we could look at the actual cost to implement versus the forecast with the objective of improving the accuracy of the cost estimated. >> on a separate topic there have been as you talked about the plant's shut down one more next year and the reports persist there may be others. as a result of the decommissioning process, this has garnered a lot of public interest but i am particularly concerned about the money coming in. you talked about the constant money and there is obviously some other but the decommissioning plans don't pay as much in the fis has operating plants. that is correct is it not? so then the question is as the plants are closing down and

funds are decreasing from what they have been paying how is the nrc going to handle the decreases in the funds? >> operating plants are required to establish a decommissioning fund, which they set aside for decommissioning and we evaluate the amount of money they have in the fund every two years. >> but over time and if you have fewer plants this and be less money coming in. have you started making plans to deal with that reduction in money? >> i think we are okay right now but let me get back with you on the record. >> thank you for the testimony to all of you and i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee mr. waxman would. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. in line opening statement, i expressed serious concerns about the nrc policy for responding to congressional requests for them

on public documents. i would like to read that previous policy. the commission's general practice is to provide sensitive documents requested by members of the congressional oversight committee. will also provide sensitive documents to other members of congress when the documents address matters pertaining to his or her state or district. i thought that was a reasonable policy that enable the members of this committee and members with reactors to obtain the documents necessary for them to conduct oversight. the new policy is different nrc will lead provide non-public documents to the chairmen and their ranking member of the kennedy and documents only after pursuing alternatives that do not involve producing the requested documents. do you acknowledge the committee's constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of the executive branch?

>> of course. >> in the absence of the claim of executive privilege the nrc has no legal basis to withhold. >> not from its oversight committees. >> the new policy also provides to each commissioner the opportunity to review documents before they are turned over to congress and to object to producing specific documents. this policy creates a potential for significant delay responding to oversight requests. how much time are the commissioners given to review documents before they are produced in congress? >> we want to maintain with the documents are going in which direction and the decision to produce documents or how we will be responsive is the commission's decision and of course we would operate with the most expedient the possible and

being responsive to the oversight committees. >> the questions about a loving commissioners to object to producing specific documents to congress that nrc policy doesn't explain what a legitimate basis for such an objection might be and in the absence of the claim of executive privilege there is no legal basis for withholding the documents. do you think individual commissioners should have the right to prevent documents from being divided in congress even when there is no legal basis for withholding them why? >> certainly not and again, i just want to be cleared. >> when congress requests documents we should get those documents for some particularly sensitive documents we need to have discussions about how to protect certain information by limiting the oversight and that

i fear the new policy is much too restrictive. would you commit to thinking through related today with your colleagues and to consider making changes to the policy to address the concerns? >> absolutely i will consider your members will you commit to thinking through these concerns raised today and making changes to address them? >> yes. >> thank you. that's very helpful and i will look forward to further communications. >> the chair now recognizes the vice-chairman of the energy and air quality for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. appreciate having this hearing and all of you being back with us today. i know back in february when we have the last hearing will on the post requirements i had

asked questions. if we can pull up the slide on the cumulative effects we talked about at the last hearing wow, that's to show the time line of the regulatory actions for the average boehner and i pointed out how these are a lot of new requirements in addition to what is already needed for someone to operate a plant at the highest level of security so as you look at the slide were if you look at the next slide because we have another slide with even more requirements and if you notice in the bottom there is a little box that says this slide doesn't reflect the items that will be coming and that is one of the things i asked about and how many of those there are.

there wasn't a number that you could give me then that can you give me a number now of how many we are talking about? >> they are still under discussion we are not yet considering. we will see if they become requirements. >> do you have a number you can use as a ballpark what? >> the number of items that we will be considering i can't give you that number for the record. >> i asked for that in february and you said you'd get it to me for the record and i haven't received that. >> i apologize. i will give it to you as soon as we can. >> before next february bulkeley? >> before next february. >> that's good we are making progress. when we were talking about the cumulative effect this is an issue that can potentially

distract the entities death from executing other primary duties that ensures safety or security so i would emphasize as you are coming up with whatever that number as an entity for 30, 40, 50 new requirements and those are things that are already being done and i think we have seen our facilities have a high level of security we don't want to put things in place that would take away from their ability to keep that high-level when they are already doing a lot of things that are important and effective. i do want to go now to the next slide because the cost-benefit analysis is something important, to when you are putting these items together with each of these he would attach i would imagine some cost-benefit analysis to show what the cost is because at the end of the date it's hard working tax payers that will pay for

whatever proposals would come forward and it's a requirement that you attach that. this shows a history of the estimates pacific rules and there is a number that we have seen that initially was the cost estimate and ultimately with the true cost was until you find out what happens in the real world just to use these if you look below there were 347% of all that cost estimate. on the high-end you were 1449% of and each time the estimate was lowered not like sometimes your mind sometimes you are love. in some cases i don't know if you are lobeline the numbers to look like it wasn't going to have an impact but at the end of the date when you look at the impact it's very dramatic how far off you all have them and if i could ask everybody on the panel what are you doing to fix

this? when you talk about accountability maybe you have a good modeling maybe sometimes you are high. every time you are low low balling the numbers in a dramatic way he wore off with the tax payers and families that are struggling are paying these costs and if you come up with a rule it only costs 1449% more that's something we ought to know before you put that cost on the rate payers so if i could ask everybody just going down the line if you could address this problem. >> the commission is aware of the disparities and has corrected the stuff to solicit for the industry volunteers who would be willing to provide the business information regarding actual cost after the fact, so instead of -- >> of the other requirements you are going to have them fix this for you?

>> we couldn't compel this information by the industry, so we asked the industry if they were interested in volunteering because of some of the disparities we've gotten a very energetic response they would like to show us some of the detailed cost estimates and so that we could work towards the objective of improving the ability by looking retrospectively at how much we were off and what was the cause of that. >> of the commission has their direct staff to reevaluate and look again at methodology that they are using for the cost-benefit calculations. and i believe that one will receive the paper this kind of slide will be very important to consider and to see if they would have found the reason for the disparity.

>> five baghdad it indicates that many of us were concerned with the cost estimating situation. it's very important to get this house close as possible. and i for one would like the system much better. >> i would add to the comments that our process working with the industry we encourage them to provide their own estimates to us and the staff considers them and i think in many of the cases and i will point out the 1073 security because it had discussions with industry and the stuff in this area i think both sides within the industry did not fully understand the complexity of some of these procurements of the systems, motion detector, other security type of aspects so i think it is a two-way street.

we are not going to pretend to be experts as the agency in these cost estimate matters by ourselves with the industry's top and i think both sides have recognized the need to do better. >> thank you mr. mcfarland. mr. trash and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and all of you for being here and for the job that you're doing. obviously very important and we appreciate and may have some differences from time to time. trash and mcfarland, we discussed the indian point in the past and i want to revisit again. it's one of the most serious issues facing and i would want to urge to continue. there's a history that's been plagued by serious questions and

leaking fuel and inadequate emergency notification and respond systems representing the county which indian point decided has called for closure as well as the governor would as well so it's not something we take lightly. particularly concerning are the changes making to the emergency authority and respond structure. i know others on the committee share my concerns with some of the inadequacies of the response structure brought for the legislation and you have heard it but i would like if you could address some of those concerns. under the current law, the chairman of the nrc saves lives and manage disaster and the changes in nature 31 through 32 in my opinion would have the nrc governing crisis by committee

and also how poorly that worked at fukushima. as witold and correct me if i'm wrong before the chairman could declare an emergency we would have to notify the fellow commissioners the relevant congressional committees and the general public facilities i would like to hear how you perceive this legislation in the acting or a devotee to managing the potential crisis specifically for the major metropolitan area like new york i think they are adequate at the agency and i think the commission is operating well and operating collegial the and i don't see any need to alter or change the existing procedures especially with regard to emergency powers.

chairman i would also like to ask you in your testimony you mention the efforts they've been undergoing to determine what regulatory action is required to feed expedited fuel on the dry cask storage. i've been particularly interested where are all of the risks from the spent fuel and that it can be reduced by removing some of the dry. can you elaborate on how the nrc is prioritizing the dry cask storage of the spent fuel as well as the hurdles that might remain for the implementation for the safe storage system. >> we are considering whether to

require expedited transfer of spent nuclear fuel from the pull of the reactors to dry cask storage and the commission will be having a meeting on this in early january. we have a few papers from the staff that address this issue so it is an area of active consideration. >> thank you for that. as i mentioned bite been concerned about that for a while and i'm very happy that you are moving forward on it. let me ask you my last question. mr. terry's bill chips away at the authority of the chairman in the nuclear emergency as it was mentioned both of the chairmen again can declare an emergency only in response to the safety or security threat of the facility in the u.s.. do you think it makes sense to limit to the events involving the u.s. based facilities

materials and other scenarios in which other countries could trigger an emergency in the united states we are told with the power plants are near the home state of new york and the radioactive in mexico which is the incentive could have had implications in the united states i think the chair needs flexibility to respond to a new emergency wherever it is in particular in terms of the foreign countries canada has nuclear power plants that are relative near the border that may pose an emergency for the u.s. the united states has military personnel. the u.s. government what was that of commission to have a full understanding of the

emergency occurring as we have to make sure we have the flexibility to respond to the situations. >> the gentleman's time is expired and we have multiple branches of the surface turned to the colonel johnson from the great state of ohio. >> thank you mr. chairman. was the only air force but that's okay. i have a few comments before i get to the question and then i will ask it to each of you. we heard a lot this morning of the budgets and costs and when it comes to matters that are truly necessary for the protection of public health and safety of course, the cost shouldn't be necessary. i'm concerned that the industry is in a pattern of the ever-increasing cost chasing

ever smaller increments and safety game. if i could ask the clerk to put up a slide. of this slide shows how the nuclear safety budget has grown over the last decade. but i want to show you another slide. spending on the selected cost categories that shows how the industry's regulatory costs have grown just since 2005. that red line shows the percentage of increase in the expenditures compared to what the industry spent in 2005 the expenditure in 2012 were about to enter 30% of what they were in 2005. the spending has leveled off at about twice the industry spent in 2005. i'm guessing as the cost of the

post fukushima requirements of the line will trend upward again. i never stand when utility has estimated the cost to be 400 million, that is $4.000000000 that is a lot of money so that is the new requirements right now there are 56 rulemakings listed on the regulations website. the industry incurs costs to implement the requirements and then the nrc incurs more cost overseeing the industry's implementations. this seems to be a self reinforcing cycle of regulatory burden. not only do i question whether this is sustainable over the long term and whether the safety gains are concerned it with these costs. once established the

relationship should be perceived to be reliable and not justifiably in a state of transition and should be promptly and decisively administered so as to lend stability to the nuclear operational planning process these. nuclear energy makes a vital contribution to the energy security in our energy profile. one utility has already cited the regulatory burden as a factor in the decision to close the plant prematurely. for plants is economic viability is threatened, this increase in the debris burden is a factor that can't be ignored when considering whether to keep operating the decommissioning shouldn't be the only option that provides regulatory stability to the i think the situation calls for strong leadership from the commissioners.

what you think they should do to stabilize the situation and restore the stability to the regulatory environment. it does reflect and take into account the number of concerns that you just expressed for example when presented with a long list of potential area knous to prioritize those actions in to those the would provide the greatest safety benefit and we act upon those first. that would go on the graph once the actions are completed and then fully implemented is i think some of the cost will be loaded into the early years because we have acted first on those things that have the greatest benefits to safety. because of these events and the need to take regulatory action on them. >> i must say i was a little bit

disturbed by the slides that were shown today regarding the cost. i agree with the commissioner's comments but also in my opening statement i mentioned a few things that the agency is doing now. i believe the commission is aware of the problems and perhaps we need to do more i don't know what else we need to do. >> i'm going to let you go last of that is okay let's go to mr. magwood. >> i echo the commissioners. i would also add that as we go through the effort looking at each one of these regulations we do look at them in the context of what is necessary. i think each of us least those of differently and if something

isn't necessary, we don't approve it. >> that has not worked until now. >> there are things that have been proposed that the commission hasn't approved and we have been pretty aggressive about that. so it is in my view you meet the regulatory requirements and the requirements we put forward are appropriate. with that said that there is a very important conversation taking place within the agency to talk about the privatization of regulations and this is something that if successful would enable us to look at regulations and more holistic manner on each site and that is i think the path of the future and that's how you would best address these issues. >> i know we are over time but i would like each member to have a

chance to answer if he would involve just. >> i would agree with my colleague is comments and dad to whether fox -- and add to other thoughts. >> we have approved the staff recommended enhancements to regulation. >> but we are talking about the fact that our >> perhaps we need to explain these but we do post in all of the written notation votes are public and we explain in great detail every commissioner as to what decision we have reached and why and i will highlight one decision the external filter decision from earlier 2013 where the commission spent a great deal of time looking at the pros and cons of the cost-benefit analyses and can to the decision that did not require the

installation of an external filtered event but gave the industry more latitude to develop the faltering strategies so i think there's examples we perhaps need to communicate better. >> i agree there are some things you have done very well but in all respect what you are describing are things you have done that have put us and -- if he would quote keep it brief. >> i will keep it short. i agree with my colleague in the statement date made i do think that we are cognizant of the cost-benefit analysis but i just want to remind you that the atomic energy act requires us to not consider costs when the nrc determines a given action is required for the adequate protection of nuclear facilities and that was the case with a number of the orders given post

fukushima. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognize my colleague, my friend, my congressional classmate the gentle lady from california. >> it's good to see you. and i'm happy to see the five commissioners here today just as everyone else said and i just had a few questions. commissioner svinicki, you were on the commission in 2010; is that correct? >> yes. >> i want to get a little history cleared up and since you were there i want to start with you. in that year in 2010, they filed a motion to withdraw the yucca mountain licensing application; is that correct? >> yes i believe so. >> about the licensing board denied the motion and the

commission's stand the licensing board denial of the application; is that correct? >> yes. >> after the denial, the nrc didn't continue to review the application because of budgetary limitations; is that correct? >> the sequence of events may be different after the commission system and the licensing board. it made have been that the staff worked to have what we called an orderly that grows out of activities so they may not happen concurrently. >> what were the budgetary limitations that were involved with the reviewing of the applications? >> i wasn't the chairman then. >> and you don't know? >> i can take that for the record and get the answer for

you. >> since that point, the courts have ordered them to continue that review and you are now complying with those orders is that correct? >> that is correct. >> you've got about 11 million. >> this goes to mr. de ingalls's questions and my staff tells me that you have about $11 million remaining in the account and your staff estimates that will cost about that much to finish the report; is that correct? >> the safety evaluation report, not the licensing. >> and i just want to say i would encourage the nrc to keep to this time line and finished the safety evaluation report because it looks like we've got the money and its ongoing and i think it's important to have that. i just wanted to ask one more

question following up on what mr. engel was talking about which is the bill that we are talking about today and as a number of folks discussed the chairman of the commission under the bill would not been able to exercise emergency authority without consulting with congressional committees and other commissioners and the public and like my colleague i am kind of worried about how this would work. one thing nobody has asked you and maybe this would be a good thing for you to talk about is if we learned any lessons from to the sheena about what kind of quick response we need to have in a crisis what lesson have we learned from two fukushima? >> i think it's important for there to be a person who was in

leadership, who can make decisions very quickly. i think that is one of the lessons taken. >> because in fact what happened in japan where there were a lot of layers of the bureaucracy they had to go through and that delayed the decision making is that right? >> yes and these were lessons the united states learned during or after the three mile island accident and those lessons were then codified in title all and the nuclear regulatory agency was restructured accordingly. >> thank you very much. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from mississippi for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and each of you for being here. it is encouraging to see a much greater level of cooperation among the commissioners and in the previous year's so that does

bring some comfort and if i may start with you madame chair when we had discussions previously, i had asked you if you read and review the nrc inspector general conclusions in the june 6, 2011 and june 6, 2012 reports and at that point, you had not so and curious if you have had a chance to do that since. >> yes i have. >> i know the procedures after have there been any revisions i've missed since the june june 262012 report as a result of that? >> no i don't believe so. >> have you taken any actions to address the conclusions that we need to be aware of? are there any that you believe you should make based upon the comprehensive report of a point of? >> no. >> do you agree with those conclusions in the report? i don't take a view on those.

i wasn't here during that. period. >> i understand you were not here but we would like to make sure some of those don't repeat themselves so i appreciate that you have read those. and if i might ask that crc provided a status report on the power up rate to the commission and of course that is a term for the process where a nuclear plant requests approval to increase the power, correct? and to date it approved 74 requests totaling 70,000 megawatts of additional capacity, roughly the equivalent of 70 new plants so this is a well-established practice the would be true. in the staff report they indicate power projects have been canceled freeing up 3.9 full-time equivalent reduction

staff work and the staff also notes how they continue to have challenges in meeting the performance goals even though the goal was increased 50%. of the 14 applications under review event of the performance goals for replay the approving them was less than 12 months. in fact none of the applications have met the performance goal and i will briefly summarize. it's a well-established program with a decrease in workload but the staff is falling far short of meeting the timeliness goals being increased 50%. that sounds like a program and need of management and accountability and i will give you an opportunity to respond in a moment. in the commission response, it? it said it is no longer necessary to provide the periodic staff report on the power of great and specific

issues arise to and from the commissioners accordingly. employees focus on with their bosses focus on. if timeliness is of no concern to the commission it appears it might not be for the nrc staff. the lack of leadership will be further undermined as scheduled to supplant the nrc. the commission's efficiency principal states the american tax payer, the rate paid on consumer and licensees are entitled to the best possible management and administration of activities. riggins three decisions should be made without undue delay and i would like to hear from you how you think the commission would be best able to restore some stability and predictability to this program and if i could ask you that madame chair. >> to the power uprate program. thank you for the question. of course we are concerned with working as efficiently and as

effectively as possible in terms of the power as well. we have been working under specific circumstances in the past year or two and in the past year we have suffered like many agencies sequestration which has affected our ability to be responsive areas. in addition to which we have taken on additional work for the confidence that has redirected the staff sources for traditional and being responsive that has redirected the sources as well and then we have the industry responsiveness and again i go back to the statements made earlier that when we receive applications from the licensees we need high-quality applications that do not generate a number of answers and then we need efficient responses as well.

>> i see that my time has expired. >> the chairman yields back his time and we want to thank you all for a few short comments. i was invited to and attended the economic symposium put on by nevada in reno a couple weeks ago so i just throw that out as an interesting comment. a lot of the comments today of my colleagues i think based upon the industry. it is on the knife's edge is pressure on the cumulative effect regulation and so i think that's the set balance you might have heard from one of my colleagues and the commission and the former government is the chair responsible for the agendas and staff but you are one among equals of casting votes and whether that is at the municipal level and we applaud the commodity and moving forward in what we have been able to do.

i have to announcements. one is the nuclear fellow that has been tremendously helpful to us and me personally and i want to wish him godspeed and thanks for your help and i want to finish by thanking you all for coming along for a long hearing that was a good one and i feel we all learned a lot. i want to remind members the have ten business days to submit questions for the record we would appreciate that and i would say that the hearing is now adjourned

went missing during a 2007 turpitude ayn iran. they denied he was working for the government at the time of the trip but recent news reports say that he was a contractor for the cia and today's state department briefing the spokeswoman says the u.s. is pursuing all avenues to get him back to the u.s.. >> can i ask you about mr. levinson. the story has come out and we've interviewed his family's lawyer who says he wants the administration to refocus on bringing him home and also says that his case has taken a back seat to other issues with iran in recent years. do you have a reaction to that? >> i would make a few points. for six and a half years that bob livingston has been missing it has been a top pre-ready for the u.s. government to find him

and help him return to his family. that has not changed in any way. it's remained consistently top priority. you saw him raise it in the question with president roh -- rouhani and other americans we would like to see a return home. we do this and we raised this on a daily regular basis. it's always been a top priority for us. since he disappeared we have pursued and continue to pursue all investigative leads as we would with any american citizen missing were detained overseas and we have committed hours to this investigation and of course we want to do everything in our power to ensure that he is returned to his family. >> do you have any new leads? >> there is an ongoing investigation which is sensitive

and we cannot talk publicly about what that entails. obviously this is of a great concern and something we are very focused on. >> did the department view recent talks over the nuclear issue as a potential opening for further talks and is this a strategy that the u.s. is going to bring him home? >> we are pursuing all avenues to bring him home and we have said repeatedly that secretary carey raised it with the foreign minister when they first met and as we all remember this week raised consistently with the delegation. as we know he went missing while visiting the islands in iran. so as we have called on since the beginning, we've asked the government to undertake the humanitarian efforts to safely return and reunite him with his family because the government had previously offered its assistance in this matter and so

today we would reiterate the government of iran to anyone that has information about his whereabouts to undertake efforts to ensure that he returns to his family. the director of the national security agency alexander testified before the senate and judiciary committee this week about the nsa surveillance program. and some of those programs that could put the u.s. in the pre-9/11 state. senator patrick leahy has called for limits on the intelligence gathering powers if we can get

started because i know all the other things going on in the hill it's going to be busy today that i appreciate the general being here we are going to be reviewing the examination of the government surveillance being activities and the time we havef these, they're has been a series of new revelations and the latest raised a significant question about the scope and

wisdom of the surveillancelosure activity both at home and abroad and so we have a lot more wiom oversight work to do. a in the last week there have been press reports that they arerk collecting millions of records h at salles locerations around th world and track individuals and map their relationship and they're also been reports that they are monitoring on-lineeir video games which in the press reports raises the question because we can do something as it really makes sense to do itqn especially as last month of thel administration released a seyt f documents revealing details about yet another dragnet cu collection program in additiond to the phone record program. and this time they were gathering and the enormous

amount of medved data under the authority. just like the section there is nothing in the statute expresslc authorizes the dragnet collection of data on this scale all of the internet medvedev aty collection program we are told not currently operational,a collecsult is the series of major compliance problems just tke the section 215 program. ct it's not just once or twice buto continuously minutes and s the prn and again another reason why we should have a lotn more oversight and a lot more open oversight than we do have. the price ultimately suspended the program entirely for ahe

period of time before approving the renewal but they assumed it was important for the intelligence tool which is the claim that makes now about theae section 215 phone records. of te but then and 2011, theone government ended the tool as th. atrector explained no longer d meeting the operational expectations. it's important the administration doesn't believe there is a legal impediment inms the internet and data collectioo program or the futureting administration wanted to do so. the legal justification in the collection is troubling as withj the section 215 program the internet mazzetti the program was placed on a relevantmeta

standard and there is no limit in principle to the rationale. it's relevant to the counterterrorism investigationsp and now they are told all of the men the data is also relevant rele and game. in any country thisn interpretation is extraordinaryd they will have serious privacy and the implication in thet's future particularly with no communications and data technology developed. so it should come as no surprise in the american technology industry that is greatly concerned about the initiatives i have heard from a number of s that worry the global competitiveness had been weakened and undermined and they say that the american businesses

tend to lose tens of billions of dollars in the coming year and we need to make substantial ne o reforms to rebuild confidence ir the u.s. technology industry. this can be thrown away very easily and is more difficult to get it back. earlier this week eight majoreas technology companies includingg microsoft, google, facebook eleased a set of principles fo, set eillance report and the need to reform the governmentples for surveillance practices worldwidt the companies called for greater actices t and transparency. but they also advocated for the limits of the requirement totne rely on the targeted searches about specific individuals are are collection of the internet communication from all of us. i introduced the freedom act with the senator and my billcede

takes several of the steps so i appreciate the support we have received from the technology industry and i look s forward ti hearing their perspective on thy loi nd panel. without objection, i will place on the record an open letter eform principle to the i'll technology companies and anhe earlier letter from the technology companies and a dfert support on the collision of thes civil society organizations ac companies, trade associations and investors and without objection away part of the record. papport is represented in the broad based bipartisan supportee andntat organizations across hae endorsed the bill from the aclu to the nra and think senator blumenthal and for their cosponsor ship. this is bipartisan and it is

also bicameral legislation and common sense that makes the necessary reforms. so i want input on legislation and i look forward to working on this in the coming months. i do want to think the witnesses for being here especially after we had the unexpected cancellation in november. senator grassley i think you for being here. of course this is a very important hearing and you are doing the right thing by having the hearing because this is a subject of ongoing media attention and a lot of constituencies and first we last held the hearing and since then the reports of continued to surface in the media about possible overreach on the part of government some of them may be more accurate than others but many of them call into serious question whether the law and other safeguards currently

strike the right balance between protecting the civil liberties and the national security and that balance is a very important balance, but it's a balanced set for personal liberty as well as national security that both of constitutional law implications. .. public revelation that under section 215 of the patriot act, the government is collecting america phone meta data in bulk. why are many americans so concerned? well, it isn't hard to find an example of what can happen to americans' personal information when the government overreaches, mismanages and fails the american people. it's been two months since the administration tried to bring obama care website online. and the american people are

suffering under that issue. many finding they can't keep the insurance play planned and like. their premiums are ring. rt which parts of law the president will decide to uphold. in a few months, weaves and reports of incidents where osama carries protected america's personal data. one reported incident out of. an insurance broker was accidentally provided the personal information of 2400 people. moreover, there are many unanswered question about the website's ability to protect privacy going forward. now, i expect -- in fact, i understand the standards of the dedicated professionals in our intelligence community do not compare to those of the contractors who failed to set up the website that i referred to. but it is easy to see why many americans tend to be skeptical that the government cannot

quickly maintain their privacy when it collects vast amount of information. the president's disengagement on these important matters doesn't help. he claims he was unaware of the problems with the obamacare website before it was launched. reports say he was unaware of the report surveillance of many world leaders. as they did back in october, i called on the president. many programs are critical to our national security. the president is to contribute to the national debate by publicly explaining and defending them. this committee will have the opportunity going forward. i'm convinced there is a role for greater transparency for oversight and accountability in the fisa process. the intelligence community must be rebuilt and of course we must

be sure intelligence authorities are exercised in a manner consistent with our laws and constitution. these proposals should be subject to the same rigorous and critical examination to which we are subjecting the surveillance programs themselves. these proposals should address the specific concerns that have been brought to light, not to be the decayed all the battles. proposals shouldn't have a terrorist abroad with those of u.s. citizens here at home. these proposals shouldn't make it more burdensome for authorities to investigate a terrorist that is to investigate a common criminal. these proposals shouldn't return us to the pre-september 11 posture. we didn't adequately weigh the dedication intelligence totality of our foreign enemies for an

badly watching the debate closely. the balance between protecting individual liberties and our national security. reasonable people can disagree about precisely where that balance must be struck. that's our responsibility here in the congress of the united states. our witnesses on both panel represent a wide range of human islets were to hearing the view before you start, mr. chairman, they took certain further something you brought up that i had accomplished. at 230 clackamas secretary. newer briefing senators about the controversial nuclear agreement the obama administration has made with iran. i'm skeptic about a project, but i have a responsibility to learn more about it. i have to be here because i'm also as leader of the republicans know the importance of fisa and whatever work is done there for national security as well.

the chairman did accommodate us to some extent they live in ahead by a half-hour. i am going to state beyond that half-hour anyway to ask questions at least of the first panel. i had asked the meaning to be rescheduled in the mr. chairman to the this committee as he sees the necessity it. i think it's too bad this could not be worked out for the senators could attend both of these matters together. >> thank you. we tried to reschedule this one already. i've had to miss in the past because of conflicts.

usually in more detail. >> a kind of makes a mockery.ndf what they call secured. >> well, it depends upon whose ox is being gored, i guess it's more of a question who can get it out quickest. i do recall one of these very highly classified >> the top-secret was a photograph of the cover of that reeks newsmagazine that went downhill from there. our first witness is general keith alexander, director of the national security agency, head of the commander and begin to serve the u.s. academy at west point. previously serves security command and director of

intelligence and u.s. central command. your full statement will be made part of the record. the time you have, feel free any points you on to summarize any lady lake. >> chairman, thank you. i will keep my opening remark sure. i would like to get a few key things. first come nsa is a foreign intelligence agency. those action tools we do are to connect what we know about foreign intelligence to its going on here in the united states. we need tools to bring that together. i want to type recently about some of those tools. some of those tools six section 215 in my opinion and the courts are constitutional or authorized by congress. they are legal, necessary. from my live, the threats are

growing. when we look at what is going on in iraq today, what's going on in syria, the amount of people killed from one september 23 december is over 5000 terrorist related action and several other countries around the world. in iraq alone, in 2012, total number killed was 2400. from one september 223 december, that is risen to 2200 plus in a three-month period. on the verge of a thick hair and conflict. the crisis in the middle east is growing in the threat to western terroristic committees, their safe haven and those being radicalized are growing. what we found out in 9/11 and i go back to senator grassley, your comments. we can't go back to a pre-9/11 moment. so we have to find out what is the right way for a nation to defend ourselves and our allies and protect civil liberties and

privacy. the way were doing section 215 is actually a good model. not just our country, but the rest of the world. it has the courts, congress and administration all involved. why do i say that? the reason is if you look at all the information out there, the billions and billions of books of information out there, there is no viable way to go through that information if you don't use metadata. in this case, metadata is a way of knowing where those books are in the library and a way of focusing our collection the same our allies do to look at where the bad books. from our live, from the national security agency's is, what we do is get great insights into the bad actors overseas. without information, we take the information, the two from. he says from number, to number, time group for call and

duration. the elements of information we use in 215. there is no content. there are no names, no e-mail addresses. from my live, that is the least intrusive way we can do this. if we could come up with a better way, we have to put it on the table and argue her way through it. the issue i see right now if there is no better way. but we've come up with is can we change one? some undergrads economy brought out up a great point. 9/11 we couldn't connect the dots because we didn't have the capability to say someone outside the united states is trying to talk to someone inside the united states. >> we also people in the administration who refused to listen to fbi agents who picked up on what was happening in the united states when they were told it's not important, even though anybody who would've known it was. go ahead. i understand your point. let's stick to the facts. i had my first library card now is four years old.

i understand libraries. >> the important part for us, mr. chairman, is how do you bring information from outside the country to that which we have inside? how do you connect the dots? that's the issue at the metadata program. there is no other way that we know of to connect the dot. so that gets us back to you, do we not do that at all given the threat is growing, i believe that is an unacceptable risk to our country. so what we have to do is can we do more on the oversight and compliance quick there are things being looked at. taking these programs off the table from my perspective is absolutely not the thing to do. i do agree with this discussion with industry as well that you brought up, chairman. industry out to be a player. they've been hurt by this, unfairly. we had to put this on the table from two perspectives. industry has some technical capabilities that may be better

than what we have. if they have ideas of what we could do better to protect this nation and our civil liberties and privacy, we should put it on the table. we should have a way of bringing government and industry together for the good of the nation and we ought to take those steps. mr. chairman, i want to end with this statement. we are a foreign intelligence agency. our job is to figure out what's going on outside the united states and provide that level of information to the fbi and others operating in the united states. today, we've not been able to come up with a better way of doing it. i don't think anybody at nsaid administration has led to a specific program, but we need something to help connect the dots, something to defend this country. i think these programs have been expected. i thought how, mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman leahy, ranking member --

[inaudible] genes called first on the department of justice in 1979, served 13 years in the criminal division. he later became deputy chief of the division's public integrity section before entering private practice and was one of the deputy attorney general january 3rd, 2011. please go ahead, mr. cole. >> thank you on chairman leahy, richard member grassley for inviting us here to talk about the foreign intelligence surveillance act. i am going to focus my opening remarks just on the 215 program. as has been mentioned come in above the collection added data from telephone calls, including the numbered titled, date and time of the call in the links of the call. it does not include the content of any phone calls, any names, addresses or financial information of any party to the

call in under 215 come it does not include any location information. the government can search this data only if it has a reasonable, articulable is sufficient that the phone number being searched is associated with certain terrorist organizations. only a small number of analysts can make that determination in that determination must be documented that can be reviewed by supervisor and later reviewed for compliance purposes. only a small portion of these records actually and that being searched. this program is conducted pursuant to authorization by the fisa court. since the court originally authorized this back in 2006, it has been reapproved on 35 separate occasions by 15 individual article iii judges on the fisa court. oversight of the 215 program involves all three branches of government. within the executive branch,

numerous entities and nsa, the department of justice and the office of the director of national intelligence are involved in assessing compliance. we report any compliance incidents to the fisa court immediately. with respect to congress, we have reported any significant compliance problems such as those uncovered in 2009 to the intelligence and judiciary committees of both houses. documents related to those 2009 problems have since been declassified and have been released at the dnr. over the past several months, we've gone to great things to better explain publicly why the program is lawful. under section 215, there must be reasonable grounds that the records collected are relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism. as both the fisa courts opinions and our own 22 page white paper explains, relevant is a very broad term. in its ordinary sense, information is relevant to an

investigation. if it bears upon or is pertinent to that investigation. courts have held that large repositories of information can satisfy relevant hindered with a search of the whole repository is necessary in order to identify the critical documents. this is precisely the rationale that underlies the 215 collection program and was recognized by the fisa court. the court found the entire collection of both metadata is relevant to an authorized international terrorism investigation. because it is necessary, a necessary part of the process to allow nsa to identify phone calls between terrorists and other persons. as judge egan's recent opinion reauthorizing the program recognized, and i quote, because the subset of terrorist communications is alternately contained within the whole of the metadata produced, but can

only be found after the production is aggregated and queried using identifiers determine to be associated with the identified international terrorist organizations, the whole production is relevant to the ongoing investigation out of necessity. in addition to complying with 215, nsa's program must also comply with the fourth amendment of the constitution. here the supreme court's decision in smith versus maryland is directly on point. in smith, the court held the telephone users to convey information to phone companies for the purpose of running their calls had no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. smith cases a number of years ago. some question the applicability of it because it didn't concern a situation where the government collected and retained the bulk metadata and aggregated it all in one place. however, recent opinion of the fisa court addressed this

specific issue and noted where one individual does not have a fourth amendment interests, grouping together a large number of similarly situated individuals cannot result in the fourth amendment interest springing into existence. i understand that there is interest in legislating reforms to the 215 program in other aspects of fisa including the nature of the court process it out. we welcome this public debate in this public discussion about whether the current version of 215 and other provisions strike the right balance between our national security on the privacy of our citizens. both of which are important and has to be honored. we look forward to working with the committee to address these issues and to find the right balance. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. thank you very much. mr. cole. our last witness on this panel

is robert litt confirmed by the senate in 2090 served as general counsel of the office of the director of national intelligence. prior to joining the dni, his partner worked at the department of justice, has testified before the committee. welcome back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member grassley, members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to appear today to continue our discussions on intelligence activities pursuant to the foreign intelligence surveillance act. it is critical to assume that the public dialogue on this is grounded in fact rather than misconceptions. we therefore understand the importance of helping the public to understand how the intelligence community actually uses the legal authorities provided by congress to gather foreign intelligence in the extent to which there is vigorous oversight to ensure they comply with the law. as you know, the president

directed the intelligence community to make as much information as possible available without certain that diligence programs through the subject of unauthorized disclosure. consistent with protecting national security. since that time, director of national intelligence has declassified and released dozens of pages of documents about these programs, including court orders in a variety of other documents. we are continuing to do so. these documents demonstrate both of the programs were authorized by law and that they were subject to vigorous oversight is general alexander said bell three branches of government. it's important to emphasize this information is properly classified. it has been declassified only because of the presence of advances the public interest in declassification outweighs the national security concerns that originally prompted classification. in addition to declassified documents, was taken significant steps to allow the public to lenders in the extent to which we use the authorities in fisa going forward.

specifically as we describe in more detail in a written statement we submit for the record, the government will release on an annual basis the total number of orders issued under various fisa authorities and the total number of target affected by those orders. moreover, we recognize it's important for companies to be able to reassure their customers about how often or more precisely how rarely the companies provide information to this government. we've agreed to allow the companies to report the total number of one-person and national security vehicle demands they receive each year in the number of accounts effected by those orders. we believe the substrate the proper balance between providing the public relevant information about the use of these legal authorities thought the same time protecting important collection capabilities. a number of bills introduced in congress, including u.s.a. freedom might, which he sponsored, mr. chairman, 18 provisions that require upgrades exposures. we share the goals that these laws and bills provide,

providing the public with greater insight into the government use of fisa authorities. however, we are concerned some specific proposals raise significant, practical or operational concerns. in particular, winnie to make sure any disclosures are operationally feasible with a reasonable degree of effort and would provide information to the public. we also need to make sure the disclosures do not compromise significant intelligence collection capabilities adversary information they can use to avoid surveillance. mr. chairman, they work with this committee and others to ensure the transparency about consistent with national security. are open to considering any proposal as long as feasible and to not compromise their ability to collect information we need to protect their nation and its allies. we've been in discussion with the staff of this committee and the intelligence committee on proposals for an alternate means of trying to provide greater

transparency while protecting critical sources and methods. we look forward to continuing to work with you on this regard. thank you. >> thank you. i normally ask questions at this point, but senator grassley does want to make the other briefing. >> i appreciate very much that accommodation. mr. cole, back october the second, i wrote a letter to the assistant attorney -- to the attorney general requesting information about cases of willful and intentional abuse of authority by nsa employees. some of them were referred to the justice department for prosecution. i like to know whether these cases were prosecuted and if not, why not. i ask for a response by december the first. do you know the answers to these questions? and if not, when what i expect an answer?

>> i don't know the specific answers on each of the ones who cited, senator grassley. we are in the process of collecting that information. a number of them are not prosecuted. a number of them involved the risk of further damaging the national security by having to release more information. other sanctions were found that were adequate. we are trying to put together that information so we can give you an assessment of what happened in those cases. >> thank you for the courtesy. mr. cole, i want to make sure i understand the administration's position on the u.s.a. freedom act. in your prepared testimony, that those that specifically mention. and your testimony company safety administration does not support legislation that would have the effect of ending the 215 program because the administration maintain it is a lawful invaluable to protect national security. the answer may be obvious, but i

want to be clear for the record. do you understand the u.s.a. freedom act to be quote legislation that would have the effect of ending section 215 program, end of quote, the describing her testimony? >> senator, you've kind of asked me a legal question. i'm going to have to give you a bit of a lawyer's answer. it's going to depend on how the court -- if the u.s.a. freedom act becomes law, it is going to depend on how the court interprets any number of the provisions in it in any number of the additional requirements contained in at over what is here now. i think it will have an impact on what is currently done under 215. 215 covers more than just vote data collection. it covers individualized business record acquisition. depending on what kinds of records are being sought, what the facts and circumstances are will depend on the nature and extent of the freedom mac's impact on it. on the bulk data, i think it

going to be a question of the course interpretation. right now the interpretation of the relevant is a bad interpretation. adding pertinent to a foreign agent or somebody in contact with the foreign agent could be another way of talking about relevance as it is right now. we have to see how broadly the court interprets that are heard and hourly. >> i appreciate your legal view. just from a standpoint of the power process legislation works and since the president's commander-in-chief, the number one person in charge of our national security, i would hope we would have a firm statement from the administration whether or not this legislation is harmful or not end it would be better to know that before the courts get a decision, which would be now. i think the administration owes that to all of us, both proponents and opponents of what the situation is.

other than my other question to you as well, other than 215, the u.s.a. freedom act would also make other significant changes for tools used to investigate terrorism and espionage cases. for example, the bill would raise the legal standard to issue national security letters to require the information sought is both relevant and material as well as the information -- as well as the information pertained directly or indirectly to a foreign power or agent of the power. this is a change from the current dander, which is near relevance. question, what operational effect if any wealthy changes have on the ability of your department and the fbi to protect the nation. the >> senator grassley, the largest effect would have on the nso situation is the addition of the requirement that it be relevant

to or information connected to a foreign power. many times used in a preliminary stage of investigation in order to determine if the person who's been looked at is in fact a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. so the question is sometimes been answered through the use of national security letters. if you must answer the question before you get a national security better, it would reduce the availability of that tool in terrorism investigations. >> thank you, mr. chairman. two questions i will submit. can answer one more? mr. litt, one of the issues this committee has been lucky not is whether or how to add more of an adversarial element in the fisa court process. the chairman invited a former judge to be a witness at her hearing in july. judge james cardin explained in

his answer to questions for the record that he did not believe that having independent counsel review of government applications before it it would be necessary or desirable, and the pope. this appears to be an approach reflected in legislation passed by the senate intelligence committee. in contrast as i understand it, the freedom act requires the government to provide every application to the advocate. question. between the different advocate proposals in the u.s. freedom that in the senate intelligence committee bill, which do you believe is a better perched in making the fisa court process more adversarial and why? >> senator grassley, sent the department of justice at the age of the conduct the litigation before the fisa court, i am going to do for the answer that to deputy attorney general cole, although there's a lot of interagency discussion about the appropri