more employees. >> nobody is leaving? >> more importantly, the advisory committee makes clear, there is -- whethe ror not an action or innaction is taken, it depends on -- does it depend on the number of people and so, as a consequence, former employees, they would be included in the class under b2, about who is able to seek injunctive relief and who is not. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. mr. sellars has made clear under their vision, wal-mart will not

discriminate against a woman who was seeking back pay. the district court, or justice ginsberg, suggested that he found it would be impossible, not just because -- because of the number of claims. these were being implemented in a way that affected people differently. the problem here, mr. sellars says, is we're going to have a proceeding where the district judge relies only on the records that he says are in adequate to allow it. that is not a process known to our jurisprudence. it does not comport with due process. it takes away the rights of wal- mart. it takes away the rights of individual women. >> you do not seriously contend that if the plaintiff, if the

policy were found the practice of discrimination that a woman could not come in and say, "they put x in. i have a longer history at wal- mart. i had no criticisms of my work, and i was not promoted." would that not be enough for her to show that that policy influenced her lack of selection? and your personal data base has all of that information, so why is it impossible? other than because of their large numbers? it is such a different issue. >> we agree that a woman should be able to come in and say that. she may say, "well, the records do not say that. i was a much better employees than the guy working next to me." that woman would not be able to come and testify. wal-mart would not be able to say this person was a terrible

employee. this person was a great employee. on the record, it is not impossible to recreate these. from managers to remember very well that it violated company policy. >> why is that not enough to support and injunctive action? >> -- >> his point is that this is certification, so my question is, with support of the evidence, why can they not have their classes based on an injunction? >> because common policy is one that affects everyone differently by definition. therefore, these are not typical, and they are not arguing that everyone was affected by the common policy. maybe some men, or some women

stereotypes in the other direction. 544 are female store managers, so it is impossible to make these sweeping -- there is no way to have a fair process here. on the policy question, the plaintiff's point to the general policies with the one policy they do not want to confront is the policy against discrimination. it was not just a written policy on paper. in fact, there is a declaration in the joint appendix that lays out -- >> what about the vice president to said it was just window dressing or something? >> i am glad you asked about that, justice scalia. he talked about the effort to get more women into management, in he said, in his view, until the company willing to diversity goals to compensation of

managers, it would be lit service. he was not saying the whole program was lips service. >> i think he was saying that if they started paying women the same as men, their ribby more diversity. >> thank you. the case is submitted. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the supreme court ruled in favor of wal-mart, saying that it could not go forward as a class action. there were too many women in too many jobs to wrapped into one lossy. some women say they will pursue claims on their own. >> the supreme court is now available as a standard and

enhanced ebook. 11 original interviews, including an interview with a newest supreme court justice, elena kagan. add to your experience by watching multimedia. this is available now wherever ebooks are sold. >> the former u.s. ambassador to china, jon huntsman, is expected to announce his nomination for president tomorrow morning. you can watch a live as he makes the announcement from new jersey, the same place where ronald reagan kicks off his campaign in 1980. the former chairman of the fcc, michael powell, will be on "the communicators" tonight. he talks about his transition tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-

span2. >> next, a look at safety at u.s. nuclear plants with testimony by members of the nuclear regulatory commission during a senate committee hearing. they talked about some of the preliminary findings involving plant safety in the wake of the nuclear disaster in japan and expressed concern about how what -- how u.s. plants would address nuclear disasters and the loss of power at their facilities. the event was chaired by barbara boxer and runs 2.5 hours.

>> the meeting will come to order. your heads will be bopping, but hopefully it will be enjoyable and not too contentious. let me begin. it has been over three months since japan was hit by a devastating earthquake and tsunami, and it is expected to take additional time before the cold shutdown at the fukushima dai-ichi nuclear power plant will be achieved. the emergency in japan served as an important recall for the united states and the world, and we cannot afford to ignore honus there is one lesson to be learned, and this is a lesson i think is the most important, we must plan for the unexpected, because if the japanese told us how they planned for the expected, not for the unexpected. i am pleased that the nrc is taking steps to be about records assumption about the safety and security over nuclear power

plants. the inspectors have issued reports on the operating reactors following extreme events. and the nrc is in the middle of a 90-day task force review of practices and regulations in light of the events in japan.

expectations that one plant noted that some things may be in acceptable, and hoses needed to be cooling water from the reservoir were blocked by a security fence. now, i want to correct myself. diabolo i have not visited for a while. as a matter of fact, i met one of the commissioners there was extremely helpful. the nrc inspections at another generating station, and this is a plant that is surrounded by millions of people within 50 miles, what does he say? 7 million? about 7 million, 7.4 million within 50 miles. this is what we found. and lack of a written agreement for a fuel oil supply to support emergency generators for more than seven days, and you found that some firefighting equipment

was stored in some locations that could be impacted by an earthquake. now, firefighting equipment that is stored in a place that cannot be located, if there is an earthquake, does not do us any good. i have additional concerns about seismic issues at both california plants. diablo canyon has submitted its application to the nrc for license review. the seismic studies need to be considered as part of the license renewal. it is very important. i find it very strange that they would try to get a license before they have the latest information, and the latest information will be part of this 3-d seismic study. i expect the nrc -- and also, these seismic study should be part of another license renewal application once it is

submitted. they have not submitted to yet, as you know. -- have not submitted it yet. i expect the nrc to closely examine the results of these inspections in california and other states across the country, as well as reexamine the current regulations, such as what is considered in the nrc review of license renewal applications, and i expect the commission to implement the task force recommendations. it does not help us to have these recommendations if you do not implement them. the health and safety of all americans hangs in the balance. i believe it is critical for public confidence and the safety of our nuclear facilities that the result be available to the public as soon as it is compiled

by nrc staff in july. to me, complete openness, transparency, and prompt disclosure are vital to maintaining the ease. i want to thank all five members for being here today to provide us with a preliminary results of the nuclear review that is under way. as chairman of this committee, i will provide vigorous oversight to make sure that we learn all that we can from the fukushima emergency. the safety of the american people above all is our number- one priority, and a look forward to working with each of you to make sure that the united states of america is taking every appropriate caution to make sure that our nuclear power plants are managed in the safest possible manner. >> i appreciate your comments about the safety of the american people being in number one priority, because, madam chairman, the storage of nuclear

waste should be a top priority for congress and the administration in the wake of the japanese nuclear disaster. as you know, spent fuel rods stored at fukushima overheated, causing explosions, fires, and radiation leaks. this happened when back up generators failed at the plant. the american people who watched the coverage of japan are looking to congress and to the nuclear regulatory commission to prevent similar instances from happening here. congress took action years ago to begin addressing the problem of the buildup of nuclear waste stored at nuclear plants in the united states. the nuclear waste policy act designated as the only candidate site for a national repository of nuclear waste. congress has voted a number of times to maintain yucca mountain as the national repository. $15 billion has been spent on

the project, but this administration has seen fit to walk away from the project. as "the washington post" points out in an article entitled "at yet the mountain," at yucca mountain, money down the hall. this was in yesterday's paper, money down the hall. -- hole. when barack obama tried to get the swing votes, he vowed to kill yukked. in 2009, the article says, the energy secretary said they did not feel this was a workable option. they terminated the jobs of several thousand federal workers and transferring truckloads of furniture and other things to local schools.

the article states that the project dates back three decades. it goes on. it has not solved the problem of nuclear waste but has succeeded in keeping imported large numbers of litigators. is this the idea of job creation? the end result is a 5 mile long hole in the desert. it was meant to store america's nuclear waste, but instead, it stands as a monument to bureaucratic waste. the nuclear regulatory commission has not resolve this issue. during the opening remarks of the japan task force, the chairman who was here today stated, quote, i believe it is important that our safety review proceed systematically and methodically but with the appropriate sense of urgency given the appropriate issues.

i do not believe that the actions of this a administration or the chairman have demonstrated the sense of urgency with regard to the issue of storing spent nuclear fuel. thank you, madam chairman. i look forward to the testimony. >> thank you. we agree to call on the chair of the subcommittee. we are -- >> thank you very, very much. thank you, madam chair. i want to come back to something that the representative from wyoming has said. i was not a member of the congress in 1982 when i think the congress voted, basically saying they would have a repository. i was with congress later on when a vote was taken.

this is for the depository or repository. for the most part, the elected officials, and the congressional delegation, they have opposed this. this was done by a number of years, democrats and republicans looking at the establishment of a repository. i know we can do better. if we had to do this all over again, if we had to do this all over again, we should be smart enough to do what they did in france, and what they did in france was considered about beating repositories and to provide really terrific economic opportunity is for the communities.

if we can have side standing in line to be prisons, if we can do that, to be a host for inmates from all over the country, we should be able to provide a system so that states would say they put this in the state. meanwhile, there are a lot of smart people. commissioners know they have been working. they have been over to france to see what the french are doing in terms of recycling the spent fuel. in the meantime, if you take all of the spent fuel rods, i will ask senator alexander the correct name if i am wrong, but if you took all of the spent rods, and we put them on a football field, they would be

maybe about 20 feet high. is that right? this is not a small amount of spent fuel. but for now, what experts are saying is they can safely store this on-site. does that mean we never need a repository, and i hope we are a lot smarter in these then when we were doing yucca mountain. so having said that, having said that, thanks a lot for coming. thanks for your service. we're very anxious to hear what you have to share with us we have a great opportunity. quoting einstein. in the prefecture with the terrible tragedy that they face, also a great opportunity.

this is to learn what they did wrong so we will not make that mistake, and we have worked, as a bunch of you know, on this committee. the judge and i worked to try to establish the nuclear power plants, and the commissioners have heard me say a million times we have to establish this and want to strengthen it, and we want to make sure if it is not perfect, we will make it better, and despite all of what we have in place for nuclear reactors, the tragedy should serve as a warning. it could happen here any time, as well. we want to make sure that every precaution has been taken, and

today, i am interested to hear the first read out of the commissioners, and we look forward to working with you about the nuclear situation in our country. thank you so much. >> thank you. now, in the center alexander. >> thank you. first, let me thank the commissioners and the chairman and senator corpora for having this hearing. i think the more oversight hearings we have with the commissioners, the better. the more americans know about nuclear power, the better. both from a safety point of view and how important it is to the future. the subject in america today is jobs. we need to read large amounts of reliable, low-cost electricity.

and we now have to add clean to that, so it is important to have a hearing. most about electricity comes from 104 nuclear plants. this is so that americans know that 70% of our electricity that is carbon freed comes from these plants. it is important for americans to know. there has never been a death at a civilian reactor in the united states. there has never been a death in connection with a reactor at the 104 navy reactors. it is important to know that even the three mile island was our worst nuclear accident in the united states at a civilian reactor, no one was hurt at three mile island. it is important for americans to know this is complex, these big operations, these nuclear plants, it is important for them to know the we are taking very seriously, especially those who

cannot imagine a future for ourselves, we are continuing to make the operation safer and safer. we have learned a lot from three mile island, for example, even though no one was hurt their. the safety record is even better as a result of those lessons. it will take months and years to learn about what happened at fukushima, but we ought to do our best to do that. senator carper's comments are important. nobody would take a prison until i said we had only one, and then we had a line of people. we are going to need repositories. we need to recycle used nuclear fuel, and that means there will be less of it, and then we need to find either get the mountain

or other ones. we should not continue collecting billions of dollars from ratepayers and not using it for its intended purpose. i hope we learn from this hearing more about spent fuel storage. we have heard from the secretary, our energy secretary, who is a physicist, and we have heard that spent fuel can be stored safely on site for up to 100 years. it is important for americans to know that and to hear that. to know about such things. but we need to bring to a close this discussion about whether spent fuel long-term repository is are the right way to deal with the fuel that we have, and we need to take advantage of the distinguished panel the president has appointed.

we need to explore how we can improve safety capabilities, for example, with passive technologies. we need to learn how a small nuclear reactors, those that might be 125 megawatts and 150 instead of a hundred and 40, how they might be a way for the united states to get back in the business of leading the world and developing a technology we invented, the peaceful use of atomic weapons, a peaceful use of the nuclear process, and i would like to learn more about how the commission functions, the use of emergency power, gathering information about reactors. it is very important to have all of the commissioners here. i would suggest that maybe every quarter is too often, but every so often, either the

subcommittee or the full committee ought to hear, as the american people ought to listen and be assured not just of the safety of our 104 reactors, but we are on track to build more. thank you. >> thank you. senator sanders? >> thank you. and welcome, commissioners. thanks for being here. i want to spend a moment discussing an issue of great concern to the people, which is about a power plant located in the southern part of our state. madam chair, this is one of 23 plants in our country with the same design, general electric, as the fukushima plate that has experienced a partial or full meltdowns in japan.

as my colleagues may or may not know, the state of vermont has a unique position in this country with regard to nuclear power. as a result of the agreement found between the state and energy, the owner of the nuclear power plant in vermont, the agreement, and this agreement was signed when they purchased vermont yankee in 2002. our state legislature and public utility commission have a legal say over whether the vermont yankee plant is utilized beyond 2012, when its license expires. that is unique in the country. the plant is nearing 40 years of age, and it is my firm view that 40 years is enough. but that is not just my view. far more importantly, the vermont state senate, representing the people of the

state of vermont, voted on a bipartisan basis 26 to 4 not to grant an extension to vermont yankee, and in my view, that represented the wishes of a vast majority of people in our state. we know that vermont yankee has had serious problems in the last number of years, including a collapse of its cooling towers in 2007 and radioactive leaks in 2005 and 2010. these leaks came from pipes plant officials claimed under oath did not exist. which did not, by the way, for the confidence of the people of the state of vermont in the owner. in support of the vermont legislature, they have been clear that they should respond -- respect the laws of vermont. it there are well paid corporate

lobbyists and lawyers to have been pushing for the federal lawyers to get involved in the lawsuit. we have seen the letter from the ceo, wayne leonard, who is among the best compensated best industry ceo's at $18 million per year, to decide whether or not vermont yankee is licensed, that we will see an opting out of the voting rights act. he could not be more wrong or out of touch. that is why the vermont congressional delegation was heartened to learn that the chairman, who i believe is a fair minded and diligent public servant, even if we occasionally disagree, said publicly that the nrc should not intervene between them and vermont. i believe this position is the right one.

the nrc regulates safety. that is what your job is. it is a difficult job. it is an important job. some people say you are not doing the job well. but they are not involved in legal disputes between a huge energy company and the people of the state of vermont. frankly, that is not your business. you have enough on your plate to deal with the complicated issues of maintaining safety. there was a story in "the new york times" today raising concern of us not doing a good job in this country and protecting people in the event of a shutdown of all electric power. pay attention to that. do not get involved in telling the people of the state of vermont what they should be doing or should not be doing. in that regard, i was extremely disappointed to learn on whether

or not to recommend to the justice department that the nrc take the entities side in this litigation, and as a result, -- a result of that vote was not published. i want to today that you will make the results of that vote public. if you voted to have the doj, the department of justice, involves, then at least you should tell the people of the state of vermont how you voted and what that vote was and what might be relevant materials associated with that vote. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. and now, my ranking member. >> thank you. i will apologize in advance. this is a very important meeting we are having, but it is also another meeting, and i am second ranking there.

our country is best served when we have a complete commission, and i hope this will happen soon. and what did they keep for having this hearing. all five of the commissioners on the agency actions to ensure our safety based on lessons learned of the fukushima accident. but first, i want to take a moment to acknowledge a report from the nrc inspector general and to the chairman and his comments with regard to the license application. i was concerned about this very situation in 2005, when he appeared before the committee for the first time.

this would impair his ability to act clearly as a commissioner, so i asked him to recuse himself. his conduct has clearly damaged the credibility of it. what i find most disconcerting in the report is the image of a chairman who withholds information from his colleagues, acts unilaterally, and rules by intimidation. the ig may have focused on yucca mountain, this comet may have extended beyond that. this first came to me while preparing for our last hearing on april 12, and i heard them testify. i was surprised to learn that we would only hear from the chairman because he was exercising his emergency powers under section 3 with

organization plan of 1980, and even more unbelievable, this is much of where the work was conducted. these actions are strikingly similar to some of the conclusions regarding the chairmans conduct on yucca mountain, but more importantly, he chose not to utilize the expertise of his fellow commissioners when confronted with the world's second largest nuclear accident. a true leader, when facing such challenges, would marshall all at his disposal and seek out the best expertise that he can. that would be what i would think should be done.

and that they should be governed by the general policies of the commission and yet significantly of lords -- ignores them as merely guidelines when questioned. these procedures exist to ensure nuclear safety. the public deserves nothing less, and i think you, madam chairman. >> thank you. if i can say, i will put into the records the statements made by the chairman on the report, and there is a disagreement between the ranking member and myself with the characterization that he put forward. it is my understanding that they found that the actions that the chairman took were consistent with the guidance and authority,

so there is a difference here on that, and i have to put that in the record, because i want to -- >> that is the first time we have ever had -- >> i know, and it will not be the last. i thought it was important because it was such an attack. i was a little taken aback by it. senator? >> thank you, madam chair. i would like to yield my time to senator sanders to complete his comments. >> ok, senator sanders has another five minutes. >> i think my friend very much for yielding. madam chair, the point i'm going to say is on an enormously important issue for my state. in the state of vermont, people have been extremely dissatisfied with the role that the company has been played. they do not have the confidence in that nuclear power plant.

for valid reasons. they said they did not think it was the best interests of those in vermont. they were reflecting the wishes of the people. vermont wants to move in a new way. we are number one in the country in terms of energy efficiency. we are moving aggressively in sustainable energy. you may disagree with us, but that is the direction the state of vermont want to go. now, the question is, what is the role of the nrc in that

discussion. is inappropriate for the nrc to get involved with one of the largest utility companies in the united states of america, and $14 billion company, pays their ceo $18 million per year, to get involved in a legal case between the state of vermont and that company? they want to make more money. i understand that. the people of vermont want to shut it down. i believe with that. i believe with the own people of my state. this disturbs me. i do not care what your view is on what they should should not be doing at vermont yankee. in my strong opinion, it is not your business to get involved in that fight. you have to worry about the state issues of nuclear power.

it is not your business to tell the people that they have to keep open a power plant that they do not want. that is not your business, so i am going to pursue during my question period, and i'm going to ask all of you how you voted. i want to think the chairman, and he is a strong advocate of nuclear power. he does not believe it is the business of the nrc to be in that debate. this is very disturbing. we have enough on our hands taking on one of a large powerful utilities in america. we do not need the nrc to get involved in this debate, so i want to thank my colleague from oregon, and i u.s.-backed. >> the remaining two minutes. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. three minutes. >> i will briefly note that if anyone has any comments about why the hydrogen, why it

exploded, obviously the process is intended to haute avoid a place where this happens. that did not happen in japan, with their three explosions. i also wanted to note that a lot of research be done on different models of nuclear reactors, and in particular, modular systems, systems that employ a passive measures, the types of passive measures that would of made irrelevant whether power had been knocked out, irrelevant whether it was flooded with a tidal waves. i have a lot of doubts about nuclear power being able to be competitive, looking at costs in terms of taking into account addressing terror threats, natural disasters, and human error. i also think it is important to look at all options as we wrestle with ways to generate

non carbon power, so any comments in that vein would be helpful, thank you. >> thank you very much. senator, we have not heard from you. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. i am pleased that the nuclear regulatory commission is here to present the preliminary results of its safety review. since the nuclear disaster began, americans have asked with a good deal of trepidation, "could it happen here?" we have to make sure that the final product is complete, comprehensive, and thorough, and that the nrc has got to make sure that our nuclear this woodies are safe and secure, and that means leaving no stone

unturned, and that is especially important to people at our state. it provides half of our electricity. this is the country's oldest and shares the same design as the damaged reactor is in japan, so we need the nrc to let us know what risks if any are present in american communities with the older nuclear reactors and what we have to do to reduce these risks and protect the public. we also need the nrc to do a better job of making sure that the americans know what to do in the case of a nuclear emergency. i was deeply troubled in march when our country was told that american citizens in japan should stay at least 50 miles away from the site of its meltdown. we have had this discussion before. here in the united states, the nrc emergency guidelines, only

involve plans to evacuate people 10 miles of the plant. it is confusing, and we ought not to be sending mixed signals to the public. the stakes are too high. at the same time, we should not lose fact that nuclear power has qualities that we would like to see. and emissions free energy soars, providing one-fifth of our nation's electricity. we have a pretty good note nuclear safety record. few injuries here in the united states. nuclear power can be part of an energy future. nothing can be taken for granted. japan, a world leader in technology, and it believed that the fukushima plant was strong enough to withstand the worst case scenario, and now, we know likewise.

chernobyl demonstrated the effects of a singular nuclear accident that can linger for a generation. each one of you, members of the nuclear regulatory commission, has a responsibility to ask the hard question but to make sure the american public get the answers that they deserve, and i have got to say that i think it is a great job that has been done. i think as we find these new circumstances, in japan, the accident happened as it, thank you for holding this hearing. >> thank you. now we go to our distinguished panel. we're going to start with the chairman.

five minutes and then each of you have 3. >> thank you. on behalf of the commission, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to provide an update on the response of the nrc to the nuclear emergency in japan. at the current time, the japanese utility and japanese government are still in an active accident mitigation phase at the fukushima at dai-ichi site. spent fuel polls did not appear to be changing in a way that creates additional concerns. some structural -- structural conditions are receiving increased attention such as the structural integrity of the spent fuel pool which is being shored up to strengthen its resistance to earthquakes. there are radioactive release path continuing at various degrees in the three reactors operating a time of the event. the japanese utility is working

to install a reliable closed loopholes system for the reactors and fuel pools including reactors in the plant and installing a treatment sister -- treatment system to clean up the water at the site. many challenges include high radiation field and humidity levels inside the reactor buildings which make it challenging for the workers to operate. large amounts of radioactive water in the basement and a considerable amount of contaminated debris across the site. the rainy season is underway in japan and the immense challenges add the difficulty of dealing with the radioactive contamination area. overall, the japanese are making significant progress in moving forward in what is a very difficult and challenging as adulation. on behalf of the commission, we express our sympathies for the people of japan to lead a very significant crisis. the decision to recommend a 50-

mile radius near the site has been a topic of much discussion. the concerns about the spent fuel pool and the unit for which have received attention recently were only one element of a dynamic situation in which information was sketchy and uncertain. the more recent assessments of the spent fuel pool is countered by the confirmation of significant court damages to you it's one, two and three adults not invalidate hour earlier decision. this decision was based on the limited information and best assessment of the situation at the time. we continue to review the 50 mile recommendation. turning to the actions in the united states, since the events of fukushima dai-ichi began to unfold in march, they have been relaying information to our nuclear power plants. we have called for immediate assessments of each plant level of preparedness. the instructions cover expensive

mitigation guidelines and seismic and flooding issues as well as severe accident management guidelines. to provide information on a broad range of issues. the industry shrill determine whether additional actions are necessary. we have also convened a senior level task force made up of the most expert staff and their review is proceeding on a short- term and longer-term time frame. this task force is examining issues including seismic events, flooding, and other natural hazards, how to maintain power during these events and how to mitigate potential losses of power and diversity prepared this. the time constraints have limited stakeholder involvement, we will engage the public licensees and other key stakeholders to a greater extent. the final report will be

reviewed by the advisory committee on reactor safeguards. the interest of accident prevention, we are evaluating seismic and flooding events another extra allowance that might inflict widespread damage to a at plant and lead to an extended black out. we are re-examining excess of mitigation strategies for severe accidents and we are examining crop -- examining cost-cutting situations related to the ability to mitigate a long term station black out of bed. as part of our view, the nrc is that many implications for emergency preparedness, especially in impossible situations regarding widespread infrastructure damage. >> i'm sorry to interrupt you. we understand you care about nuclear safety. but we really ask you to put down your sides and you can either put that down and stay or you can leave with the science. it's up to you, whenever you wish to do is fine with us.

lotus thank you. you're leaving? we are sorry to lose you. you have 30 seconds more. >> as part of our review, the nrc is examining the implications of emergency preparedness, especially in impossible situations involving widespread infrastructure damage and long term station blackout. the nrc is committed to proceeding as openly and transparently as possible and is holding a series of three public meetings at the 30-day, 60-day, and 90-day marks. we just had the 60-day meeting yesterday. their third public meeting is scheduled for july 19th when the 90-day report will be presented. this report will provide important recommendations and outline a strong vision for the longer term review. it also began to longer-term review of our security which we expect to be completed within

six months. members of the committee, this concludes my formal testimony. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and we're pleased to answer any questions you may have. >> could i make a request to accommodate my problem with the arms services committee? the sector has been kind enough to take my five minutes. thank you very much. >> we will miss you. very much. we are going to move along now to each of you for three minutes each. hot our next commissioner -- that i do that right? >> thank you. members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

the chairman has addressed the brunt of the ongoing activities in the written statement on behalf of the commission. the events of fukushima are a sober reminder that nuclear technology is unique and is used requires an unwavering commit to safety. we must learn the lessons these events present. the nrc has submitted a systematic review of events in japan while maintaining focus on the safety and security of nuclear materials and facilities here in that u.s.. the nrc staff continues its work on the maturity and licensing, rulemaking and inspection activities before the agency. that nrc has been entrusted with the nuclear safety and security. during my service, i found the nrc to be an organization dedicated professionals who are mindful of their important obligations. i strive to enable them in advancing this cause. thank you for this opportunity and alec farr to answering your questions.

>> thank you very much. we now move to the commissioner was happy to meet in california. he was visiting the set and no free plant when i was there. that was a very good visit. -- the san and no fray plant. >> members of the committee, good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. i will summarize my impressions of the event as follows. first, the performance of the staff. i have been a commissioner for little over a year now. during that time and during my 15 years as a member of the advisory committee on reactor safeguards, i've had plenty of opportunities to interact with the nrc staff at all levels. i've always been impressed by their technical excellence and dedication to our mission of

protecting public health and safety. our team in japan confirmed while already knew -- i am told both the u.s. ambassador in japan and the japanese government have great respect for our team and its advice on technical matters. i am proud of the nrc staff and i am proud to be a commissioner. the plant at fukushima was subjected to incredibly destructive natural forces, exceeding the plant's design limits without acute a fax resulting from radiation exposure. in my view, this reflects at least in part the conservatism built into nuclear reactor designs in terms of safety margins. this is a valuable lesson for me as i consider the application in our regular time. third, the importance of decisionmaking during

emergencies -- the terrorist events of september 11th, 2001, and the aftermath of the country now hurricane have already brought the issues of prepared this to the forefront in this country. the fukushima accident demonstrated once again the need for a clearly defined decisionmaking process during emergencies. fourth, a lesson in humility -- there have been numerous safety studies of reactors worldwide. as a community of analysts, we were confident or be no new surprises. fukushima has challenged that belief. we must maintain a questioning attitude and be sure confidence does not translate into complacency. thank you. >> thank you for those remarks. >> thank you, chairman.

it is a pleasure to be here and speak about these important issues. the vital and boards of understanding and responding appropriately to foot the shell weighs heavily on all looser for the nuclear regulatory commission. may i add we consider -- we continue to send our best wishes to the people in japan as they recover from the earthquake. nrc is a learning organization and we will continue to learn it from fukushima. it will take months, possibly years before all of the facts are fully assessed. while we will learn much from a complete understanding of what happened to the plant after it was battered by the earthquake and to not become a we know enough to review the regulatory framework with a critical post- fukushima i. we know we need to make some changes in a variety of areas. it's our responsibility to take new regular --

while as a staff reported to us yesterday, we remain quite confident in the safety of u.s. nuclear power plants and our overall approach of ensuring safety into the future, there may be opportunities to improve -- to improve in depth. if there are opportunities, we should seize them. i believe a strong role for experts and stakeholders outside of the nrc will be essential. many observers have raised important and challenging questions and i believe we should engage them directly to ensure our the benefits from their insights. this includes the full engagement of the advisory committee on reactor safeguards. as smart and talented as the staff is, even they may not have all the answers. we will have and always done that of the from the process. thank you for holding the hearing at a look forward to

working with this if we need to make changes, and another are changes we need to make, the commission well. the full commission received a public briefing yesterday in rockwell. what the task force has learned so far. the task force inform the commission of its results today, including the results of our inspection that all 104 reactors. in several key themes of our safety philosophy. that includes assessment and protection of equipment from external hazards, mitigation strategies to prevent core damage or spent fuel damage. emergency preparedness.

lastly, how to apply our regulations and a coherent manner. the nrc's public well-off -- highly qualified inspectors have inspected licensee implication of guidelines from the country to ensure our licensees are able to deal with a loss of power or a big damage a vent to their particular reactor sites. the findings from these inspections will help to guide our decisions going forward with respect to any warranted regulatory changes. for the longer-term, our efforts focus on other key areas related to the fukushima incident. this includes station blackout, mitigation, spent fuel pool safety. i am looking for to evaluating the nrc staff regulations where

improvements can be made to the regulatory framework. congress and the public can be assured our findings will be brought to light in an open and transparent fashion. i appreciate the committee's oversight role and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. before i start my questions, i want to respond to yucca. we found out through a gao report the republicans asked for, that they terminated the project because it was not a workable option. there were benefits associated with this. that is a report requested by the republicans in the house. some of the past problems we had, the risk that water will

seep into a repository and cause the casks holding high-level radioactive waste to rest and break, we keep content into the vicinity and lord knows i know too much about earthquake faults and a dangerous radiation, of particular concern to me is groundwater -- groundwater from yucca mountain flows and to my state. there tests that show water was leaking from the site. this is an closed matter, but since it was raised by the ranking member, i felt it was important to bring everyone up to date that a gao investigation asked for by house republicans basically said this was an appropriate decision. i have some questions here and going to focus on fukushima and then moved to california and try to cover all those bases.

34,000 children in japan have been issued personal radiation monitors. those children live 40 miles from the plant itself, well outside the 12 mile exclusion zone. why do you think 34,000 kids were given radiation monitors? >> it is my understanding there has been a lot of discussion about protective actions for children in japan as well as with all the people living in japan and the japanese government continues to evaluate the actions they have taken with regard to protecting their population. this is a very complicated situation. as the international community looks at what happens in japan, there's a lot of interest in

attempting to come up with a more common set of guidelines for what types of protective actions are appropriate. >> this is not about protective. this is about exposure. i would just say since we want to learn from this, if your answer was because the japanese government has been bombarded by parents, i would say that was a better answer because that's my understanding. let's just note we cannot accept like this because the kids are going to school there. they live 40 miles of the parents don't feel good. i'm going to ask the chairman on this so i don't give you all the hard questions -- this is a hard one. help me with this -- that japanese government has raised the legal limit of exposure since the plant was devastated i the march 11th earthquake and tsunami. prior to the accident, the dose

was one milly sievert per year. that sounds to me very suspicious. why would you all the sudden find out we can be exposed to more radiation? were there any studies done that said that level was safe? did they raise it because they are concerned the people were exposed to more than one? >> i am personally not aware of there being any studies that informed that decision, but i do not have the detailed knowledge of what the japanese government may have considered in that area. i agree that is a significant change to radiation exposure levels. can i ask the chairman to do more investigation on this? i don't want to see that happen where after an accident, we say it's ok. you are exposed to what we thought was the limit, but we are changing the lead. it does not make it ok.

on april 11th, the nrc was asked to delay the bill -- delayed the diablo canyon -- i think that was a smart thing. according to press accounts, the nrc is moving forward with safety and other things for a ruling on this request. what i want to ask this is it usual if they ask for a delay, do you grant the delay or is that something that's not going to be automatic unless you take a vote? >> what we ask for specifically was that we delay a final decision. they did not ask us to delay the review. what we have done is move forward with the safety component of the review but held open a piece of the review pending the seismic studies.

in addition, we have held off and will not finalize the impact statement until the final assessment is done. we are effectively waiting for that assessment to be completed before we complete our actions of the review. >> let me just say from a very concerned senator, and i speak for my fellow center and the people in my state, if you were looking at a new proposal and it came to you on an earthquake's tight -- got an earthquake site where it shows it will get worse and not better, i would assume he would say take your plant somewhere else. what i hope you do is understand both of these plants have had an enormous increase in population since they were approved. especially san onofre.

they are on earthquake faults right along the coast. i think it is very important that when you look at this in a humble way, and i appreciate the tone of his remarks, i think we are all humbled by what happened. you look at this with the eyes of the people living there who are in a situation -- when i went there, one of the women pulled me aside and said you asked what the evacuation plan is, we don't have any. here is the evacuation plan -- rush-hour on the freeway. anyone who has been to southern california during rush hour on the freeway, that's not acceptable. i am urging you do not rush these. we also -- i don't know whether

vermont is number one in energy efficiency or california, but the bottom line is in our state, we have a lot of sun, we have a lot of wind, we have a lot of geothermal. there may be places for nuclear- powered that are not on earthquake faults or near tsunami zones. please put on those safety hats and we will be working very closely with you because i do not want to see a rash to license these plants. >> thank you very much. i am glad to see the full commission with us today. i am particularly pleased to see the commissioner. i congratulate you on your recent nomination to serve on the commission. your background is extensive. prior to being sworn in as a commissioner, he worked as an engineer, legal counselor, naval

officer. you were a principal deputy administrator at the national nuclear agency -- serving as staff director for the strategic force subcommittee and a captain of the navy commanding a submarine. i could go on and on. do you believe the senate should confirm the commissioner as quickly as possible before his term expires? >> i would leave it up to be set to decide that, but i've had a good and productive working relationship with him and i think he's a valuable member of the commission. >> i agree with senator boxer and her concerns about safety. i know you had spoken at a symposium where you said employees both of the nrc and industry must be empowered to ask the difficult questions.

ensuring this happens is that the core of safety culture. when we look at that culture, we want safety for workers and communities. you have to be able to ask questions. do you agree with that? >> absolutely. >> a report was issued on june 6th that has been widely referenced in the press. your statement on june 8th said you appreciated the thoroughness with with -- with which this review was conducted. do you agree? thank you. according to the report, i have read it and the new york times as done an extensive report, it says a hostile workplace was created with frequent outbursts of temper, favoritism and travel assignments and a selective release of information to other members of the commission.

i ask the entire report bay -- entire report be made part of the record. >> those were not findings of the inspector general. they were comments in the report of the individuals they reviewed and there is a -- >> i would say with safety and a sense of someone being able to speak out and feel intimidated or pressured not to speak out, whether a finding of the report or statement of someone who felt that way, they may be less likely to speak out because the inspectors report says over the course of the investigation, a number of interviewees conveyed their perception that the chairman control and restrict the information available to his fellow commissioners and noted concerns about his interpersonal style. several former and current staff members said the chairman's behavior caused an intimidating

work environment. a former chairman told the office of the inspector general that the chairman off and yelled at people and his tactic of sad a negative effect on people. he described this as a ruling by intimidation. isi'm not clear -- who making these statements? >> and unnamed staffer? >> people who are members of the staff and a former chairman said -- a former chairman? >> described the behavior as ruling by intimidation -- >> is the former chairman still active? >> chairman was councilman two occasions -- page 43 of the report. share thisy to report. i am focusing on a culture of

safety. i want to make sure we're getting that culture of safety and if people feel intimidated, i worry about at and i worry about it in coal mines, in industrial sites, on the railroads, i worry about that throughout the state of wyoming and i worry about from a nuclear power issue. >> i worry about the same things. since i have become chairman, i've worked hard to make sure we have a open debate and dialogue at the commission. i'm a very passionate and intense person. i hold people accountable for their actions at the agency and that is what i had done since i became chairman. but i would note all the statements you read or not findings of the i.g. they could not corroborate the more substantiate them to the point where they became an official finding.

i think as center carter said, we can always -- every day i work to do my job better. there are going to be difficult issues and discussions that we will sometimes have at the agency. i feel very strongly that -- i have not experienced staff being shy around your being a willing to tell me what they think. sometimes i express my thoughts about what i think to them. i have been comfortable that we have -- >> did you say yucca mountain was a $15 billion hole to know where? >> that is not something that to my role of responsibility to comment on. >> you mentioned my colleagues response about the state of nevada changing their mind on yucca mountain. but the home county folks still did want yucca mountain to

proceed and still did want that opportunity. if i run out of time, i would like to some of my questions for the record. the energy reorganization act the chairman is exercising his executive and it does trading functions shall be governed by general policies of the commission. the commission sets forth procedures for the chairman to follow and exercising the emergency authority under section 3 of the reorganization plan. there has been some concern because you used your emergency authority. you should add a for a limited time. it requires additional reporting to the other members. i would ask the other members if you could briefly tell me when did the chairman tell you he sees that using his power under section 3? >> i received no such notification. >> i did not either.

>> i received notification. >> i have not received notification. >> that chairman is required to provide a complete and timely report on actions taken while exercising the authority. yet not yet received and -- received a report if you have not got notification. when he testified back in april, you stated most of the activities you engaged in as part of this response have been in my normal supervisory authorities of this that the agencies and my communication responsibilities. a full accounting was asked for -- will you provide a report detailing the actions during your exercise of emergency authority? >> of course. >> mr. chairman, in your testimony before the house energy and commerce committee,

you stated you were not required to make a formal declaration of your decision to use emergency authority under section 3 a of the organization plan and -- i can read the whole plan, but in that interest time, why did you choose to keep secret the fact you were transferring to yourself functions tested in the commission? >> the commission was fully aware i was exercising my emergency authorities. i did not keep that secret. i did not make a formal declaration because it's not part of the process. the commission was briefed three times a day by the staff. they were provided with situation reports on the outset of the incident and produced at least three times a day. i spoke at least once a day generally as much as time

allowed in the initial part of the incident. there was a tremendous amount of communication to my colleagues. they were fully aware of all the decisions being taken by the agency and my role as chairman. >> i would like to ask each of the commissioners, when did you first learned the chairman had taken on emergency powers? >> i did not receive a declaration. >> my understanding this committee was informed of the exercising of emergency powers and i believe i learned of it then. >> have you been informed by the commissioner has taken over? >> i have not. >> i first heard about it when we heard -- this is the first time i heard it. >> i did have a discussion with

the chairman on march 31st in which i understood that time that it appeared to be was exercising emergency powers though there had not been a formal statement to that effect. >> a final statement -- a letter and outlining his concerns about emergency authority and ask you to provide a legal analysis that supports your transfer of functions to yourself. he said you had not provided one yet. are we -- are you -- perhaps you want to seek legal counsel? >> that is incorrect. there is no question about my authority in this case and i have plenty of documentation to support that. >> thank you. >> i'm going to place in the record a document backing up what the chairman has stated. there is no requirement for an emergency declaration that all and we will put the actual language into the record because this kind of questioning is

extraordinary to me, asking if you did something you don't have to do in having every commissioner no, he did not do it. you did not have to. it is mind-boggling around here. turn to theto subcommittee chairman now. >> one of the best leadership roles i ever learned in the navy and a lot of other places, including my own home, was follow the golden rule. treat other people way you want to be treated. i would remind all of you that is the way i try to live my life. i failed miserably but i try every day and i implore you to do the same whether you are a chair or member of this

commission. treat other people we wanted to be treated. the chaplain here, those of us who need special help, meet with him on thursdays for half an hour. he always reminds us of the golden rule. that is the cliffs notes of the new testament. as it turns out, it's the cliff as to any major religion of the world. let's talk about the lessons we've learned so far since the tragedy is that fukushima. i want to start with you, commissioner. give us an example of the lessons we learned that we have or have not begun to act on our employment. >> thank you for your questions. one area that has come up at two meetings we have had so far has been the need to evaluate the adequacy of our existing station blackout rules which deal with the loss of ac power

on-site and off site. the commission will probably receive perhaps some recommendations in this area -- that the concrete example i provide to you. >> thank you. >> i would agree with the commissioner on station blackouts and i know what add -- >> if you want to repeat something someone has said, that's a good king. >> one example that leaps out at many of us, after 9/11, we could not place certain procedures and equipment to allow plants to respond to events that would require emergency cooling from auxiliaries diesel generators. to drive pumps and provide waters -- provide water to cool the reactors. we would require they be a short distance away from a reactor

buildings. clearly, if we had those procedures in place, that equipment would have been wiped out with a lot of the other on sight equipment. that was a significant revelation for me and something we have to address. >> thank you. >> one thing that maybe i have learned is i think we should go back and look again at the distinction between design bases events and beyond design basis events. that is a legal distinction. the agency has many, many requirements, inspection requirements and so on for design basis events, for design -- for beyond design basis

events, we really don't get involved too much. nature does not work that way. nature does not distinguish between beyond basis events. i think we ought to go back and look at what we are doing now with respect to be on the design basis events and get some ideas about how we can strengthen our involvement. that is a personal view. >> you are very gracious. one lesson? >> i agree that we should look at station blackout and loss of offside power. i also agree with need to look at the measures put into place after september 11th to deal

with catastrophic events. i would add an area that is fruitful for lessons learned would be looking at our coordination between federal agencies and state and local governments should an event occurred. it is always very difficult in a crisis situation and that's an area where we can always be improving. >> thank you. the only thing i would add is the significant of spent fuel. we have had a singular focus on reactor safety and have not put enough attention to considering spent fuel pools. for how they could possibly impact the ability to carry our response at the site. the other piece of that is a recognition that our traditional approach has been to assume a single incident at a single reactor. clearly, we have to consider the

possibility of units at a single site. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for the hearing. our commission -- our country is well served when you function collectively and to illegally. you can pull your expertise and more effectively harnessed the knowledge it your disposal. i have concerns that the commission may not be fully utilizing the expertise on their advisory committee on reactor safeguards. the advisory committee is structured to provide a forum where experts represent many technical perspectives can provide independent advice

factored into the commission's decision making process. the advisory committee represents a wealth of knowledge in reactor safety and severe at seven occurrences. i am concerned their role has so far been limited to reviewing staff conclusion that the end of their long-term review it the end of the to the sumacs event. my question is, the direction for the task force lists no role other than reviewing the final report and the end of the longer-term review. considering the wealth of expertise in reactor safety, when the task force benefit from the insights throughout the fukushima review? >> staff has briefed us once already. they heard a meeting very early on and briefed them.

a senior staff will be briefing the next week. there has been dialogue, but the commission provided a role in the longer term review, but giving -- given the significant task in front of us and the short time we ask them to work, we wanted them to focus on their best thinking and reach out to the people they thought would be most helpful. i have encouraged them to make it available to the task force. they were not comfortable with that. they would prefer to meet as a body and i think that's unfortunate. they have tremendous expertise that could be made available to the task force but their interest is not to do that in a way that would be most convenient for the task force. >> would the rest of you like to comment in that regard? do you feel an increased use

would be beneficial? >> as the chairman noted, the commission did explicitly instructed the final report, but the chairman can initiate inquiries and look into matters and i am fully supportive of doing some self directed it looks at fukushima as well. >> i am a former chairman and i can assure you there is no doubt in my mind that we will hear from them and they will give us [unintelligible] there is nothing to stop them from writing letters a time they want. >> and you agree that that is helpful? >> absolutely. >> i am fully supportive of the participation, particularly in a longer term review. >> i agree with my colleagues

and agree with the germans comments that the longer term review is as far as our task force tasking is appropriate, but to the extent they have other ideas as to what might be helpful, i welcome those. >> thank you. i believe there was a letter regarding this. are you familiar with this? >> yes. i think he asked for a response by june 9th. have you sent a response yet? >> i do not believe i have. >> do you have any idea when that will be done? >> i assume in the next couple of weeks. i am interested also. will you share the response with the committee when that is done? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you, madame chair. i believe one of the

commissioners in his remarks said something to the effect that the nrc can benefit from an open process. i happen to agree very much with what the commissioner said. in that light, let me ask just a few questions your position as i understand it has been that the nrc should not be involved in preemption issues. the legal fight going on between the state of vermont and the entergy corporation. >> i certainly do not see an immediate issue where there is a concern for pre-emption. i do not want to get into the specifics of the legal question. as i have said publicly, the states have a role, the federal government has a role and we

have taken our action, those things are necessary, so just -- >> at this moment, you do not believe the nrc should get involved? >> i do not want to comment specifically because it is a privilege discussion, but i've seen nothing that would show there is a pre-emption issue here. >> getting back to the statement, the nrc benefits and we all benefit from an open process -- maya understanding is there was a vote yesterday on the issue. on the issue of whether it the

nrc should be involved in this case. can you tell me what the vote was? >> the matter in front of the commission was one of our legal discussions and we like to keep those closed because it preserves the opportunity for our legal counsel to give us a frank recommendation. the'm going to pick up on point of an open process. your job is to represent the interests of the people of the united states of america and very difficult issues. my understanding is there was a vote yesterday on whether the nrc should recommend to the department of justice whether are not they should intervene on behalf of entergy. can you tell me if i was right and what the vote was on that?

>> the commission has not released those documents. i would be in favor of providing those to you with the understanding -- it >> i do not want them as they cannot be released publicly. i would like them released publicly and i would like -- would you tell us how you voted yesterday? >> it is a privileged discussion and a discussion the agency has had with the department justice. we have been asked not to comment on that by the department of justice. >> i am asking you to comment on it. >> i'm afraid i cannot do that. >> will you tell me how you voted yesterday? >> based on inquiries from your

office yesterday regarding this ongoing litigation, i asked counsel to enquire and receive advice and confer with the justice department. the justice department asked i emphasize to things in my response. first of all, that the justice department has told litigating authority and is the sole decision maker on any federal government involvement in this matter. >> but you can and apparently did make a recommendation to the department justice, correct? >> there are interagency -- the litigation posture of the united states is under active deliberation by the justice department and a half asked will not comment any further. >> i will not waste a lot of time by asking all the commissioners. i suspect i get the same answer and i find it a disturbing answer. let me ask the chairman if he could tell me what the non- partisan general counsel's

office recommend to the commission about this matter. >> in order to preserve the integrity, i'd rather not comment. i would rather just say that personally i think historically it has been rare for the agency to get involved in preemption issues. it's a very high threshold for us to get involved and i think it should be. >> my last question, i'm running out of time now, let me ask the chairman, has entergy or its representatives or the nuclear industry as a whole come in to meet or request to meet with the commission or nrc staff about this litigation? >> there were meetings between entergy officials and staff at the agency. they requested meetings with commissioners and guidance from the department of justice. i can only speak for myself in

that regard. i did not take the meeting. >> you did not meet with them, but staff did? >> correct. >> have representatives from the state of vermont met with your staff? >> i'm not aware of that. >> i may want to get back later, but my time has expired. >> thank you very much. i'm going to turn to some of the issues that were raised by fukushima. one of those is regarding vent systems. here in the united states, there's a point in time which we recommended and systems be hardened. i wonder if someone could describe what was done and whether it was fully implemented across the nuclear power plants across america. >> i believe all of our boiling

water reactors is a voluntary initiative and did hard in the events which insurers they are able to withstand the pressures in a design basis accident scenario. the event -- is still unclear exactly what the source of hydrogen was and challenges with venting at fukushima were, whether it was a failure of the events themselves or whether there was some other leak in one of the systems that would allow the hydrogen to accumulate where it did. at this point, it is not clear exactly what role they played. that is something our task force will be looking at closely and i expect significant recommendations on future changes to our requirements for the heart of defense and other means to monitor and control hydrogen accumulation. >> one of the other issues that

has been discussed is the automatic depressurization systems. there has been debate over whether the design should be implemented that allows pressure to be automatically decreased or whether there should be a human in the link. i have received conflicting understandings of what was decided and what was done on nuclear power plants in america in that regard. can you comment on that? >> on that issue, i am not familiar with it but we can get back to you with detailed information. >> is there anyone who is familiar with that? >> the general understanding at the press level has been the hydrogen gas that occurred in one and three came from fuel rods in those active reactors that were partially uncovered.

mr. chairman, you are proposing that is perhaps not the reason. >> that would come with reaction to exposed fuel in the water and air. unit for in particular, there is still some uncertainty about where the hydrogen came from, whether was a in the spent fuel pool or whether it came from what is the dominant theory right now, the vent line themselves and the actual exhaust stack that goes from units 3 did not have a valve that prevented the hydrogen from flowing into the unit three event and it went back through the pipes. to stick to one and three. the whole point of venting is so that the explosion occurred outside rather than inside the vessel.

what do we think went wrong? >> the fuel was uncovered and when the fuel is uncovered, it is likely to produce hydrogen. the plans are designed so that hydrogen will cool in what is called the wet well. there is a hard in the event that takes water from the what well and releases it to the atmosphere. somewhere in that system, there was a failure. hydrogen was allowed to accumulate in an area where should not have them there was ultimately an explosion. at this point, the details are not clearly defined as to what the exact path of the hydrogen was from the accumulation of the fuel. >> my understanding is the explosions occurred after the venting began, but there is no insight yet as to what went wrong in terms of whether the exposure -- whether the explosion began on the outside.

it's an important issue for us to understand because it is a key to all of the complexities that have come about in the effort to rescue the reactors. you noted that the fukushima shows insights into specific safety improvements. what are the top five? >> the top five improvements? >> yes. you said fukushima gives us insight on the needs we have four specific safety improvements. what are the top five for american power plants? >> i a -- >> what are a couple you would highlight? >> senator boxer asked earlier

what the lesson was. there is an overall lesson to be learned, is that you cannot predict everything that will happen in the future. you cannot predict every earthquake or tsunami. you have to be able to recover from what ever happens. the biggest safety messages to position equipment, have training, have the capability to recover from whatever incident transpires and be able to effect that and a matter. >> i just leave you with this thought. one has to have an understanding of what are the highest risk areas so that the trading gambia appropriate and countermeasures can be appropriate and countermeasures are fully pursued. i would think at this point we would have a list of the top five concerns, be they bought having backup power that is susceptible to being flooded by

a tsunami might be one example. thank you. >> in view of some of the assertions -- how many employees are on the staff of the nrc? >> approximately 4000. >> i think it is important to note that is a large size organization. the mark one design use that to the shima was also used at u.s. plants, including two reactors in my state of new jersey.

modifications to the design ensures the safety of the reactors but it now appears that the japanese plants also previously made modifications like the ones made at plants in debt u.s.. those modifications could not prevent what happened in the japanese accident. can we believe our plants are not similarly vulnerable? >> i think that is an important question. i did visit or oyster creek some months ago and learned a lot about the mark one. what we are finding today is that there are fax driveling yen from fukushima. there are some basic things

about what exactly were the modifications performed and we really don't have all of those details yet. we do not know what happened during the earthquake during the tsunami and there are facts we have to sort out and it would be premature to make a judgment at this point. unless we learn something dramatically different from what we know today, we will continue to believe that. >> i'm not sure that is reassuring to the public. mr. chairman, do you have anything to say about that? >> the review we are doing is to make sure we get this right. what we want to make sure we do is we do not follow something that is an incorrect path.

we don't take an incorrect path and -- the venting process is still a little uncertain because there is still too much radiation for people to really get into the buildings and remove debris to try to figure out exactly what happened in the it. right now, we have done, as part of the reviews, we always ask ourself the questions -- is there anything we need to do to address that? the answer continues to be no, we want to get good information and a likelihood of something like this happening in the united states is very, very small. these are very unlikely types of events. 90 days may seem like a long time to do this, but to the people doing the review is going

by in a millisecond. there is so much information for them to process, but it is important we get right and so far, they are looking at all of the right things. >> did that include the length of time it is taking to do this? i address this to any and all of you -- spent fuel can be stored in pools as it was in fukushima. we have heard from you that spent fuel and dry casts -- each is a safe method of storage. is one more reliable were safer than the other? >> each of them has different strengths and weaknesses.

>> i think we should get past that and -- can we clearly say yes, one has the safety edge the other does not? >> with all the information we have right now, i would say no. they both provide a robust way to maintain the spent fuel. we may find with all of this new information from japan that spent fuel pools may provide an additional vulnerability that make them less of adoptable approach for storing fuel in the long term. but right now, what we know is they are both very safe ways to store fuel and there does not seem to be an obvious difference between one approach or the other. but we are looking closely at what happened in japan and we may get information from that which tells us there's a difference and if there is, we

will do what ever we need to do. >> the universal that had each of you look at this in depth and come up with the conclusion we have just heard? >> i agree with a chairman. >> i do also. >> i agree with the chairman and i would add one other fact. while i agree with a chairman, there are different aspects to what and dry storage and they both have their attributes. the less safe thing to do is when spent fuel is moving around a lot. you have to take into consideration the risks involved in simply transferring be spent fuel around because that is where the risk is highest. >> i would agree with the chairman's comments and i what at our office of research is looking right now at a

differential risk calculation between leading the spent -- leaving the spent fuel in a pool as opposed to putting it in a dry cask at different times. that will be informing the task force recommendations. >> thank you. >> we are going to continue with another round. it is my understanding that nrc staff will report the recommendations from this initial phase of the review on july 12th. the commissioners will hold a meeting concerning those recommendations on july 19th. a lot of us are really anxious to see those recommendations. will you assure me the report containing the recommendations is delivered to my office and the senator's office on the day it is delivered to the commissioners? >> absolutely. that is a decision for the commission -- >> i will ask each commissioner. can you assure me will release their report to me? >> i support that action.

>> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> excellent. he testified your confirmation hearing, what i ask you a series of questions about yucca mountain and said, you did not work directly on yucca and you said i did not,no. now there is a report out in the media message you co-authored a technical report entitled "acceptance of waste disposal in the potential of the united states repository at yucca." this report was used in the site characterization of yucca which eventually led to secretary abraham and president bush of proving it. also, according to ease

documents, while at the department of the environment, your task to conduct technical work related to radioactive waste materials that could be stored in yucca and you remember -- you were a member of the task team tasked with resolving technical issues related to yucca. so it is important to me, since i said to you, so you did not work directly on the yucca, and you said i did not, and years later, this comes out. could you explain this to me? >> i am aware of the document you are referencing and it has caused me to go back and look back at my testimony to you and the exchange we had at my confirmation hearing. you asked me to characterize my work and my answer indicated i had worked in the office of civilian radioactive waste at dewitt was well-known and was on my resume. i indicated i did not work on

the yucca mountain license application. i worked on ways to inventories and transportation of materials in that program. i drew the distinction in my testimony. i do not agree the document you are referring to is accurate about stating that report that worked on were underlying the debt yucca mountain licensing application. i do not agree that is accurate. >> that is there. i would just like to say what i sum up and said, so you did not work directly on yucca, i did not mean you were in the mountain taking tests on it. i meant were you working on the whole subject and you were. i would just say to you that this is troubling to me and i would leave it at that. i believe the focus should be on ensuring the safe operation of the 104 nuclear reactors and communities across our nation,

not on old or already resolved issues but to ensure everyone is clear the laws were broken, i'm going to ask you, chairman, to questions about the leaked report. did the i.g. bind the general council supported your decision to direct staff to follow fiscal year 2011 budget guidelines on closing out yucca and at your direction was consistent with an nrc statute, guidance and the administration's decision to terminate yucca? >> yes. >> did the i.g. find the decision was a budgetary matter within your purview as chairman? >> yes. >> thank you. i want to ask you a question of the political side. according to an article in the "new york times" a chairman from the task force said yesterday that past studies by safety

experts have analyzed the risk of using -- losing electricity from the grid or on-site generators but not both at the same time. i understand this scenario, the loss of on-site electricity, which happened in japan, is that correct? that is referred to as a station blackout. >> correct. >> in light of what happened in japan, will the nrc consider new regulations to prepare our plans to better handle a station blackout? statement that's a for the commission but my personal view is i think this is an area where we will have to make some changes. i suspect the task force will have some recommendations in this area. >> is there agreement by the panel on that statement? >> i will study carefully the task force recommendations. >> you do not see a station blackout as a problem that needs

to be fixed at this time? >> there are currently requirements and i look forward to the adequacy of the current requirements. >> what they deal with in the past is just losing electricity from the grid or from on-site emergencies but not both at the same time? >> that is incorrect. >> please correct the record for me. >> station blackout means you lose all power. there is a rule the commission has promulgated there are other questions coming out of fiction up. for example, in most of our plans right now, the batteries which are supposed to provide power are expected to work somewhere between four and eight

hours and that japanese incident shows you may have days or even weeks. these are some of the day -- some of the things we have to think about how to address in the future. >> you do not agree with the article where the chairman of the task force said studies by safety experts in the united states had analyze risks of losing electricity from the grid or from on-site emergency generators but not both at the same time? you say you have had studies -- >> this is not a true statement. >> this is important. we will let the "new york times" know. >> when you were looking at the coping time, you have to make assumptions about how quickly you can restore that electrical power. what historically has been done,

they have looked at events where you had a loss of the electrical power from a minor disturbance in the electrical grid and that would take a certain amount of time and get you to the 48 hours of coping time. that idea of the cycle and 80 in some of the guidance gets to the recovery and how long it would take to recover. we would make assumptions you would not necessarily both have catastrophically loss the emergency generators as well as catastrophically lost the of site power. .

>> that's something that i think was a new thought for many people. and i agree with others have said, it's something that we have to look at. >> do you agree? >> madam chair, i agree this is something we need to look at. >> very good, yes, senator. >> thank you very much. again i appreciate the hearing, i think it's been very helpful. i really do understand, i think the country understands how important this agency is. and i know you have your differences, but we do appreciate you working hard together to keep us safe. we have a nuclear plant in

arkansas, and they do a tremendous job. they are a great citizen, and we are glad to have the plant again, realizing that everyone works in harmony to make sure that these things function and not only produce cheap electricity and help us in that way. and again we don't have to worry that we are not doing the very best that we can for the population. the only thing else i would add, i think on the yucca project, there were probably thousands of people that worked in a minor way and being a junior engineer working in whatever manner. the idea that somehow that laid the foundation for the bush's administration decision six years later, i think is a real reach. we do appreciate you, and

anything i can do, we will. and i know that the committee feels the same way. and like i said, we appreciate your efforts. and i yield back. >> thank you, senator. and senator carper. >> thank you, i would like to come back to the issue raised by our chairman, the power batte batteri batteries. and it was my understanding that things were not that bad as long as the power batteries were worki working, and they had an eight-hour life, i recall, and that's when oh, something hit the fan, if i could. i am told that many, most of our facilities are good facilities in this country have the back-up batteries. i think a four-hour battery life. i don't know if all are four or some are eight. but the thought occurs to me,

and we had a discussion already, but should we be looking at the requirement for the operating life of these batteries? and extending that? is there a place called 8123 in cambridge, and the battery folks and the chef lvrolet volvo, we e battery life better, and particularly in a electric car vehicles and shouldn't we do better in the fewer. and i would say dr. apostolakis, take a shot at that question. >> you are absolutely right, senator, this is something we have to look into and take some sort of action. i don't know what that action would be. but clearly a message is that

four hours or sometimes eight isn't sufficient. interestingly enough when the requirement of four hours or so many hours were put in place, it was actually a conservative estimate. they looked at the time it took to recover the a.c.power, the average was about two hours, and to be conservative, they doubled it and now they have this accident to show it was inadequate. that's something we have to look into it. >> long after hirashimma, i listened to the time decided and as pointed out the time to be conservative.

and i pointed out to the staff they live in maryland, and if i lose power for four hours, i would be thrilled but often when i lose power it is for days. so i wonder how you justify the four hours, and it's something that we have to look at. >> and the other side, and not just the life of the batteries but our ability to get additional batteries on site where they are needed, is that something we are considering? >> senator, i don't want to focus too much on the batteries. the focus is to have the ability to have systems move water or perform safety functions. the way that the current rule is written, the batteries don't activate pumps. what the batteries are for instrumentation and sometimes valves and control.

so the most important issue is the restoration of the alternative current power. that's the most important factor. so the batteries provide a way to cope, and that provides a system to do the pumping. and that's turbines driven by the speed of the reactors. there is a way to look at that problem, and maybe the better more effective approach is to have ways to provide alternating current power. that may be more effective but the real issue is to get the operating current power back. as long as you are on the batteries, you are in a coping mode and not an ideal situation. >> when you report back to us later this year, and see how this sorts out. i spent time with captain

ostendorff and i was trying to find submarines, and it's easy to find those russians. and in aircraft you are given specific scenarios to follow, and training exercises and going after, in our case submarines. in nuclear power plants, in order to prepare for challenges with respect to plant security, for hostile forces. these force exercises in plants across the country, where we use good guys, our guys to take the role of bad guys and force exercises. and pretty realistic, no one shooting bullets, but pretty realistic. do you think we should consider something similar for plant exercises where plant employees are faced with different

scenarios that are maybe more realistic than what we do today. and let me say, commissioner ostendorff, would you take a shot at that and mr. chairman. >> yes, sir, i think the training and qualification and the demonstrated ability to carry out response actions is a piece of this. and it's when you do a table top exercise, it's another thing to fight a fire, in conditions of flooding. where you are up to your knees in water, where you maybe have poor lighting and poor ventilation. i think that the training qualification and command and control on site or areas is something that we should look at. >> thanks, mr. chairman. >> i was saying that the commission maybe anticipated your question. we just finalized an update to the emergency regulations.

and one cornerstone of that is one more realistic exercise. and i would like to comment, that everyone knew when to order lunch, because we knew there was a lull in the exercise around noon. so the exercises are performance and played out. and we are going to make them more realistic. and we have added hostile drills. and we will incorporate in the exercise cycle, exactly what you talked about, dealing with an emergency response when you have a security component as well. and the confusion and drains on communication can be accomplished. it's something that the commission just finalized. and it's a very strong effort in the last decade. >> usually in these exercises having a lull and to have lunch, and i wonder when will they eat

lunch now? i am sure they will find a time. >> senator sanders. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. chairman, you indicated in my last round of questioning, that representatives of a major multi-national corporation, a billion corporation of energy is involved in an extremely legal contest with the state of vermont, met with staff of the nrc. >> that's my understanding. >> do you think it's proper in midsts of a major legal dispute for components of staff to meet with the nrc? >> i would say, i think in the end, the best way to determine that is to see how the staff handles that. and our staff, i think are very diligent and focused on their responsibility to safety.

and i think we have an effort to be open and to listen to concerns. >> but the issue in this lawsuit is not about safety, it's about the right of the state of vermont under the law to not relicense a nuclear plant. i am curious, to ask members, have you been contacted by energy or the nuclear power indust industry, in any way, written, verbally phoned about this case? >> i have not communicated with energy or any broad industry group? >> have they communicated with you? >> they have not, as chairman mentioned there was a request to meet with commissioners. but that request was withdrawn based on the justice department had concerns and energy withdrew

that request. >> what about representatives of the nuclear power industry? >> i have not had conservations with the nuclear power industry. >> i have not either. >> i have had nocommunication. >> i have requests that were withdrawn, and have not met to discuss this matter. there was a communication that came through for request. >> right. >> thank you. >> what i want to do now, go to do -- to a very important supreme court decision. in roles of the state of nuclear power. very important decision, i want to read it to you. >> (inaudible). >> thank you, madam chairman, it has to do with the state of

california. and this is what the supreme court said in ruling for the state of california in 1983. and the question after reading this paragraph, if you can comment on your feelings about this important decision. this is what the supreme court said in 1983. it said that the promotion of nuclear power is not to be accomplished at all costs. the elaborate licensing and safety provisions and the continued preservation of state in particular areas ally that. more than congress has allowed the states to determine as a matter of economics. let me repeat that -- as a matter of economics, whether a nuclear plant, vis-a-vis, a fossil fuel plant should be built. the decision of california to exercise that authority does not in itself constitute a basis for

preemption. the legal reality remains that congress has left sufficient authority in the states to allow the development of nuclear power to be slowed or even stopped for economic reasons, end of quote. in other words, my understanding what the supreme court said in 1983 is look, forget the safety issue. if a state, california or any other state, feels that there is another way to go forward, that is better for the people of that state. in terms of energy, maybe they want to buy power from canada, hydroelectric power. maybe they want to go sustainable energy. maybe they want to invest in energy efficiency. from an economic point of view, the supreme court said of course they have that right. you cannot push a nuclear power

plant on people. not a safety issue. let me go briefly and ask members of the commission if they would give us their view on that supreme court decision. mr. chairman. >> well, as i said, i think it should be very rare that the commission is involved in preemption cases. and there are clearly areas that where the states have authority. and we should respect those authorities as we expect them to respect our authorities. >> thank you. >> senator sanders, although i have not read the decision you are quoting from. i would agree with chairman jaczko of the states role. >> out of curiosity. madam commissioner, you are familiar with this supreme court decision? >> i have not read that decision, i believe that may know that quote. but may not have read it.

>> it concerns me very much that you are not knowledgeable about this decision. as i understand it, this commission voted yesterday relevant to what the supreme court had to say. how do you feel about that? >> i was not familiar with it, but what you just read makes perfect sense. >> makes perfect sense, you believe that the state should have a right from an economic point of view to say no. >> yes, i agree. >> commissioner. >> yes, i am not familiar with that particular ruling, although i will read it when i get back to the office, i make that commitment. i agree generally, i think there is clearly a reason we have a federal government, and the states have a strong role on issues such as economics. and from what you described it, it seems reasonable to me. >> mr. sanders, i agree with the chairman's statement. and i would comment that i am

generally familiar with that case and in the context of discussions i had can our solicitor of vermont yankee, our authority is not based on economics but rather on nuclear safety. so preemption, however, where there may be as rare case that chairman mentioned and there is an issue of nuclear safety is raised, that may be a situation warranted. and i would like to comment on a comment you made during the first round of questions on this topic. and the chairman has appropriately characterized the department of justice's role in this matter as litigating authority of the united states executive branch. i would like to add that the

comments to us or discussions between the department of justice and the nrc are not to intervene on the side of the energy. it's a matter whether the nrc has an issue in this case. and i want to provide a different perspective on that. >> not so sure. the political reality is that the department of justice is going to have to make a decision. and i think it is quite understandable they would go to you guys, and say, nrc, what do you think. but i want to get back to your first point, commissioner ostendorff, i am hearing you say, that if the issue is not safety, which is an nrc issue. but the issue if a plant is relicensed and kept open, and in fact you do not see that as an

issue that the nrc should be preempting the state on. >> i want to be careful with my words, and it's a fair question to ask. this case is very complex. and i had a chance to read briefings filed by both parties. and to be briefed on the status of the case. >> who briefed you on the status of the case? >> our solicitor for the nrc, who is our interface for the department of justice. and as mentioned there are things we cannot discuss here in this session. so each individual case has its own nuances and its specific details and issues and contentions. as a safety regulator, our job is to ensure that nuclear power plants are operated safety. whether or not there is a safety issue in a particular case

depends on a lot of detail in the case. and i think it's hard to say in a particular abstract manner whether a particular case has a safety nuance or not. >> let me try, if the people of the state of vermont want to shut down a 40-year-old plant that has had numerous problems, shut it down, not relicense for years to come. why do you see that as a safety issue. rather than an economic issue of the state to do that? >> senator, i appreciate the question. and for me to respond to that, would be counter to what i am advised by our solicitor. >> thank you, madam chair for giving me more time than i was scheduled to have. and let me say, i do appreciate as i think i hear it, and someone jump up and tell me if i am wrong. all the commissioners

understanding that states certainly under this supreme court decision do have the right for economic reasons to determine whether or not they want an if you clear power plant. not a safety issue, an economic issue, anyone disagrees with that? thank you, madam chair. >> former u.s. ambassador to china, is expecting to announce his run tomorrow morning, we will have live coverage as he makes his announcement from new jersey, where ronald reagan spoke of his campaign in 1980. >> c-span has launched a new easy to navigate website for politics in the white house race, twitter feeds and facebook updates and links to the c-span

partners, visit us at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> white house says that president obama is still finalizing his decision on the troops in afghanistan, and will make that decision soon. in 2009 president obama promised for a drawdown of forces and this week we have a briefing about afghanistan and issues discussed at the u.s. conserves -- conference of mayors. >> of the mayor's meeting in baltimore and would like that money freed up for jobs, because jobs is their primary issue. and jobs may be the primary issue for the president next year. >> well, he looks at it in terms

of the mission. the strategy he laid out in 2009 and the objectsives he laid out there. and it's sometimes helpful, and this may be that time, to review what mission in afghan was as the president set out in his announcement on december 1, 2009. which is to disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al-qaeda. to break the momentum of the taliban, and to stabilize the situation in afghanistan, to allow the government and the security forces to begin the process of taking over the security lead in their country. we have made significant progress to achieving those goals. obviously the most sensational and significant data point in that of that progress is the

elimination of osama bin laden. but there is enormous progress in dismantling al-qaeda in the afghan region above and below osama bin laden. and significant progress in dismantling the taliban and progress to allow the afghan forces to prepare and train and take over the lead. he looks at this decision as part of a process, of a policy he put in motion in december, 2009. he said at time he would begin the drawdown of the surge forces in 2011. that will happen and the pace and control will depend on his assessment on how far we have achieved the goals of the fact of military engagement. and cost of lives and injuries and in treasure. he is about, he is very focused

on jobs as well. but his focus on this is getting the mission right, because it's in the national security interest of getting this right. you remember back to the campaign, the war that we needed to focus on is the war in al-qaeda, and that's what he's done. we have made significant progress because of the bravery of our men and women in uniform and the decisions of the intelligence and the decisions that the president has brought us to this point. >> the mayors as you understand are concerned about jobs. >> so is the president. >> and they want to know what he will offer and what he will do than he's not done. >> there are a number of things, and including the free-trade agreements that will support 70,000 jobs in the united states. we need to get this deficit and

debt agreement done in a balanced way. that sends a signal to the american people and to the financial markets that we are getting our fiscal house in order. and that will send -- if done properly and in a way that does not arrest the development, if done properly we believe will provide a jolt of confidence in the direction we are heading. and other measures that the president has talked about, including for example, bipartisan support for the developing more infrastructure, for building roads and airports and repairs roads in airports and bridges and to have that infrastructure foundation in the 21 century. >> when? >> we are working with congress to do this. and another thing that the president has out there that he would like to see the making permanent expanding of the r & d tax credit.

creating incentives for the kind of development for the 21st century. but backing up, as i said repeatedly, we are talking about an important decision that the president is making about the drawback in afghanistan. but the primary focus he has everyday is the jobs and the economy. and with this he is focused ones and the economy to work with congress and spur the growth and continue it, and make the growth stronger and deeper to create more jobs. don't forget, we have seen seven straight quarters of economic growth. not enough, but we have made progress. we have seen 2.1 million jobs, significant but we need to focus on that. >> the talk seems to be aimed at

afghan president and how he's testing america's patience. most recently with a speech that karzai made on saturday, do you have a comment on that? >> i would say that we have seen the remarks that president karzai has made but stand by the comments by the u.s. on military side. we are certainly there, because the united states of america was attacked on september 11, 2001. and that attack was organized in afghanistan by al-qaeda leaders. that's why the objective we have, the reason why we are there, to enhance the security of the united states of america. we believe that our objectives

coincide with afghan objectives. and disrupting and dismantling and ultimately defeating al-qaeda is in both of our interests. and as i have said and others have said, ultimately reaching a political solution in al-qaeda is in the interest of the afghan people as well as the people of the united states. >> karzai calls us occupiers. >> lead me say again, we stand by the accomplishments we have made and there to achieve specific goals. we have no desire to stay there longer than necessary, the president has made that clear. and we need to achieve our goals and as outlined at the nato conference we will turn over to the security forces in 2014. we will work with the afghan government in a variety of ways to achieve these goals.

i understand that president karzai has concerns and operations and we consult with him regularly on that. and we take actions accordingly because we too share about civilian casualties. but we won't apologize for the contributions we make civilian and military. >> (inaudible) robust presence in afghanistan through at least 2012. does that indicate that the drawdown that the president will announce in a matter of days, maybe less substantial than a lot of supporters would like. >> i will leave it to the president to make an announcement of the drawdown and

the pace, i would have you remember that we have the forces in afghan and we have 68,000 already there and that's a robust of american forces. >> robust without the surge? >> without a discussion of numbers a numbers, we have a large number in the presence and we have achieved of the mission that the president articulated in december 2009. and he will make his decision based on the need to succeed further in achieving his objectives. and to transfer authority, gradually, to the afghan security force. with an eye to the fact as agreed to nato and lisban, we will transfer full security lead

over in 2014. >> (inaudible) the president of the forces? >> it was in a variety of ways, the decision that the president made does not address that question. because he doesn't believe that the war powers threshold is met of the united states in libya. >> (inaudible). >> i don't think that the president his expressed an opinion of the war powers in the past. the point is that this decision that he made, the legal analysis that we send forward to congress and provide it to you. does not assess the constitutionality question, because he does not believe that the war powers question needs to be invoked in this matter. he doesn't believe that it

applies given that the engagement does not meet the threshold. >> can you describe the nature of what you asked the justice department when it comes to the legalities, that it wasn't in writing? >> there was an informal discussion, views were solicited across the administration. >> including from people -- >> including the justice department. i don't know which particular lawyers, but the justice department stated publicly that their views were heard. and a number of key players confirmed the president's decision. >> (inaudible). >> it's the president's decision to make. and that is both -- that's a fact, when you are president of the united states, it's your decision to make. views were solicited and shared.

the president heard and aware of all the arguments here. >> and this is obviously a matter of issue of hot debate since passed in a legal community. for me to get up and say by a mis miracle, and every lawyer in that administration, you wouldn't believe me because of that contention in 38 years. yes, there was not a unanimous agreement on it, but the president made a decision, and the white house counsel and agree with his assessment and

feel confident. >> should we believe in the war powers (inaudible)? >> again, you can ask him that next time we have a press conference. but the important part is that we are not making a judgment on the war powers reason, we are stating that the war power resolution doesn't need to be invoked because that threshold is not met by the activities engaged. >> and you still believe that you have done everything you can to keep congress informed? >> again, my guess is -- i stopped counting at 40. but i am sure that the engagements are now above 50. since we began this mission. i think we have done an excellent job of keeping congress apprised of what we are doing. in answering questions of what

congress asked about the mission. in a 32-page report last week, and we will continue to do that. if your questions are on consultation, i think that we more than clear the bar. >> senator mcconnell said over the weekend that he thinks that congress and the white house should continue a short-term (inaudible) raise the element (inaudible)? >> i don't want to negotiate the resolution of the debt ceiling from here. we are very focused on the talks lead by the vice president. we are very focused on the need to move with speed on taking a vote to raise the debt ceiling limit. and beyond that, i am not going to negotiate the particulars. we believed from the beginning

that this is not a matter that we can put off to the last minute. because any suggestion that we default on the altercations could have a negative impact on the economy and markets. but we are confident that the negotiations being lead by the vice president on reducing the deficit will reach a positive conclusion. and we are confident that congress will vote to raise the debt ceiling. >> you said i believe last week that the president will start taking a more direct, get involved more directly with regards to his talks. what kind of direct role? >> i don't anticipate him joining the vice president meetings. but i do expect that his engagement will continue, and it has existed already through other means, through other

communications. obviously, the agreement that is reached in the biden-led talks will be reviewed by leaders in both parties and both houses and obviously by the administration. the president is regularly updated on the progress of those negotiations, and the content of the discussions. and as noted had spent a number of hours with the speaker of house, as well as the vice president over the weekend. >> jay, what is the reason for the (inaudible)? >> the president looks forward to visiting with soldiers at fort drum. he obviously makes visits like that, most recently at fort campbell. you know that fort drum is the location of units that have served quite honorably and had

some significant sacrifice, so he looks forwards to meeting with those soldiers? >> speech? >> i have no reaction of what he will speak to the soldiers. >> is there a reaction on the walmart case? >> i do think we have (inaudible) on that. let me see. i can tell you this that ending discrimination in the workplace is a key priority for the president and to continue equalized pay in the workforce. as you know that the united states is not involved in the complex rules of civil procedure leading to plaintiffs class action. our lawyers are determining what

effects it may have. >> so the administration is disappointed with the court's decision? >> no, i didn't say that at all, the lawyers are studying the decision to determine what effects it may have. i made the comment of the administration. >> the administration can't be satisfied? >> i don't have a legal analysis from the lawyers. >> would you rule out a press conference by the president? >> i would never ruling out a press conference by the president. i don't have any announcements. >> should we expect an afghan decision this week? >> i only will say that it will be soon. >> but not yet? >> a question about the debt ceiling. you are saying that the agreement, any agreements that will be reached will be reviewed by the administration.

doesn't vice president biden speak for the president? >> no, i meant this is something that the congress has to act on, no question. it's not a process of the end when the vice president and the folks in the room emerge and say we have a deal. i am trying to answer the question about the president's engagement. it is not limited to the talks themselves, and the question about whether he would drop in to talk. it is in addition to the talks, and could potentially extend beyond the talks at the process extends forward. the focus is to get agreement in the folks in the room. >> in terms of the agreement, you didn't want to say anything about the debt ceiling short-term would increase? i am surprising you wouldn't have a clear preference for the one that got you through the two years. you are willing to do it again? >> i didn't say one way or another, and you noticed that.

our focus is on moving quickly, with intensity and determination, collegiality and optimistism, to reach an agreement -- seriously, to reach an agreement by the discussion of the vice president and deal with the long-term debt. we have said there is a link in the sense there is not a direct link nor should there be, and one held hostage to another. others have made that link. and it's essential to raise the debt ceiling. it's a vote by congress, we cannot control the amount they raise the debt ceiling or the timing of the vote. our focus is on the things we can do, which in this case reach an agreement and the negotiations lead by the vice president.

continue to make the case as secretary geithner and i have others have made. that we cannot play chicken with the full face of the united states government, and we need negotiations, and beyond that i will not honor how we get from here to there. >> but not saying you are making that option, aren't you? >> i not making the particulars of the vote or the size of the increase, because i think that needs to be worked out in congress and between the leaders of congress and the administration. >> ok, and one last question, you are going to talk to the mayors about the trade agreement and infrastructure and tax credits. how important is it that there is something stimulative in the field, like payroll tax cuts? >> without particulars, i will

say as the president said, we are -- interested in discussions or happy to entertain discussions about extending the payroll tax that was implemented in last year's tax cut agreement. and we are generally interested in other ideas of how to continue to grow the economy and create jobs. and we are mindful that we need to get our deficit and debt under control. this is all about balance. this is about achieving the right mix of decisions within a broader package. both in the deficit reduction talks and broadly going forward from there that allow for the economy to continue and grow jobs. and in our view through target investments and education and infrastructure. and cutting spending, as we have already, in some dramatic and

historic fashion, cutting spending where it can be cut. to spend a signal to the american people and the broader markets that we are getting our fiscal house in order. and we need to do that in a balanced way, and we believe that the best way is to address all forms of spending, including spending to the tax cut. >> i can't recall all of your direct votes and toll booths and etc., and when those same arguments and even more so where targeted before the shut down? >> i don't remember that quote at all. did i say something about toll booths? >> over and over. >> look, i am not going to today make a judgment about different ideas being floated about when and how and for how much and how long the debt ceiling should be raised. our focus now is on the things

that we are doing on a staff level today, and beginning tomorrow with the vice president leading the next meeting of negotiators. we remain very focussed on the fact that we must make this vote and raise the debt ceiling, because we cannot default on our objections. but i don't want to get into the particulars from here. >> the president (inaudible) in new york? >> i haven't heard anything expressed about that. i have obviously -- you know, he's obviously addressed this at the press conference at the end of the last year, and i don't have an update on his position. >> jay, secretary gates over the weekend confirmed talks with the taliban for political settlement. i wonder if you can possible, flush out a bit, how that is happening, and who in the administration is heading that

effort. and also in that comment, he expressed skeptism of having a positive outcome, that it would be difficult, does the white house share his skeptism? >> it's a difficult process, and there is no outcome in afghanistan that doesn't involve reconciliation. this is about the afghan taliban talking to the afghan people and the government. for this to take place, leaders on all sides, have said that ultimately there has to be a political agreement. we believe that reconciliation is necessary, and we support the efforts of an afghan-led process of reconciliation and reintegration to bring the

fighters off the field. and we do that with shared alliance and they agree to the afghan constitution. wouldn't suggest this is an easy process, but it's a necessary process. i need to point out it's an afghan-led process. and we are supporting the process initiated by and led by the karzai government. but we are of course, willing to participate in that process. but this is a negotiation between afghans. between potential reconcilable afghan taliban and the afghan government. >> would it be the state department? >> you may want to check with d.o.d. or state, but obviously we have a substantial civilian presence and i don't know who is involved in terms of this

reconciliation process. yes, sir. >> is a.t.f. director resigning with (inaudible) president operations? >> i don't have anything new on you for the fast and furious since the last brief on thursday, and i don't have anything more on a.t.f., they may or justice on that. >> (inaudible). >> i don't have -- all i can tell you is that you should take those questions to the department of justice. i just don't have any guidance for you. >> christie. >> back on the troop decision, over the weekend secretary gates referred to the process, is it over in this sense the president's decision making process where he's not consulted

anymore? >> i can tell you with absolute certainty, that it is not over. >> the president reopen the strategy? >> i know from being in a room where he was discussing it today. that he is still finalizing his decision. it has not been made, and he is continuing to consult with his national security team. >> you but is he just reapplying the strategy decision in 2009? >> the strategy doesn't change. and i tried to make that clear, the strategy and the objectives are the same. and the decision about the size and the pace of the drawdown is made after an assessment of how far we have come in achieving our objective. and again it's important to remember what those objectives were. as he laid out clearly in december, 2009. the primary objective, the reason why we went to afghan to

begin with is to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-qaeda. the second momentum, break the momentum of the taliban to achieve the first. and to stabilize the afghan government enough so that security forces can be trained up and they could gradually take the security lead. those objectives have always been there. have always been clear since the president announced his decision. and we have made significant progress. significant success in achieving those objectives thus far. we are not done, but those objectives won't change. and the decision is about a drawdown that he said would happen. again he said what he was going to do, and doing what he said. the drawdown would begin in

july, 2011, and that's what will happen, and the size and scope is the only thing on the table. >> did general petraeus make his recommendation to the president? >> as i said last week, that the president met with general petraeus the question of the drawdown and discussed with the general various options for him to look at in terms of the drawdown. >> it's not fairly called a recommendation? >> again it's important to know that it's plural, options and not option. >> i want to be clear (inaudible) last week, and the president in (inaudible) said to legalize same-sex marriages and (inaudible) and can you confirm that someone else draw this

questionnaire. >> i think you know, and you have read it and that's not the case and he was mistaking that with another questionnaire. the president's position on gay marriage is clear since he has been president. >> can you clarify that the 1996 position was signed by obama? >> i believe it was, and we clarified to friday that dan was referring to another questionnaire. >> did the president sign this in 1996? >> i know what it was in his campaign and now, and he's clear about the fact of the position, that it's evolving. and you know, i don't have anything to add to it. >> on thursday the president is attending a fund-raiser in new

york (inaudible) and he's hosting a private reception at white house. and isn't (inaudible) that he is supporting the campaign and not the right of marriage? >> chris, i know you know that this president is strong on lgbt rights and his record is significant on that. he's been clear about his position on gay marriage and that position is evolving. i don't have new announcements to make, and you know his record and he's proud of it. >> you said before you had an update now on the president's position on same-sex marriage. is it possible that the president (inaudible) announcement? >> i won't answer that, chris. >> steven. >> was the ambassador speaking to the administration when he

made the passion comments about karzai's remarks and when he says that (inaudible) does that not complicate the decision for the president when he makes decisions on the troops? >> i won't give you a different answer than i gave you. that is that we stand by the contributions in afghan, the military and civilian personnel, and along with other military and personnel that are part of the coalition. the fact that we understand some concerns that president karzai has made in the past and general petraeus has worked with him on civili civili civili

civili civili civili civilian casualities, and we are there and we believe that the objectives we seek to achieve in afghanistan are objectives good for the afghan people and the afghan government. the ultimate defeat of the al-qaeda, the breaking of the taliban, and stabilizing the afghan security forces. we understand that we have disagreement sometimes and we understand that president karzai and others are frustrated but we work with them on that. but we are proud of the progress that they have made. >> regarding russia (inaudible) and ask the president to be relected next year. >> president obama? >> yes. >> so do i. >> does he hope that medvedev will be relected next year? >> that's good, that's clever. i haven't asked him.

>> jay. >> thank you, in your reaction to hearing the president today, and did the president learn anything from you that he hopes to still political reform? >> well, we have said and what i will say again today, what is required in syria is action. not words. not promises that reform will come in some period in the future. or that dialogue will happen after some review. there needs to be concrete action, there needs to be sensation of violence against syrians. there needs to be actual action towards political dialogue. so that this transition to a more democratic syria can take place. as we have said in the past, president assad needs to either lead that transition or get out

of the way. which is not -- i am not saying the words are meaningless. but he needs to act on it. and to fulfill the sentiment expressed and the dialogue, that needs to happen but first stop the violence. >> thank you very much. . .