properly and are filtered to prevent the release of radiation. would you support the requiring filtration of the containment vents where appropriate? >> thanks for the question. i understand that the nuclear regulatory commission is looking into that specific issue right now and i would if confirmed be very interested in their results of their analysis and i am familiar with the issue. i would be interested to learn more. i would follow that issue. >> commissioner, you said thaw don't believe the u.s. power plants should be required to install filtered containment vents. these systems could prevent that in the event of a nuclear accident. why do you oppose taking this step?

>> senator, i believe i was asked about that. my support for that in a speech in march. what i indicated is that i had not been provided any analysis to date that would support or make the case for installation of filtered vents as dr. mcfarland prepared an evaluation of that issue and later that issue will come before the commission. >> you are therefore not committed to say no? >> i will review with an open mind the staff's evaluation of this issue. >> in march, i sent a letter raising concern that the nrc was not allowing public comments at the annual meeting in new jersey. i think that local residents deserve to have their voices heard on these issues. if you are to be the nrc chair,

would you try to make sure or work to try to bring the public into the discussion and increase our suspicion? >> i am dedicated on all of these topics and our experience was everybody felt that they were heard. >> you remember the presence of the blue ribbon commission that would require transporting significant amounts of nuclear waste across the country. what steps might be take tone protect the communities that live near the railroads and the highways where the waste will be transported? >> that's a long answered question. there many steps that could be taken. the blue ribbon commission did specifically look at the issue of transportation and relook at the issue of transportation and

suggest that there is a lot of work that can be done because there is a lot of issues that have to do with rail. they are in many other countries. >> can i ask if you would put something in writing about that? >> sure. >> i'm very interested in this. now the votes have start and we call on the senator. >> thank both of you for being here. we appreciate your willingness to serve dr. mcfarland and appreciate your service and your willingness to get back into this. dr. farland, the question has come up about trying to get the safety issues resolved in five years. we are all part of the bureaucracy here and what do you see as the pitfalls in action to getting that done. you are committed to doing that, but what is lurking that you see

might be a problem? i had road projects that took longer than that to get approval. >> thank you for the question. i'm still learning all of the different aspects of what the nrc is planning to do and requested of the licensees. i understand that it will take two outages to go through and fulfill the orders that have been issued. these outages occur as part of this five-year time frame. the first outage to understand especially replacing the vents where they could be. that's part of it. those are some of the issues. >> the former chairman used tactics like simply not or voting or delaying votes on

decisions with licensing and things for plants. can you assure us that you won't use those tactics? >> certainly. >> i yield back. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> obviously we had many lessons learned because of the fukushima accident and two things that i am concerned for new york they would like your thoughts on. first, in the area of exemptions and license amendments and renewals and waivers, given that we give licenses for up to 20 years, given that many waivers and exemptions have been given, they are improving rapidly. are you relooking at the current rules and quite lines in terms of timing. i think given what we have learned, we want to have renewals and shorter time periods. they will be relooked at.

second, with new york specifically, we have a point. i know, doctor, you have expertise in geologies. do you plan to look at active fault lines and what the risks are and can be done to protect the existing sites? last, also highly relevant to the new york issue, have you given consideration to relooking at issues of evacuation for large scale populations and making sure that there is such a plan for that kind of large evacuation if there is damage or emergency situation? >> thank you for the question, senator. in terms of license renewals, et cetera, i think that is very important to presidentically review lessons learned from the process and i believe that the nuclear regulatory commission has done this and is doing that in that case. in terms of indian point and

assessing seismic risks, there has been a new hazard analysis that the new survey issued. i think it's important for all reactors to go and assess the new analysis. i would be interested in following that and specifically with indian point in mind. in terms of looking at the issues around evacuating people and thinking about indian point, i do believe that under the activities and the crc is undertaking regarding the nuke shimma accident that they are reconsidering the emergency planning zones and looking at thatta as well. i would follow that up as well. >> senator, i don't have too much to add to what the doctor said except as a specific action post fukushima, all nuclear power plants have been ordered to do a seismic reevaluation.

that has already been imposed by the commission and again as the doctor said, the evacuation and emergency planning issues are under reevaluation by the staff. >> thank you, senator. i'm going to close with a couple of points and then rush off. if i don't thank you both, i will now do that. there is something i need to do in order to make sure that these nominations can go forward. would you be ready to answer these questions? do you agree if confirmed to ark peer before this committee and designated members of the committee of the congress and provide information subject to appropriate and necessary security protection with respect to your responsibilities, answer yes or no. >> yes. >> do you agree that the testimony, briefings and documents and other forms of communication of information are provided to this committee and staff and other appropriate

committees in a timely manner? >> yes. >> yes. >> do you know of matters which you may or may not have disclosed that place you in conflict of interest if you are confirmed? >> no. >> no. >> the record will show those answers. senators, questions are due at noon tomorrow. nominees's answers are due monday at noon. we are trying to move it forward. my couple of last parting questions are, i asked my staff to put together a list of the -- what is this nuclear waste contain? now chairman, you are an expert at this and chairman to be. commissioner, i know you are an expert too. i looked at the half lives here and they said neptunian has a life of 1.2 million years and plutonium 239 has a half life of 24,100 years. would you agree with this and do

you agree when you are dealing with this waste, it is very, very serious business? commissioner? >> yes, chairman. >> yes. >> of course. >> my last -- i have two more points. after the-mile island accident, the nrc duties were changed. they were strengthened. the chairman became not only known as the chairman, but the officer of the commission who directs and i quote, the day to day operation of the agency and the nrc's response to nuclear emergencies. are you aware of this law? >> yes, chairman. >> okay. and will you respect the role of the chairman? >> yes. >> even when she may not agree with and you when she does? >> yes. >> i would ask or hopefully future chairman if confirmed, do you understand this authority and will you exercise it if necessary? >> absolutely. >> i think that's key. there was such a confusion over that after fukushima and the

arguments went back and forth. the last point is, i'm glad they put page 33 of commissioner's answers into the record. here it goes. senator boxer, so you didn't work on yucca? answer, i did not. i don't believe that's true. when i don't vote for you, commissioner, it's because i have reasons that go with my view of your candor or lack of it. the record in terms of safety. i hope and i truly pray that this commission with your leadership and yours can get off on a different direction. we can have the deepest divisions of opinion. this is america. that's what we are known for. we don't agree on things, but we have decent relationships with each other. i just really want to underscore

that as one day we had the commissioners here in the chairman and said you should all go out after work and have a beer. soda, something. they all looked at me like what planet was i on for that to even be possible? that's got to be possible. it could be tea or coffee or anything. you get my point. so dr. farland, you are walking into a tough situation. after meeting with you and watching you here today, i sense in you the ability to bring people together. i know as a mom myself, you got to do that a lot around the house as well as in the workplace. i think you are going to bring a different touch. i think it's necessary and i would say, i hope as a long time member of this commission and despite my opposition, i know

thaw are going to be confirmed. i hope you will do your best to help our new chairman find her way and if there is disagreement, let's not make it personal. let's not make it some kind of vendetta. let's bring those disagreements out and recognize that's how this country is. we are great because we allow that debate. we certainly do it here in the senate. we can go out for a cup of coffee afterwards. i hope that will happen. i am very, very pleased that you are both here today. we had such an important hearing that it was so civil. i'm feeling good today and will feel better when we get the highway built.

>> jpmorgan chase ceo jamie dimon answered questions about various things made by his company. he is back tomorrow for more. this time from the house financial service committee. we will have live coverage of his testimony starting at 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> we are in an incredibly important era for the future growth of the software and the future of american countries for which they matter and there is only one element for what the u.s. does will need to take account of what's happening internationally and have to break down barriers where we see them exist and also find a

balance that wows innovation. >> alliance president and ceo on the industry's next steps, fighting online piracy and improving cyber security. the communicators on c-span 2. >> senate foreign relations committee john kerry continued his push for the u.s. to join the law of the sea treaty by holding a pair of hearings. the un law of the sea treaty governs how they use international party waters. they heard from drums who opposes the u.s. joining the treaty and former deputy secretary of state for the treaty. this is just over two hours. >> may the hearing come to order. i am sorry we are late. at the out set, let me say that i apologize that we are back in

the smaller hearing room. we tried a month ago to reserve for this afternoon. somebody else headed for this time. we are here and i know there a bunch of people who would like to come in and i am sorry we were not able to comment on that. it's not for any other reason. we are going to try to have the reasons. it's easier for everybody. that's why we are back in here this afternoon. this is our 30 hearing on the law and we will have more after this, no doubt. i am looking forward to this afternoon because what i like about it is we have folks with different points of view on the same panel and an opportunity to really dig in, which i hope we will do. that will be useful to everybody here.

senator, along with a number of other colleagues, requested that i invite four witnesses to testify and so we did. we invited all four. two of them, secretary rumsfeld and steven groves agreed to join us today along with two other distinguished witnesses and i'm happy that all of you could take the time to be here with us. donald rumsfeld everybody knows is currently president of the rumsfeld foundation. he held various senior positions and previous administrations. most recently serving as secretary of defense under president george w. bush. he is joined by john neg ponte from multiple administrations and most recently he served as the first director of national intelligence and as deputy secretary of state. he is currently vice chairman.

i'm also pleased to have john bellinger from 2001 to 2005. he served in the white house as the associate council to president george w. bush. then as the legal adviser to the national security downs il. from 2005 to 2009 the legal adviser to the state department. she a partner at the law form r nolo contendere and porter. rounding out the panel is steven groves. the bernard and barbara loam as fellow at the heritage foundation and mr. groves was preefg senior council to the permanent subcommittee on investigation. welcome to all of you. this morning we heard a panel from some of our most senior operational commanders along with the vice chairman of the joint chiefs and the top officers in the navy and the coast guard. they added voices to that of chairman of the joint chiefs and secretary of defense and

secretary of state calling for ratification of the treaty. we heard and we introduced into the record, letters from other combatant commanders all of whom strongly support joining the convention. i think drawing on the two hearings. they're beginning to join the consensus navigational bill of rights and the treaty which our military and our shippers remain in the united states. as i see it, just listening, i hope i am not mischaracterizing it. it is not focussed on the navigational provisions, but other aspects of the treaty. i believe personally i'm not going to go into this at length. i don't think that would be fair in terms of chairmanship, but i think there a lot that are

inaccurate. i want to separate what's accurate and what's not so that the committee can hopefully in the resolution deal with those things that we think we need to deal with. let me give you an example of that. the international sea bed authority has been accused of being, but is not some bloated un bureaucracy. it's separate from the united nations. it has a staff of less than 40. nothing in its 13-year history suggests that it's an organization that is out of control or will act inconsistent with our interest. they are effectively using our isa council to advance interest. the royalty provisions and other things and we need to dig into the facts and the one thing i

want to put out is it's clear that the original provisions of the 1982 convention were not consistent with the market principals and if i were looking strictly at the four corners of the 1982 convention, i would have had problems. as conald reagan and others did. but those problems i think in most people's judgment had been addressed in full. bob stevens, the ceo of lockheed martin wrote to me, urging that we pass this convention. this is what he said. the multibillion dollar investments needed to establish an ocean-based resource development business must be predicated upon clear legal rights establish and protected under the treaty of the framework of the convention, including the international sea bed authority.

other international players recognize the same reality and are acting upon it. countries like china and russia are moving forward aggressively within the framework and several of these countries currently hold exploration licenses from the international sea bed authority. without ratifying the convention, the united states cannot sponsor claims with or shape the deep sea bed rules and that is the critical path forward if the united states expands access and commercial and government interests to new sources of mineral resources. i might adthat lockheed is not alone. the head of exxon-mobil. he expressed the support for ratification and said this. as an american company engaged

in the global market for energy development, exxon-mobil is interested in exploring for oil and gas resources that may exist under the areas that are recognized for sovereignty purposes under the law of the sea. the exploration and development of offshore resources is complicated and costly. operating in the extended areas addressed under the law of the sea will be more so. before undertaking such immense investments, legal certainty in the property rights being explored and developed is essential. i think our businesses have overwhelmingly made that point including the commerce and american petroleum institute and the chamber of shipping of america who just wrote to me in support of the treaty. i would like to enter each of those in the record. this is part of the area we will be going for. in a few weeks, we will have

many here to testify to talk about the economic realities. today we have experts who really understand the negotiation of the treaty. so forth. they have examined it and look forward to a healthy dialogue and hopefully productive results for the committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you pointed out this morning, the formulations commitmentee heard testimony from our uniformed and military leadership in support of the law of the convention. at an upcoming hearing, the committee will hear from a broad spectrum of ocean-related businesses that strongly support this treaty. when the convention was before this committee in 2003 and 2007, military and business support for the law of the sea was similarly overwhelming. this underscores the americans

who are involved and the ocean is professional on a daily basis. those who defend our country's interest on the seas. those who invest money related to jobs and ocean enterprises want the convention ratified. unlike some treaties, just as the agreement or the conference tests where the united states's nonparticipation renders the treaty irrelevant or inoperable. they will continue to form the basis of maritime law. regardless of whether the united states is a party. international decisions related to national claims on continental shelves beyond 200 miles from the shores and resource exploitation in the open ocean and navigation rights and other matters will be made in the context of the treaty whether we join it or not.

consequently the united states cannot insulate itself from the convention by declining. it is the accepted standard in international maritime law and the dominant forum. americans who use the ocean and interact with other nairs have to content with the law of the sea on a daily basis. theyment the us to participate in the structures of the law to defend their interest and to make sure that other nations respect our rights and our claims. among the questions addressed by the law of the sea is how the resources and the deep sea bed are on the nation's extended continental shelf beyond the 200 mile limit be exploited. it makes it possible for a mining or drilling company, the

stake and unequivocal claim on the ocean floor. have it recognized under international law. some have argued that the united states succession of the law of the sea convention is unnecessary. they secure the basis for companies to exploit oil. natural gas, and mineral wealth on the ocean floor. that is not the opinion of the american companies that might invest their resources in this activity. they are in favor of the treaty. because without the certainty of title provided by the law of the sea convention, they would not go forward with many projects requiring large investments. their concern is that after doing the expensive exploration, research, testing, and construction necessary to exploit a site, they have to be certain that another won't be able to free ride off their

investment or challenge their claim on the international course. the oil drilling and mining companies prefer to pay a small royalty beginning on the sixth year of production and in return for an international system that gives them undisputed claim to the resources produced. this royalty provision of the convention was negotiated with the participation of extraction companies. they judged in as reasonable given the legal certainty and it secures and the value of what might be produced. since the first five years will not be subject to any royalty. this is why they are endorsed by the united states chamber of commerce, the american petroleum institute and every industry with a stake in the sea bed mining and drilling.

our resource extractor told us if you want them to move forward with large scale development of ocean floor resources that could contribute significantly to the united states energy and national security and create jobs, we need to ratify the law of the sea. and the state department for failing to approve a keystone pipeline. it provides clearer long-term benefits to job creation and energy security. in that case the president's delay is unnecessarily disadvantaging. the u.s. economy has concerns over thing that is not resolved. if the senate declines to have the law of the sea, i believe we will be doing the same thing. during this congress, they have been more sinful to senate