refinery in trainer, pennsylvania. i have over 30 years experience in the petrochemical and refining sectors of the energy industry and, before coming to delta, i worked in various capacities in texas and across the globe for one of the top five oil companies. delta air lines is the largest non-military user of jet fuel in the world and, like all airlines, we participate in oil markets on a daily basis. jet fuel after all is our largest expense. it contributes to the price of an airplane ticket, influences the types of aircraft we purchase, and helps determine whether we serve certain routes. because of all this, we are uniquely situated - both as an end user of crude oil and as a refiner - to comment on the crude oil export ban and the yurrent debate over whether

influenced by a car tell. it's clear who gains from this scenario: the oil exploration and production companies, many of which are foreign owned. with all the

crude coming out of north dakota, wyoming, texas, pennsylvania and other states helping to push prices down, these companies want to lift the ban and sell u. s. crude on the global market at higher prices largely determined by opec. and it's equally apparent who would lose: the american consumer, who would pay more for gasoline, more for heating oil and more for the price of an airline ticket. in in fact, according to barclays plc, lifting the export ban would stop the decline in u.s. crude prices and cost american motorists as much as $ 10 billion a year in higher prices at the pump. our country's refinery workers also stand to lose from lifting export limits. some recent history can help explain why. before the shale oil boom, there was too much capacity in refineries in the northeast and along the gulf coast and many were closing. in fact, delta purchased its pennsylvania refinery in 2012 from conocophillips after that facility had been closed for nearly one year.

the shale oil revolution breathed new life into these refineries and created jobs for thousands of refinery workers. by lifting the export ban and sending our crude overseas, we would reverse that trend. refineries in europe - where there is currently excess refining capacity - would be more than put simply, lifting the ban will benefit european refinery workers at the expense of thousands of american jobs. furthermore, in thinking about the merits of the export ban, we should consider one of its goals: to help this country achieve energy independence; and by the ban may be unnecessary at some point in the future. but we still have a long way to go to protect against oil

market volatility and achieve true energy independence. that's why - and i'll close with a sport's metaphor here - lifting the ban now would be like ending the game after the first quarter. thank you mr. chairman. i look forward to an answering questions you and others have. >> i have been writing about this since high school. i am glad to be hear to talk about the fact we might get the

ball through the goal post. we promote open markets and free trade and for 30 years we have spent efforts to promote open marks and free trade in energy. that is a vital interest of the united states. i appreciate the thoughtful comments in term of stimulateing full debate on this subject. we don't want to take policy or actions that enhance opec or russia to use energy as a weapon or tool of state craft. we want to lead from the front not behind. it is important for us to have this thoughtful debate. in doing so, we need to consider how to avoid creating market

distortions. whether they benefit temporarily industries or region, we want to make sure we are doing more helpful things than damaging. we need to export the oil and gas and in the form of refined products so we don't have export ban on gasoline or diesel fuel or propane and therefore we are exporting that instead of exporting the crude oil. what we are discussing is the best way to organize free markets and who gets the profits from the exports because we are not in here to discuss banning

all energy exports from the u.s. because we have physical bottlenecks that prevent us from exporting our surplus of natural gas, we are exporting coal. when you will block a hole in one point of the dike water pressure comes and something that is exported is a different think. i think the natural gas is the best example. no one expected to united states with the abundance of natural gas and lower prices it is promoting, no one expected the result of that to be the export of coal to europe. i am returning from the world economic form and i can tell you the entire discussion focused

around europe's need to reevaluate their entire energy policy because they are importing coal and not drilling for natural gas and have huge distortions that are creating an economic advantage for the u.s. economy and a great disadvantage for the european economic system. so we want to make sure we are continuing the advantages we have. i want to address the gasoline price voltility here. the solution to gasoline or any kind of consumer is the minimal standards for inventory. that is what happens in europe, japan, and south korea.

that is how they protect consumers about fires or cold weather. this is the critical thing to tie them through temporary things that come for a period of time. in closing, i want to remind the committee and our public that when we had a temporary disruption during hurricane k katri katrina, europe loaned us gasoline supplies from their mandatory stocks they are required to have. we need to consider the relationship with allies like europe.

thank you. since 2008, the united states produced more and used less oil due to advances in drilling technology and more efficient vehicles. this reduced oil imports and lowered our vulnerability to a foreign oil supply disruption that could cause a gasoline price spike. however, the energy information administration predicts that the growth in oil production will peak in 2019, and domestic production will slowly decline after that. lifting the ban on crude oil exports could squander this new energy security and price stability. to maintain these benefits, we urge you to defend the domestic crude oil export ban. after the 1973 arab oil embargo, congress enacted the energy policy and conservation act, which banned nearly all exports of domestically produced crude oil to keep this precious commodity at home and insulate drivers from price shocks.1 at the time of the ban, the u.s. produced 64 percent of its oil and liquid fuels, while importing only 36 percent.2 in 2013, we produced and imported nearly the same proportions of petroleum. the only real-world experience of lifting an oil export prohibition occurred following the 1996 removal of a ban on alaska oil exports.3

during the ban, much alaskan oil was shipped to the west coast. a congressional research service analysis found that lifting the oil ban exacerbated the existing price differential between west coast and national gasoline. in 1995, west coast pump prices [were] only 5 cents per gallon above the national average. but by 1999 west coast gasoline was 15 cents per gallon higher. when crude exports stopped in 2000, the average [difference] was 12 cents; it [later] narrowed further to 7 cents. when alaskan oil exports ceased, the gasoline price differential between the west coast and the national average did decline. 4 this experience suggests that lifting the nationwide crude oil export ban could similarly raise gasoline prices. barclays plc. predicts that lifting the export ban could increase total spending on motor vehicle fuel by $10 billion a year.5 sandy fielden, director of energy analytics at rbn energy, told bloomberg that if there are more oil exports "the most obvious thing that's going to happen is that crude prices will go up and so will gasoline."6 if the ban is lifted, oil companies could sell some of their oil at the higher world market price, which the energy information administration projects will average $9 per barrel more in 2014 for some domestic oil.7

the energy information administration projects that crude oil production will peak in 2019 and decline after that. this could be a temporary event. this gap between demand and supply will continue at least through 2040 growing by 13%. i advise you to look at the chart that the clerk has. thank you. this is hardly energy independence. any domestic oil sold overseas -- my mother raised a polit son -- any of the oil must

be replaced by expensive imported oil that could raise prices. it would be heavy crude imported from venezula and canada. canada's tar sand oil produces double of the problems with climate change compared to well to tank. neither are good options. the u.s. imports more oil from opec than any other source. they found quote interruptions may occur frequently. oil production in the united states is less likely to be

disrupted and providing security. the u.s. is exporting 3 million barrels a day of refined petroleum products. as a finished product made by american workers is being exported. that explains why the export of crude oil is being opposed as they would rather see it here and kept for american workers rather than shipped to made into feed product by foreign workers. the five largest oil companies made a combined profit of over $1 trillion in the last decade and that figure is based on their quarterly reports. our transportation system is powered by oil.

american families and the economy and energy security are vulnerab vulnerable. we must invest in alternative power like electric vehicles, advanced clean biofuels and public transportation. the president and congress should maintain the gas stubility. >> i will ask one question to stop this out and what jumped out at me. mr. hamm and bernet have

different veviews. hamm is for lifting the restrictions and the other isn't. but both believe the same benefits and pit falls exist for their position. lower prices if the senate follows their advice. and higher if we don't. so i think how can this be? they think same benefits and pitfalls institute for their position. is this a lack of knowledge on the effects of the policy? is it possible as it was alluded to the different regions of the country would be affected in different ways? is the question if export

restrictions are lifted, is it possible america would see prices go up in some parts of the country and down in others. zip down the road and hear the four of you weigh in on that. >> thank you, chairman. i think it comes down to one example i can give. bill days, a spokesman for the united states fund, talked about the nationwide export ban and said it insulated americans. in reality, he told the market in the graphs he handed out that it provided an unfair advantage. ...

is whether u.s. would go up or down as a result of exports. it's my position that if the u.s. begins exporting crude oil,

then the opec producing countries in saudi arabia in particular will act to maintain crude oil price by reducing their output. so my logic is based on the fact that crude oil buys -- prices will rise to an international level will not decrease. the net result of that would be increased stock to the refinery and the closure of refining capacity in the united states particularly in the northeast. consequence of that is less supply of gasoline and other fuels and higher costs. >> thank you. >> started this by the illusion there may be regional differences. let me take a crack. >> first, i have talk about how the international oil market works. sometimes people are unclear. it remine ease that refiners in europe have bought the product and cut their refun i are run.

so therefore opec is already effected because they cannot sell more of their crude oil to europe because those refinery runs are shot and our gasoline exports are already hurting opec. whatever opec policies they will take, they will take whether we export the product or whether we export the crude oil. it's not the issue; right? the issue is the oil market. we have a logan in the oil market. we call the tyranny of geography. the tyranny of geography is whether it means i'm selling refined product or the crude oil. he wants to sell it to the closest possible refiner. thanks how he makes the highest amount of money. the transportation cost eats in to his profit. that means that even if we were to lift the export ban, the crude oil first and foremost

look for a buyer inside the united states because that's how it would be most profitable because that would be the cheapest transportation. now, if it happens there was a refinery in mexico or canada that would benefit actual most of our today is going canada for use as that for the transportation of heavy crude. the oil will flow to the best possible use. now what that can mean when we have -- bottle neck a pipeline bottle neck or have some kind of a transportation bottle neck or we have some kind of regulatory bottle neck is that the bottle necks create some distortion that might artificially lower prices in one particular guyography for a particular time until. -- i'm over my five minutes. quickly. >> i'll be quick thank you.

it's important to know we don't export very much gasoline right now. a little bit less than 400 barrels a day. the primary product we export particularly to europe is diesel. it's about million.2 barrels a day. i don't see it being a challenge. i agree with him that it is tough to try to lower the price when the price of the commodity is patrol -- controlled by a cartel that committed to have at least 1 $100 barrel oil. it would not lower prices at all to allow exports of gasoline. >> sorry. export of oil. >> all right. we'll continue this discussion just know that the pacific northeast has a history of the highest glean prices in the country. it there are issues relating to the tyranny of geography in some way you can be sure the people -- and i represent this are going to be interested in that issue.

released from the center of -- mr. chairman, i want to insert in to the record 1999 study from the gao that exams the impact lifting the ban on crude oil exports from alaska. in that report, they state despite higher crude oil prices for some i are finers no occurred in the prices of 3 import important trillion products used by consumers on the west coast.

also cited. >> without objection. it's important that we make sure we have the full quotes in context there. you mentioned tyranny of geography. in to the north dakota to the gulf refinery the texas is actually looking to it speaks to the issue of we have a mismatch what we are producing domestically and our ability to

meet. as many refineries as question. maybe there's a little more room there. we're looking to some pretty significant diss. when you're moving crude from texas through the panama canal to come up to the west coast refineries, and still hoping to make a profit there. we're looking for some solutions. but this issue of timeliness is one that i have been trying to track in eia latest report they say the growing volume this time line comes up a lot in discussion. i'm not asking mr. hamme about a date certain. but really what is your general

sense on when these when it do we hit the misalignment or the mismatch that can cause some real disruption and, again something we have tried to avoid. and i'll start with you. okay. i think the mismatch is beginning to happen already. and most of what they do refining would be the -- [inaudible] and so with that is the crude didn't fit well with some of them. but you need to move that then to the more efficient ones that

can have this so the mismatch is beginning to occur. a lot of people expected to occur almost as quickly as they oversupply of natural gas. but supply demand was equal. price has been elevated a bit with projections of shortage in the future but with all -- we have 60% deficit with the and reduce that to 32% in nine years. that's a good move. >> lelt -- let's go -- he said it's coming soon. when are we going see a mismatch? >> when you look at the specialized model for the trading of products the flows

will be so high mixing them to the crude stream exports to canada use in refining will max out for our physical facility. unless there's some giant upsurge in investment for specialized equipment which is not on the horizon right now. in 2016 we face a situation like companies like continental resources might have to stop drilling. there would be a containment problem. we would not be able to find a place to store all of this if we can't produce it in export it. >> we haven't seen a new refinery in 25 years. >> well, we have seen two companies that i know. they put in expanded the tower in such a way to use more they

made an investment in ohio. but, you know, these kinds of investments take time, and so, you know, we don't have a giant amount of investments announced in the next year. or so. then i think it will be very difficult to absorb the flows. >> i'm well over my time. i know, mr. weiser is -- >> without prejudice any senator's time. if you can quickly offer your view. >> yes, thank you. so and third there are numerous refineries that are going to be expanding over the coming years in north dakota and texas. senator machin. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this will be a simple yes or

no. and if the answer is no if you can briefly explain why you would be no on the question. do you the x l pipeline would be a strategic advantage to the united states of america? >> the things that really hurt everybody up there is that the delay that is going on with it. >> you're in favor of it? you're a yes on that? i think the only way to keep it is lower demand. >> you're in favor of the pipeline? >> i think if we have the demand for the oil we need to exfort by pipeline. >> i got you. >> no, i'm not. the huge increase in carbon pollution that would occur and most of the oil would be refined in to other products and exported overseas. we keep to get the pollution.

others get the petroleum products. >> my next question. for those especially in, you know, all of our states west virginia we don't understand we have so much more. and paying high price at the pump. can you explain are they going domain contain that car dr cartel maintain that? and be able to control the prices since we have such a large find, if you will will, and we're going in a position for some time. can it change to where we in america can benefit? >> the -- and are just based on current knowledge. we're having a total paradigm shift in the way we look for and produce oil.

not only in the united states but probably eventually around the world. and so these temporary projections about the peek, in my opinion. >> the difference -- [inaudible conversations] >> the point is as the united states and mexico and other countries produce more oil incentive oil and gas at market competitive prices will be control antitrust laws if are company that sell and buy it. right? opec's power will be reduced dramatically over time. >> senator machin?

why is there a difference there? we're not on the world market with gas. we have more flexibility on gas. >> there's not a worldwide market in natural gas in the way oil. $15 or so in japan. transportation is harder and because of the supply is for

either mr. hamme or burnett. do you see feasibility for us bringing the price of gasoline at the pump down for the people. especially in west virginia all over the country? are they going see any relief at all? >> a decrease with both diesel and gasoline. the past 18 months. i think everybody realized that. >> they haven't seen a 12020% i did crease in the price at the pump. we're still 33, 53, 60 in that neighborhood. >> in some places you'll see that. and we're about 2:85, and down about 60 cents a gallon. and with diesel, run close to $5. >> someone explain why west virginia is paying when you lower crude oil price the gasoline will come down. i'm sorry. we have to call a little bit of

an automobile here. we've been told that there are going to be four votes. by my calculation each of the remaining senators can have the five minutes and that will be good. i commend them for buying a refinery in pennsylvania and operating. i don't think it's very good -- using crude from include in the refinery. we appreciate that. my questions. i think the number one priority for americans when you talk energy, is they want what they call energy independence. i know, you refer to as energy security. we're not there yet, but i can't think of anybody that has done

more to help us move in that direction than yourself. my first question for you is what can the federal government do to help us produce more energy in this country but specifically more crude. that's what you do. what can the federal government do to help us continue to increase our crude production? i look at this graph and it doesn't show us producing more than we consume how do we get there? what can we do? >> first of all, we need -- change the rules that are archaic. a lot of resource -- it takes 15 years to develop it. the numbers distort. we had to teach them how to count. at one time once they did that

they realize we're up 12.6 million a day in this country. that's first thing. we have to get the numbers right. the numbers are totally pessimistic. next thing, do no harm. we're going down the right path. if we don't have a lot of tax changes and things like that where people can go ahead with the bids. we can get there. look at the rocks. that's what we produced in the past in this country. past 160 years. we can produce them effectively. we're on our way to get there.

moving crude. we need address that. you know that. tell me what we can do what we should do. what you're doing so we can make transportation safer. >> rails come a long way, you know, since basically the regulations put out a bit on the level is deregulated. it's come back. it's doing a good job. preparation, everybody is working on that. so rerouting effectively you go

a month on at least on everything. and anything that is congested they're trying to as quickly as they can. so this is a new thing that come out. there's some standardization that needs to be done. the rails are -- they're working on it. safety is out most importance to them. and they're certainly doing their job. we need pipeline and rail. would you agree? >> i do. pipeline -- rail cost more. it will put to the places you need. pipeline additionally will take the place. >> one concluding question. how do we both expand and develop more refinery. we are building a refinery in north dakota, i think, first one in 25 years or something greenfield. how do we get more re--

refinery expansion and development in this country? >> well, you know, the gentleman is right. there have been some capacity added to these existing refineries over the years because it couldn't start one from scratch. you couldn't start one. done by the refining industry. you know, i think that overall, you know, looking at the regulations from building new ones they're going to be more efficient and better. certainly these will be looked at. and it's going to be quick. i know, i'm tight on time here. >> my position is there is sufficient capacity in the united states today in refining to be able to absorb all the oil produced. the issue is infrastructure and getting it well to the refineries. at the trainer refinery started

taking some back. we would certainly like to take more. the infrastructure isn't there yet. the projects the soim there. it's being produced. there's a lag in the infrastructure. but it will come. >> thank you. thank you, chairman. i want to go back to something you touched on and then would like to get everything's thoughts on it. one of my concerns here is just the potential lost opportunity cost in terms of exporting crude or the refined petroleum products. it seems to me we create more jobs by exporting refined petroleum products than exporting crude. can you expand on that. if any of you disagree with that, that position, explain to me how we create more jobs exporting crude oil than exporting refine petroleum

product. we had a text tile industry here. now we export wool and export cotton. we don't make it in the products here in those jobs have gone away. >> i have an opinion on that. when you do complex trading with. it's hard to say. what i say generally speaking is that the experience in the industry is companies like continental resources when nay have a better cash flows they invest more of those cash flows in to drilling. and therefore we have even more oil in this country. when a refinery raises its throughput rate, to 90% versus 80%, that probably doesn't create very many jobs at all. refining is a very job -- not a very job intensive industry. it's part of the reason why saudi arabia has so much trouble

creating jobs inside the country besides refining the chemical is not a labor intensive industry like textile. i would say on balance if the goal was 100% jobs you could create more jobs having more cash flow that night downstream side. the university of montana did a study several years ago that found that investment in oil production create one-third the number of jobs compared to investments in wind, solar, and other form of clean energy. so jobs and nrnlgt what you're interested in then investment in renewable has a -- bigger payoff than investment in petroleum. in any aspect it's capital intensive. not labor intensative. >> i agree. there have been more jobs created in the upstream sector than anywhere else over the last

ten years. so refinery. i used to work on one. it's not very intensive from manpower standpoint. 05 or 90%. capacity is about the same. in our business, it create a lot of jobs. one thing i want to emphasize the export of product is in a competitive market. export crude is not in to a free market controlled by opec. i believe it's better for the united states to keep the added value in country. if you look at the oil producing countries around the world, they're all building refineries. megarefinery. they want the added value to stay in country too, thank thank you. >> senator baldwin and scott. i'll yield back the last of my time. >> thank you. gracious as always. senator scott. >> thank you, sir. i believe our trade deficit is one of the biggest threat to the

national security. in your testimony you touched on how the export ban on crude oil could improve the trade deficit. can you explain a little bit on how it will improve our trade balance particularly in troord china? -- in regard to china. we're going to be hopefully in the unique position where our imports of crude oil, which are a huge part of our trade deficit are going to go down over time and already seeing that. we're going have a situation where china is going in the opposite direction. they have a higher and higher rising amount of their trade is going to be for importing crude oil. so as we move forward, they will be increasing in their debt and vulnerability to the international oil market. we will be able to strengthen our economy through these improvements in our trade balance.

and i think that one of the things china does for my travels there and discussions with them is they have this in a great cycle. they support iran, they support other players in the middle east that cause disruptions, instability, we have to spend our tax dollars setting our military out there and our young men to try to help with the trouble. it makes us more indebted to china. because they're buying our treasury bills and bonds and so forth. so which we can get out of that pattern where we're not having this constant burden of rising prices and burden on trade balance and china is the one that feels the pain of the instability in the middle east. i think we'll find easier to brick china to the table to negotiate with us about stability internationally. >> thank you. i want to get one more question

and give you the balance of my time. you have been one of the best guy unconventional business in to so speak. we could see another million or jobs or so. crude oil export cap what does it do our economy? north texas we have seen a tremendous surge. north dakota as well. would it have a major impact on the jobs created if we didn't lift our ban? >> it could particularly if can certainly put a cap and stagnate what we're doing in the future. so it's not a good thing.

get where the energy independent and call us opec have a severe step back. we need to follow through with this. thank you. do you want to comment? >> thank you, senator scott. long we have the difference between consumption and supply here, we're going have a trade deficit on oil whether we export or not. if we export more oil, the crude we have import more oil to make up for the gap. the way -- if one is concerned about producing our oil trade deficit. the number one thing is dramatically reduce consumption. we have new fuel economy standards that get us 54.5 miles per michigan. -- gallon. we could go beyond that and reduce the trade deficit. two things. >> before you comment i would say we can quickly solve the

problem our deficit by allowing us to get on the federal lands hundred of years of resources. >> i want to point out. every refinery in this country has a different configuration of what kind of crude oil it can or cannot refine. and whether we export or don't export. we're not going physically change that. except over ten year period. maybe over time. because of the tyranny of distance refiners will invest regardless whether we're exporting or not. if we have an inbalance of quality; right. we leave it in the ground or exfort. if we're having an imbalance of what kind of quality of crude we can refine in this country and what kind of crude we can't. and there may be a time when we could produce as much light crude in the country as could be physically, you know, by barrels we need. but we need heavy crude. there's going to be some refinery that already exist in

the gulf coast that have certain configurations and only so much light crude they can put through sppt we have to import heavy crude. >> i yield back the balance of my time. negative 16 seconds. [laughter] thank you, senator scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman i mentioned earlier wisconsin is experiencing a propane crisis right now. very short supply increasing prices. and so i'm very interested in subject matter of this hearing from a perspective of how it will affect propane. i have two questions. i mentioned earlier that one of the major components of our propane shortage in the midwest has been result of significant infrastructure changes. pipelines that have served the region for decades are being reproposed to serve new oil fields. we have understand that one

pipeline in april will be reproposed but traditional supplied propane to our area. as oil production increases. i think these infrastructure pressures will only increase. if more american infrastructure is dedicated to oil that is heading overseas, is there adequate remaining infrastructure in the united states to ensure that other fuel like propane continue to flow to americans? >> whether the crude oil is refined domestically or exported. the lo jig irks problem will remain the same. historically in the united states crude oil arrived in the gulf coast and all the movement from south to north. since the advent of shale oil the movement is reversed and moving from north to south. to where it needs to go to the refinery.

i don't know if it answers your question. i think it's going to continue. i think it's a good argument for keystone x l as well. >> do we know what impact the export of crude oil will have on the prices and the availability of propane and other critical fuels that are used in everyday life to heat homes and power tractors and do all sort of other things. >> i'm afraid i don't know the answer to that question. >> okay. well, the export of crude oil won't effect propane in your state. basically it's from the liquids out of natural gas production, and so we export crude oil or not it's not going matter. the infrastructure problems, hopefully we can get where we can build new pipeline in this country quickly and so people

have to realize that this is going to go forward as far as the -- money back in the infrastructure that is necessary. >> i was just going say. i've been trying to school myself in the production of propane. crude oil natural gas liquids can be a by-product. and propane is one of the things that gets stripped out of natural gas liquids. so the export of crude oil to

the extend stimulates more production in the united states or the export of natural gas to the extend stimulates more production in the united states it will produce more and more propane over time. and so people are expecting a giant surplus of propane over time. when you have a extreme weather event, no matter how much natural gas are going to produce in this country, no matter how many refineries we have and how much a surplus of oil there is in the global market. tyranny of distance. if you have a particular unique narcotic uses a particular fuel. you're always going have weather-related bottle necks. there have a number of contributing factor. a harvest that used an exesional amount. the supply were low going in to the event that the state has been experiencing. pipeline disruption for maintenance. complicating factors the weather

event alone didn't cause the shortage. it's -- regulated inventory. i'm hoping to back to you if i can give him the chance to answer the question. i want to followup on that. if not at the hearing after wards. >> thank you, senator. i will be brief. there hat not beenen independent analysis to predict the impact of lifting the crude oil ban on the price of gasoline and other refined products. one thick the committee can do is ask the energy information mrs. to conduct an analysis. unfortunately due to sequestration and other budget cuts they have to scale back the amount of work. i think it's probably for another hearing. >> i have run out of time. i want to follow up with you about that. i have heard that in your testimony at the end. and it is something we need to looking at not only in wisconsin but other states impacted by the

propane shortage. >> you all may be experiencing another first here in the senate because you're about to get what amounts to a joint question from myself and senator mor cow sky. we're both wrestling with the definition of energy independence. i probably frame it as how you go about defining energy security. i'm going yield to senator muir murkowski who would like to be part of the discussion. when i contemplate energy security. i think i ask myself does it mean no more import? oar does it mean the capacity for no more import? or does it mean more export than imports? i think the whole question what institutes energy security.

you may want to characterize it energy independence. i want to let my colleague weigh in on this. because you are seeing our bipartisan efforts perhaps in one of our we try to find new way to demonstrate it. woe are like an old married couple. i hope you let me finish the thought. i have been thinking about how we define energy independence, and we have a couple of end of the spectrum here. we can either be insular as a nation, and try to do it all

ourselves and basically thumb our nose at the rest of the world. kind of difficult in most areas, 0 we can where we allow for toward the shock of world prices. when i think about energy independence it goes two things like economic security. how do we ensure that as we deal with our energy needs we have also helped create jobs in opportunities. i don't view energy security to

be a situation where we close in on ourself but rather we open up to a greater extent but by doing so, we become less vulnerable to the impacts of other actions of others. i appreciate my colleague letting me join in on this. i said no you can't ask the question. i'm going ask it. i think it's important as a ranking and the chair on this committee to wrap up the very important hearing export the energy we're successfully able to produce in this country. so i thank the chairman. the vote is on -- each of you take a minute. we we can still make the vote.

[inaudible] produce were foreign owned. i would assure you there's more foreign owned refineryies than they're bringing in. that's what we have to look at the balance of the two. and so i would suggest that we look at it this is -- energy independence is that includes crude gas, coal, and [inaudible]

for north america. not the united states. it has to be include canada. and if you include canada, it's feasible for north america to be independent 2030. and what it means is that we'll still be crude import and other energies as well. >> so i would say i agree with that given my slogan geography they'll be balancing for quality and other reasons between different kinds of energy sources. in and outside our borders we have a free trade agreement with mexico and canada. i want to end with the following two points. number one, supply bottle neck now matter how they're created it makes intense as we heard about propane and the second something that senator murkowski

is correct. the secure global market is what is going to bring american consumers the lowest price. and the most consistent stability in fuel prices. and that is what the u.s. should seek to do. responsible participate in making sure we have the fuel global market. i'm sorry we're not able to give you a joint answer. i think all of the discussion about energy independence or almost all focused on supply. that is something we can control somewhat and some we don't. we need to focus on reducing the demand. that's something we have control over. it will help save consumers money. it will help reduce the carbon pollution that will cause extreme weather that disrupt our energy production and transportation system. i think we need focus on reducing demand and particularly when it comes to transportation which is fuel over 90% by oil.

we need to invest in alternative to oil whether it's electronic vehicle, whether it's natural gas, fuel trucks, whether public transportation. advanced biofuel. all of them will give consumer choices so we're not fully depend end on the one fuel to run our economy. we'll have the discussions still. this is the first hearing apparently on the topic. it will not be the last. i knew would be a piece of cake to find common ground on the question. and it's in the to be continued department. we thank you for the patience and the committee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] c-spa.

in 2011 after the failure of fukushima nuclear plant. the regulatory commission wrote

new rules for u.s. nuclear plant safety. in the commissioner testified on capitol hill today about the implementation of the new regulations. this hearing at the senate environment and public works committee is two hours. [inaudible conversations] hearing will come to order. today we're holding our eighth nrc oversight hearing since the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown in japan. the third anniversary of fukushima is coming and japan is still struggling. the failed effort to prevent radio active water from washing to the sea have lead officials to build a huge underground ice wall. it would be at least three more years before 60,000 local residents can return to their home safely. we must learn from the tragic events in fukushima and take all

necessary steps to ensure the safety of our own nuclear facilities. no more than two years ago, the nrc charged the most -- was making recommendations to help prevent such a disaster here. some of the 12 recommendations that nrc task force proposed have been acted on. the nrc issue ched orders to enhance safety when plants lose electrical power. and prevent explosion. that's good. but other measures have not been moved forward. for example, the nrc has allowed three full years for seismic evaluations of nuclear reactors in the western united states to be completed. if a seismic evaluation find there's a seismic risk, the nrc provides an additional three years more more analysis. to me it's an unacceptable delay.

earthquakes aren't going wait until your paperwork is done. now, when the nrc made aware for the new as the key dee dee -- it should require immediate steps to be taken to protect the people who live and work near the facilities. on another issue, our ability to conduct oversight is being impede bid a lack of cooperation from the nrc. during my investigation of the san o'know free nuclear power plant i learned the general counsel directed staft to withhold documents that i requested. my investigation in to why equipment was installed is very important. as it will provide lessons learned for the commission's future safety decision making activities. the nrc's response to my investigation is not the only recent example of the agency's effort to avoid congressional oversight. last fall the nrc attempted to

change the policy and providing information to congress from one the generally made nonpublic documents available to one that did not. the new policy even added restrictions that could have been used to withhold information from the chair and ranking member of the oversight committee. even though each of you are up for the conformation absolutely agree to make all documents available. and my counsel tells me whether you were sworn in or not is considered a sworn statement. congress unambiguously rejected the new policy when it rescinded that policy. your policy in the appropriations bill. i want to thank the bipartisan leadership of that committee for making sure that you can't do that. nrc still has not responded to my document request in a manner consistent with congressional direction. and not back down on this

matter. in recent letters, the nrc cites nonspecific constitutional separation-of-powers as a basis for continuing to withhold documents from our committee. however, there is simply no constitutional basis that this is applicable to the documents in question. finally i note excessive travel is of concern. i'm going to ask you about your travel. it's been difficult to schedule oversight hearings because one or the other is somewhere in the world. i'm mist satisfied as to why the travel records provided to me are marked nonpublic. i plan to ask questions about the lack of transparency. and scheduling of your travels. during a period where reactors are closing due to adverse safety regulations. the nrc's role is a strong safety regulator has never been more important. however, i'm concerned that whistle blowers who have raised

safety and other concerns within the nrc have been ignored. so those are issues of deep concern to me. i have to ask you about all of them. i look forward to hearing your open and complete answers. i would turn to my ranking member. >> thank you for convening today's hearing. i also want to thank our nrc's commissioner for being so accommodating with your schedule after the previous hearing was postponed to facility the majority photoon the nuclear option. thank you for coming back. as the chair alluded, many of these hearings have been scheduled and canceled because of the ongoing pursuit of documentation from the nrc. ..

management of nuclear waste. the legal commitment. more importantly, it's a step in the right direction for the federal government after years of political gains pacoima frankly. the policy and agencies tiering ship. today in his resulted in over $50 billion in spending with very little for movement. it is really irresponsible in the failure of that the yakima and safety evaluation report was

halted in the first place and should not have required a court ruling for the agency to comply with the law. nuclear energy has become an indispensable contributor to our base low electricity needs then it will continue to be for years to come as the commission continues to develop new regulation, it should certainly keep in mind the negative consequences that have resulted in specific cases from misguided regulations and federal interference. it would seem in recent years clearly negative result can ensue. add to the commission loses sight of its clear mission or partisan politics sway decisions regulations for the sake of regulating can become a profound burden on our fellow americans who rely on nuclear energy to meet their everyday needs. the negative effects of an

unwanted plan closure can result in more than just a diminished power supply but economic hardship, loss of jobs : negative environmental impact. the very nature of the nrc requires its leaders to operate independently of political and ideological pressures. the focus is on the safety and energy reliability needs of all of our communities. certainly the effects of the 2011 fukushima accident will continue to play a significant role in future regulation of nuclear industry, and we all agree with that crime. first and foremost by far of a safety. but we need to put that improper context of a stand our u.s. nuclear fleet. the safest and the world before fukushima. thank you all very much for being here. >> they key very much, ranking

member. senator carper will go next, the subcommittee chair. if it is okay with your side, senator sessions will then go. >> members of our panel. thank you for your service. it bears repeating today, the nrc plays a critical role in protecting the public and our environment. we must continue to have energy resources with respect to our nation's energy policy which i believe that again today because sometimes costs congress loses sight who of what the federal work force dozen indian and

databases first. when the congress decides what to do our basic job like providing funding for the federal government bears a really difficult time trying to do your job. as many of you know, as you try to find what you can, the government shut down is no exception. despite the extreme obstacles congress put before the nrc last october during the government shut down the commission and the simple use rose through the challenge and valets to ensure. have been never have to go through that again. the nrc workforce. the rest of the efforts. since october congress has passed a budget.

some of these accomplishments are stepping stones to help toward a functioning government, moving from one crisis to the next. right now of the embassy has plenty of new plan. out only is the nrc insuring existing reactors continued arrests safely over reactors. thirty years in trying to help our reactors to grapple with the nuclear waste as we continue first to debate our nuclear waste policy. all the while unclear reactors are facing economic in clemens challenges, putting additional challenges on the nuclear industry. there is an important opportunity to check in in see how the nrc is doing.

despite my colleagues, one of my colleagues miss it. save nuclear fleet faugh first minister of the commissioners to here. sometimes we disagree on how to get there, but at the end of the day we should a single. and because nuclear powers often a very technical issue of farm that many of our disagreements are caused not by different use, because a lack of communication or breakdown in communications. that's why i encourage my colleagues in this commission to continue to find ways to communicate better with one another and the public that we serve. as i said a tortured before, believe that nuclear power plants are some of the safest, may be the safest in the world. look forward to working with the commission ensuring the safety

continues to be our number one priority. think you very much, madame chair. >> thank you very much, subcommittee chairman. now we turn to the ranking member of the subcommittee, senator sessions. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you for your leader of the subcommittee. you are, indeed, an excellent chairman. work hard, he took responsibility for this. to a degree, unusual in the senate you stay on top of the commission. about person way to participate in that. it's a good example for gasol. this is our first meaningful oversight hearing what the nrc. a tumultuous time. it is get that under the lead of chairman mcfarland and with the support of her colleagues the nrc has stabilized and seems to be functioning well.

it is an important test that you have at this time. the fragile financial stability in the nuclear industry. a few bad decisions the deal of body blows to that of industry. many issues to review this morning such as post fukushima action bake units to the effect of regulations and a licensing activities. in 2001 nuclear energy comprise 20 percent of total u.s. electricity generations. and even more recently many of us your anticipated in the clear renaissance that would allow the percentage to increase. congress streamline the nrc licensing process to help facilitate and nuclear power. we thought it was the right thing to do. regrettably however by 2012 our reliance on nuclear power has

declined to 19%. the u.s. is still producing basically the same room of megawatt hours and their powerful and it didn't 2,001. i am deeply concerned about a rash of shutdowns to u.s. nuclear power plants. crystal river community in florida, songs in a two and three in california. last august he to energy and thus it would now move forward with its lee county florida nuclear power plant project which was previously scheduled for licensing last year. the tennessee valley authority announced plans to scale back work. modern nuclear power plant constitutes long-term assets that can provide safe, affordable, reliable preparers

and ratepayers for decades to come. last month's edition of nuclear and is the publication of the nuclear society, the senior editor noted that the united states is to our dismay now in an era in which decisions can be made that those reactors, which have been operating and continue to be exemplary performance producing electricity safely and close to peak capacity. so what factors are at issue year buick there seem to be many. our decision by a grid of operators skew away from nuclear energy in toward other sources like wind power or the article seems to raise that question. the article also noticed that nuclear operators are still counting the cost of compliance. the total cost and currently only the estimated. but in the extra cost to normal

operation could cast doubt on any reactors continued operation this is a factor. what about the confidence issued? waste confidence. is that a factor? rihanna settled the sufficiently. market forces are work. there are many important questions to consider. i hope congress will take the time as we look to develop a coherent energy policy to consider the role of nuclear power in our energy future. i firmly believe the u.s. should remain the world's leading nuclear producer. there has been some good news. southern company and their partners continue to make a progress. to a new 1,100-megawatt units, the most and best in the world are under construction. units three and four will be the first new nuclear units built in the united states in the last three decades.

operations are expected to begin in 2017 and 2018. the steve farr way. post fukushima actions, it's important to keep in mind that these units and a passive cooling system. the technology is designed to ensure that the kind of failures experienced africa surely cannot occur here. thank you, madam chairman. >> 1115. >> for the record. >> absolutely set of soaring. right now is senator sanders. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you for holding this hearing. thank you very much for being with us this morning.

madame chair, this oversight hearing is covering a wide range of very important issues. i would like to focus on one specific issue, an issue a check of about with chairman mcfarlane the need to provide as strong role for the state's in the decommissioning process where nuclear plan shuts down senator sessions below the fact that the nuclear power plant in vermont is going to be shut out. senator, i would suggest to you that the people of vermont would respectfully disagree with you. many of them of one to shut that down for a long-term. the important point is -- and endo is a governor and is the minister should have been working with the owners the

important issue years the role of the state itself in terms of the decommissioning process. right now the rules as i understand it, and obviously this applies not just of vermont, but to the clear power plants over the country which are in the process of being shut down to read what the rules do is allow the nrc to sit down with the companies and negotiate a decommissioning process abuse generally speaking the states to not have any significant role to london share, in the process. they can be observers, public meetings, provide input, but at the end of the day the companies and the nrc work out the agreement. madame chair, i think on the face of it that just as numic a lot of sense. the people of a given state to whether vermont or your state of california, it seems to me, have

our right to have a place at the table. adopting this will be the case. there was of one. some suggestion. may take 60 years. out of the fed's going happen. sixty, 60. that was the suggestion. frankly i don't think that's going happened. i don't think that's the intention, but imagine having a hulking man us in southern vermont deteriorating for 60 years. nobody that i know in vermont was that to happen. what about the jobs? we are concerned. while the negatives of the shutdown is the loss of decent paying jobs. everything being equal, we would like to see those workers are currently employed get a shot at being part of the commission process. they know the plan. i understand site. can that take place? think again. should the state committee union

be involved? a petition. now, an important part is this is not an issue that system packs vermont. we have a number of nuclear power plants that are being decommissioned, including in states like california, florida, wisconsin, new jersey, new york, an ohio. this clearly is a of a democrat or republican or independent issue, the rural or urban. this is a simple issue to be to the people of those states get a seat at the table? right now the rules doesn't understand it really precludes states. we can either change its rules come i will be asking you questions, we can do it through law. but warm way or another a think the states in this country should have a strong ceded the table. madame chair, that is my area of interest in this discussion. thank you very much for allowing

this. >> senators, intention is to give everyone to and minutes back-and-forth. hopefully we come back after. >> it was in 2003 when i was chairman of this committee, the nuclear regulatory commission last congress for a bigger budget to build new buildings and add significantly to the number of people. design acidification for a new reactor designs. >> only approved one designed to be the nrc workload did not increase the way it was expected there are some questions about that, but the commission still

increases by over 30 percent. this is very concerning to me because of the past two years the commission has been developing sweeping new regulations that impose draconian cuts on the industry. without producing sufficient benefit. it is as if the nrc with this new building and all of this new people have been using his spare . the analyses done this. while it is reasonable for us to review will withdraw and make sure we are not telling the same problems, it is not reasonable for the nrc to use the disaster to justify a new, expensive rules and reduce risk. employing its own principles of good regulation. just a few months after fukushima millionairess your

near-term task force released its paper showing that there is a minimal chance at the disaster not only of the u.s. nuclear plants designed more robust than japan's, but forcing a free and cultural differences both within the plan in between the plan in the nrc makes it much less likely. really apples and oranges. despite all this inner-city is continuing to push new regulations in response to the focus human disaster presuming that planning more and more continues. many more and more redundancies, even with the cost of these actions. a hundred million dollars. it wants to ensure a disaster like the one that fukushima doesn't happen in the united states and that it really comes them to keeping your reactor cool end of of sight and on-site power. our plans are designed to

protect against all external has since with the current rate of one and a million years. unlike the plan in fukushima, on-site emergency diesel generators and feel packs i located. we have to external pumps ready to operate. the united states nuclear fleet is safe and well prepared to face unforeseen events. the nrc has also continued to press the nuclear fleet to prepare for terrorist attacks in the wake of september 11th. the nrc is required the fleet to implement the security features, and many of them were quite well we're getting close to crossing the point where additional requirements are simply adding costs without any benefit. when you add in the efforts of the eta to impose more regulations on the water being

used to cool the reactor, is justified because of all the tissue that the kids from being damaged. start to regulate the nuclear energy industry out of business just like it's been trying to regulate fossil fuels out of business. and today there are more than 50 rules and other regulatory actions on top of the nrc which is more than i can remember since serving on this committee. and i would submit for the record since i know i will have time, but i would say that this is something that will cover in the questions that we ask. we keep in mind, we need the nuclear energy. there are some who don't want nuclear energy. we don't really use of regulation to accomplish a community, the chairman. >> senator, thank you.

>> thank you for again being here to offer their testimony. hour hearing in november was unexpectedly cut short due to the majority regrettable insistence on changing the longstanding center for nuclear option. an eager to hear today witnesses and some of the important issues facing the nuclear industry. the united states must truly embrace the comprehensive energy portfolio that includes all the best resources and technologies available today. we must also plan for the energy of tomorrow. nuclear power is of vital component of this approach to nuclear station which opened in july of 1995 becoming the first and only nuclear power plant to produce electricity in mississippi. today mississippi grand gulf is

the largest single unit nuclear power plant in the country, and the fifth largest in the world that provides americans with an affordable energy research and a key component of the state's industrial base. for plants such as grand gulf have continued success in this vital that the nrc exercise its oversight responsibilities in a manner that provides certainly for the country's nuclear industry. currently all final licensing decisions for nuclear plants are state pending the new waste toughest decision. the nrc previously has provided assurances that the commission is on schedule to complete this decision, but it recently was announced that the time line may be delayed. perhaps you can hear about that today. at the commission recognizes the importance of making this action a priority. and we will address this during

the question and answer. in addition, have heard for many industries takeovers to were concerned about the cumulative impact of existing nrc regulations as well as for their actions that may turn up to be unworkable or financially untenable. there is no doubt that the fukushima disaster in japan has reemphasized the nrc principal role to ensure the safety of the u.s. nuclear plants in the surrounding communities. in the wake of this tragedy, however, we must not lose sight of the fact met absent clear priorities regulatory actions can divert management from the most important matter, safe and reliable operation. it is vital that the nrc balance the needs of the industry with effective regulatory measures as it continues its important work to insure the safety and success

. thank you, madam chair. >> senator, thank you. as we previously agreed we will open it up for five minute speech commissioner two minutes, and the move will begin the question. >> thank you very much. >> chairman boxer, ranking member, distinguished members of the committee. my colleagues and i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the u.s. nuclear regulatory commission. the nrc continues to have a full plate of regulatory responsibility from the operation and construction and decommissioning of reactors to a nuclear materials, waste, and security. the commission continues to function effectively into leisurely. hideo of like to share some of our accomplishments and challenges. we can to him to address lessons line from the focus u.s. accident and employ an appropriate regulatory

enhancements. licensees have purchased and distaste backup equipment a reactor sites, install supplemental flood barriers and pumps to mitigate expensive flooding in the heart of -- and are developing plans to install hard invents and improves the pool facilitation. implementation of these and other activities will continue. follow up with detailed inspection once implementation is complete. we're also making progress on several important role makings of a carefully ensuring that this work does not distract us from day to day safety priorities. the highest safety and hence the for the operating reactor fleet will be implemented by 2016. 150 public meetings to give input and are fukushima work ensure progress. the nrc receives regular reports

of the status of the fabricius aside from the government of japan and the tokyo electric power company as they continue their work at the damaged reactor building in dvr also closely coordinated with other u.s., federal, and state agencies regarding information about current concentrations of radioactive contamination in the pacific ocean. based on the best scientific and permission available bell is a senior at states or abroad as identified in the evidence of concern for u.s. food and water supply or public health. the vast majority of operating reactors in the united states to perform well for. a few board enhanced oversight to ensure their safe and secure for operation. several reactors have recently shut down or else their decision to cease operations. the transition from operating to decommissioning and have two years to develop and provide the nrc with the decommissioning plan. the nrc will adjust its oversight accordingly ensure these meet our regulation.

the nrc has acted expeditiously to comply with the d.c. circuit court of appeals decision directing us to renew and review the yucca mountain license application. the commission carefully reviews feedback and budget permission. last november and again last week the commission issued orders directing the staff to complete the safety evaluation report for the application and to make the licensing and support network documentation publicly available in the inner see adam's database, among other things. the project planning and building of the technical capability to finish the safety evaluation report is nearing completion. the nrc also continues to make progress in its waste conference work. the proposed rule in generic impact statement were available for comment from september through december of last year. we conducted 13 public meetings in ten states to get feedback

and address questions. in the agency that receive more than 33,000 public comments. the commission has recently revised its review scheduled for publication october 3rd did not make full licensing decisions depending upon the ways conference until the court braman has been fully addressed. construction of the new units is well under way. construction also continues a unit to, and the staff is working toward an operating license in position for the plan in december this year. also busy preparing for the first design certification applications of the small modular reactor which we expect to receive this year. the nrc has accomplished a great deal, and a confident it will continue to meet the challenges ahead to be let me assure you,

safety and security and are operating license some materials remain a top priority. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. pleased to answer your questions . >> thank you, chairman, breaking the mark, chairman, a ranking member, and members of the committee for the upper tennessee to appear before you today at this oversight hearing. the commission's chairman and her statement on behalf of the commission have provided a comprehensive description of carrying out the important mission of protecting public health and safety and promoting the common sense of security of our nation will be in a recent communication to all agency employees the nrc senior career official for the sec director for operations to the following, our future is likely to be dynamic and a predictable, and the agency will remain flexible and agile as a response to new events and external pressures.

you will need to continually evaluate the work we do in fact, give careful consideration as to how best to use resources and remain focused on safety and security. i agree with this statement. as an organization which embraces the precepts of continuous learning he and arce consistently seeks to improve its organizational effectiveness as a member of the commission and will continue to work with our commission in the nrc staff to support the agency's assessment of how we can accomplish our work efficiently and effectively come in light of the circumstances highly professional staff members are up to the task of meeting these challenges as they have proven time and again of the course of the agency. and thank them for their sustained commitment to the agency, its work, and each other. i appreciate the opportunity to appear today in the courts your questions. >> commissioner.

>> the chairman, ranking member, members of the committee. as chairman of the crows stated we have made a great deal of progress in implementing the lessons learned from the focus sumacs the to republic to have the window and more today of what it would take to implement the lessons learned that we did in 2011. the commission said its goal is to complete and implement the lessons learned from the fabricius accident within five years, 2016. the focus exclusively on the five-year -- of surrey, it is important not to focus exclusively on the five years. but rather the better safety, some of elite by implementing the prairies.

the spec to meet the five-year implementation go. it will improve beyond 2016. impose. in another case saw allowing licensees more time to complete comprehensive site specific seismic risk allowances in my view these actions are consistent with the original intent of the commission to properly and effectively implement the lessons learned. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner.

>> members of the subcommittee, appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the work your agency. chairman's comments capture the full range of activities, and it has been an extraordinarily busy time for the nrc. will lead briefly the the we appreciate the encourage her from this committee. since march 2011 the nrc has learned and taking clear, rational action to enhance safety. kantor pledged to another overreact or under react to events in japan. think we got in just about right our challenge now is to of sort yeah activities in prioritized appropriately. to do so requires to understand how the men as a preparation beyond design basis events in concert with their ongoing efforts to protect against much more likely accident scenarios. i am confident that the agents have met the challenge. again, i think you for your engagement during the last three

years of hard work and therefore to answer any questions you have. >> thank you, commissioner. >> a chance to do before you today. after receiving the fukushima near-term task force recommendations it was clear to myself and my colleagues at the table those recommendations needed to be prioritized to focus on the action items, so-called tier one activities. and believe that great strides have been made in implementing tier one activities. the chairman has been dead about covering these issues. a lot of progress has been made. i agree with my fellow colleagues that from our perspective and bin right. oregano is there's been a lot of work done, something's added to the place as the original nearterm task force report. a lot of discussion about what we should do or should not do.

would say that the commission decision process as been very thoughtful indeliberate in these areas they're is a great deal of work has been done. appreciate this committees over several. >> the queue. >> thank you. each of us would get ten minutes of questions. madam chairman, but the nrc five letters requesting documents that relate to the floods being generated in san enough rate. just two days ago he told me in writing that the nrc did not provide me with everything requested and you admitted that because of constitutional concerns. i have here the comprehensive congressional research service manual of congressional oversight. there were to constitutionally based privileges that allow an agency to withhold documents from congress and everyone is an assertion of executive privilege : the other is the exercise of the fifth amendment right not to incriminate oneself. which one of these are you asserting, as you do not give me

my documents amassed for? six. >> madam chairman, thank you for the opportunity to answer your questions year. we've certainly what to have a good relationship. >> i don't have time. and like you. i have a good relationship with you. what are you asserting? and need these documents. is it -- is it executive privilege? >> we have been working with your staff, with the committee staff to provide documents. >> if we head up the responsive to your request. we, of course will would like to continue to work with the committee to see. >> adelle what you to work with

the committee. you have promised the ranking member and myself that whenever we ask for documents you give it to less to be. >> best team of its other recrimination our executive privilege. talked-about preparation of power. we will serve. we also heard other things from your counsel the deal with other reasons was just don't make any sense. so we will continue to work with you. you know, we have had eight oversight hearings. >> travel. >> we all travel and business. sometimes it is extremely important to do so.

the trips in the city of taken in your time. >> commissioner, 127 days and international travel since 2010. and know that the chairman has requested that all five commissioners be in town of least one week each month. in order to ensure that the commission can conduct its business and be available to testify before congress recesses of asking if each of you would agree to a request starting with his finicky. >> yes, i think we work very allegedly of scheduling matters. cards and asking if you agree with the request, the you be in town all of you together. >> and of think there is a mature hasn't been. >> yes. >> yes. >> has good. it will make it easier on us. some of my colleagues are complaining we don't have enough oversight. no, the nrc travel records i

received are marked nonpublic which is mystifying to me since there is no good reason to keep that information secret. the taxpayers are paying for him. heat will michele free after shareware we tell it what it costs. some of the publicly disclosed some of the travel. but most of the doe. yes and no, will each of you commit to this committee to making all your travel and meetings publicly they will go mental work? >> el ready to make my schedule probably available in my travel publicly available. >> will you do that? >> ready to do it. >> you will do that. >> currently do that. >> are currently make my least publicly available. >> well my understanding, you haven't in the past. so we look forward to seeing none in the future. i'm going to be introducing legislation to insure that the commissioners and staff for more

open to be. >> at think we all agree the nrc must be independent. it is essential. i am concerned that your independence may have been compromises you consider the request to restore all the senate of a nuclear reactor. the reactor shut down in early 2012 when the steam generators like to be in very bad shape. the nrc properly requested a considerable amount of technical information from licensee in order to the side of the the reactor with. you're right to do that. the documents i have received, at least a received some indicate the nrc staff was. document declaring the reactor and saying that the restart of the reactor was safe months before it received all of the responses to the technical question is so how can we have confidence in the nrc independence when it was preparing to grant industry

requests months before it received the necessary safety and related information. >> the generator and a failure at the center of french nuclear generating station. there were many concurrent issues that were working at the nuclear regulatory commission. it was a very complicated proceedings when. there was an active investigation. >> and just asking a specific question. documents show that you were ready to allow the plan to start up before all of the technical studies were done. the end you have something drafted. i mean, i am just concerned. i guess what i am getting it, you close the reactor them. thank god. because of the problems. the company actually didn't, you

did. but the bottom line is i want to make sure that the future, if there is an investigation going on, you should never reopen. i guess my question is, do you think it is right to reopen the facility while an investigation is still going on? you don't really know what the problem is. >> it depends on the particular situation. unfortunately i can't give you a specific answer is a depends on a particular situation, and in some situations are regulations allow for a plan to restart while an investigation continues >> fair enough. i am going to continue to work on this. chairman, are these statements accurate? nrc former senior resident inspector file a formal dissent saying that they were operating outside the seismic requirements of its license to be is that accurate? >> i believe that this senior resident in years past did file

nonconcurrence. >> you believe that is correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> secondly also said that the analysis showed that the newly discovered faults could cause ground shaking those 70% stronger than the nrc license allows. is that correct. >> i would have to look. >> would you back to me on that? >> for the record. >> i have a number of other questions i want to ask about that for a record. now will ask all those. >> madam chairman, recently the nrc voted to delay recommendations by its own staff that two people be present whenever highly enriched uranium or plutonium was being handled. order to protect against an insider threat. the department of energy has had a rule like that in place for decades. in 2011 the department of homeland security warrant that violent extremists have changed insider positions a utilities.