preparedness, and the rest. which one do you think are less complex? give me a couple. >> relooking @ flooding and seismic requirements to make sure we are using state-of-the- art technology there is one. >> so the recommendation that every 10 years operators would have to come up with new assessments as to the safety. that is the recommendation. >> i was referring to the recommendation that cast staff to look at our rate basis on seismic -- >> how about the one i just read? every 10 years, the operator of a plant located near flooding and seismic has to we look at the problems. with signs moving forward, commissioner, we have new information all the time as to whether the seismic problems are worse, less. right now, we are concerned. science shows us that this is moving in the wrong direction.

morse tsunamis, more earthquakes. -- more tsunami is, more earthquakes. do you think this recommendation is complex? >> as an agency, we constantly look at our state of knowledge in those areas. >> do you think it is complex to ask the operator, who is operating a plant, on or near an earthquake fault, or near a possible tsunami zone, to ask them every 10 years to reassess the safety of their plant? is that a complex recommendation? >> i would assess that we actually require them to be looking at that constantly, if there is any new information that comes forward, as is the case in california. we require even in advance of a 10-year period. >> so you would support every time there is new science, and

overall new look at the safety of these plants. is that correct? >> yes -- >> excellent. are you ready to vote on that in the next 90 days? >> respectfully, my proposal asked that the nrc staff come back and provide us with the implementation path on these recommendations. before i made a final decision, i wanted to be informed by the final input by the nrc. >> all i can say is if i'm the people of california and i am watching this, right now, i am not sure if i want that plant to operate. because it is very simple. we have power plants out there coming in to be licensed. i urged them not to move forward until they studied it. you seem to be on my side, but

then you have to be -- hear from everyone else. i would submit to you this is common sense. you should have more belief in what you say. this is common sense. i am just saying we have oversight over the work you do. mr. chairman, i want to compliment you and i want to say to the commissioners who are ready and willing to act in a timeframe of 90 days, thank you. if we do not do that, we are not going to see people supporting nuclear power. i take an opposite view of my friends on the opposite side today. the more you convince people you are doing your job, the more they will be comfortable with nuclear power. if you give me answers like i have to wait, i cannot tell, and then you have a situation where it takes nine years to put in the last safety measures? that is ridiculous. as long as i'm sitting here and

i have a voice, i will continue to call you before us. i could really get used to this. you need to know how important the work you do is. to the safety of the people, first and foremost, and to the future of nuclear energy, secondly. senator sanders. >> just a few questions. chairman jaczko, some of my republican colleagues have suggested that you have initiated a coup on the nrc. you are running a dictatorship to undermine american democratic values. so i just wanted to ask you once again to be clear, do you believe, does the non-partisan general counsel of the nrc believe that you have fulfilled

the statute to in terms of your limit -- utilization of the emergency powers? and in terms of emergency powers, as i understand it, appropriately, after it fukushima, you wanted to make sure that the 13 plans we have in this country that are of similar design, you wanted to make sure that something similar to what happened in japan does not happen in the united states. >> certainly, the primary focus was on american citizens in japan, ensuring we could do everything to protect them as they were there. that was common in many ways, the prime focus. most of the issues related with u.s. plants were dealt with by the commission when it established this task force. that is how we decided to go forward. i did not really exercise any authority with regard to domestic facilities. >> so it was protecting the interest of american citizens in japan? do the non-partisan general

counsel believe that you acted appropriately, within the statutes? >> i believe that is the case. >> [inaudible] >> may i ask the general counsel, did he act within the law? >> yes, you can. please, sir. please join us. >> senator, my name's steven burns. i'm general counsel. federal employee. when the -- the simple answer to your question is, i believe the chairman's actions were consistent with the powers as he has under the statute. i received an inquiry from his office fairly early on in the event and based on my view and actually an assessment of my predecessor's view of actions taken during -- in response to

9/11 when there also was not a specific event in the u.s. facility, although a threat, environment obviously to u.s. facilities, my view was that given the intentions of president carter and congressional essentially endorsement under the reorganization plan that his actions were consistent with those responsibilities. >> you are, as i understand it, a nonpartisan official. >> yes. i'm a career official. i am appointed by the commission. >> madam chair, thank you very much. i appreciate you coming up here. i would hope that puts an end to this consistent attack against the chairman. let me ask if i could a question. my understanding is that you are prepared to move pretty quickly on a number of the recommendations of the task force. let me ask you about their first recommendation and that is that the task force recommends establishing a logical

systematic and coherent regulatory framework for adequate protection that appropriately balances defense and depth and risk considerations. that's an important recommendation. are you prepared to move rapidly on that one? >> thank you for the question. i address that specific recommendation in my vote in some detail. i think it needs to be looked at. i have some concerns that trying to embark upon that right now will distract us from taking those other action that is can and should be taken in the short-term. but i do support us taking a look at trying to improve the framework we currently have. >> i just don't quite get that answer. you see this as an important recommendation. no one is suggesting that you have to swallow hook, line, and sinker what people recommended. what is the problem with beginning that discussion right now? >> senator, i have been around nuclear propulsion program in the navy for many years. i have seen a lot of different efforts taken in the naval sea

systems command to improve safety on our carriers. i have seen how corrective actions are implemented. i think this is one that will take a few years to move. i support moving forward as a second effort, but i don't think i should hold us up in trying to take shorter term actions. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i would yield the floor, then. >> thank you. we are going to close it out. i have a couple questions to ask of our commissioners and then i think we'll vote here pretty soon. this is a question for commissioner magwood and commissioner os ten door of -- ostendorf, it's my understanding the majority have asked senior staff to take a second look at these recommendations. you have asked the senior staff folks to provide suggestions to the commissioners on how to proceed with these recommendations. here's my question, and we have

talked around this already. i'll ask you directly. since senior n.r.c. staff made these recommendations in the first place, and now we are asking other senior staff to come in and to provide suggestions, why is this next step needed? and just explain that to me. why is it needed? >> i'll start. first i think that, i'll speak for myself certainly. my perspective is it isn't simply another assessment by n.r.c. staff although i do look forward to seeing what the senior staff thinks about the recommendations. for me is to have the staff interact with stakeholders and in a direct and comprehensive fashion to understand what stakeholders' responses are to the various recommendations and see what their suggestions are. then think about that and feed that information to the commission. i don't look at it as simply the n.r.c. staff looking at what

they have already said. i think of it as n.r.c. staff using the mechanisms we have a -- in place, public meetings, across the table discussions, in public venue, of course, to hear details about the reaction to the recommendation. get that back to the commission. that's really the normal, in large respect what woo do -- we do every day. >> commissioner. >> thank you. i'd respond, agree with commissioner magwood's comment. make two points here in addition. one is i asked my executive director for operations how he thought we should proceed. he supported having his office and those that work for him come back and give us an integrated list. as i said in the opening statement verages that was a key lesson learned when the agency did not do that. i think we'll get more bang for the buck, that will make a difference sooner by having this prioritized list. we call for that within 30 days. the second piece is all not all

the recommendations are equal. some should be done right now and some require more information. >> all right. thank you. chairman yaz could he, a question on -- jaczko, a question on orders versus regulatory process. some of the regulatory tools that the commission's disposal are the rule making process and apparently the issuance of orders. could you just describe or compare both processes for us. for each what kind of opportunities are there for public comment and for stakeholders. >> well, generally the orders have more limited opportunity for public involvement. they are usually activities that either we believe need to be taken in a very prompt period of time for safety reasons or they are responses to violations of our regulations. so they are not a preferred tool because they don't provide for the public engagement that a regulation would.

one of the activities that i have challenged the staff since i have been chairman is to better streamline our rule making process so that we can use that as a more viable tool and get things done in a more timely way but still have that stakeholder input. generally the orders are less involvement but it's usually situation which we feel there is a clear safety need that requires prompt action. and in most cases when it's relating to a specific issue, we usually initiate a rule making process as well so that eventually that same content of the order gets captured in a regulation. >> all right. let me follow up with that if i could. stakeholders in industry and in the environmental community have shared and discussed concerns with my own staff about moving these recommendations through your order process. and what has been the n.r.c.'s experience with expedited rule making? and might it have a role to play with some of the recommendations adopted by the commission? >> well, i think everyone that

comes in as chairman of the n.r.c. and commissioner wants the rule making process go forward faster. we have mixed success with that and a lot i think comes down to the usual challenges of resources and focus and pryor at this scation. -- preorization. we did complete a regulation from start to finish in about four months having to do with an issue related to how we deal with the fatigue in workers who may get tired at a nuclear power plant. i think there are ways to do it. it would cause us to change how we do our regulations, but i think it's doable if that were -- in my mind that would be the most preferable way for some of these things is to do them in expedited rule makings. that can be done in four, five months rather than the two, three years it typically takes. >> the vote hasn't started yet and so it looks like another hour or two. not that long.

what i would like to do is just do something -- my mother calling in saying haste makes waist. not really. sometimes -- waste. sometimes at the close of the hearing we always ask you in opening statement we ask you to respond to questions. sometimes i find it's helpful to do a closing statement. i'm not going to ask for a lengthy one. something like given the conversation we have had and questions that have been asked and the responses given, this may be a closing thought as we prepare to go vote to save the republic. captain, commissioner, why don't you go first. >> thank you, senator. i would say that we talk all the time, each week when we are in town. and -- >> how often are you all in town? >> we come -- we probably are

all together to meet at least three weeks out of four. consistent with the government sunshine act. i say that my perception based on discussion was all my colleagues here that we all want to move forward quickly. we all want to do the right thing. and i don't think we are as far apart as some of the questioning might have suggested. and i really think we want to do those things, but not all these are longer term actions. some are short term. some are intermediate. some will require more information. i use one example that was asked about, i asked the institute for nuclear power operations july 15 , senior executive there, do you have sufficient information on the hard events in order right now to support the order recommended by the task force to install those? he says no. the task force report itself said we do not understand whether or not the operators at

fukushima operated these vents. i'm using that as a discreet example we can understand. i think we need to explore this area. it could be a mont from now we have sufficient information to make a decision. but that's one example. there are some things that do require more information, more granular ue larry. >> commissioner magwood, closing thought or two, please. >> i think the commissioner covered it. he said it quite well. the only thing i would add is i believe we will move forward quickly. there is a lot of willingness on the commission to get this done. we are taking this very seriously. i think we all were talking to each other during the fukushima event and i think almost immediately began to think about what lessons were being learned as we watched it unfold on television. i see this as just the conclusion of what started back in march. and i feel very positive that we'll get this done quickly and -- do the right thing.

>> good. doctor? >> i agree with my colleagues. i think the commission will act in a timely manner. it's just the details that we have to work out. so i don't see any problem at all. >> all right. >> i agree with what my colleagues have said thus far in summary remarks. i think that there is a lot of overlap and commonality in the approach here and i think we want to and can, i believe it's possible to strike the appropriate balance between urgency and moving forward and also being a thoughtful and getting it right. thank you. >> thank you. last word, mr. chairman. >> i would say i appreciate all the comments of my colleagues and i think there are areas of agreement and disagreement. i do believe strongly that it's important for us to disposition these recommendations. and i think that's something that's doable. from what i have heard from my colleagues i think there's perhaps more agreement than

there is disagreement about that. >> good. closing i'll -- one of my favorite people who worked here in the senate is a republican from wyoming, his name is mike enzi, a lot of people in other places don't know him. i knew him when i was governor. we worked on a couple things together then. mike enzi is the senior republican on the health, education, labor pension committee. the senior democrat for many years was a guy named kennedy, ted kennedy. they were remarkably effective, the committee was remarkably productive. i would say to mike enzi, how does one of the most conservative republicans around here work so productively with one of the most liberal democrats? you -- the chairman was kennedy or whether it's enzi. and he said that ted kennedy and i subscribed to the 80-20 rule. what is that? and he said, the 80-20 rule, we agree on about 80% of the stuff. we disagree on maybe 20% of the stuff. and what we decide to do is

focus on the 80% we agree on. as a result we get a lot done. more times than i count i call my colleagues on this side to subscribe to the 80-20 rule. if we get that on a consistent basis i think it would be not just a better place to work but probably a better country. i would urge us as we -- it seems like we got about -- i don't know about 80%, but agreement on what needs to be acted more quickly, more promptly, and that which needs more sculling. so deference to my mother, haste does make waste. remembering the words of my father, work does expand to fill the amount of time we allocate to a job. i ask we move forward on the stuff we move forward on. and do it as a team. and the stuff that needs more time, let's take a little more time. but not more time than we really need. with that having been said, i think we are going to wrap this

up and go after -- you guys go have lunch. i'm going to vote. thanks very much. this hearing is adjourned, thank you-all for coming. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> as this hearing comes to a close we head over to the senate this afternoon where a number of the senators on this committee are moving over to go vote on the debt ceiling agreement reached in the house yesterday. the house passed that bill 269-161. 95 democrats, 66 republicans voted against the measure. today the bill's in the hands of the senate where senators have been debating it since they gaveled in this morning at 9:30 eastern. majority leader reid just finishing up his final statements before the vote which is just getting under way. it was set to start at 12:00 noon. basically starting a little

later than expected. 60 votes are needed for passage. and should it be agreed to we expect president obama to sign the measure very quickly. you can watch live coverage of the vote as it is under way on our companion network c-span2. as part of our coverage we'll also have a complete vote breakdown later today. you can see how your senator voted. you'll also see this morning's debate in the senate if you missed of it. and the house debate on the bill. available online at c-span.org. we'll also air any remarks from congressional leaders following the vote later on the c-span networks. >> also this afternoon president obama is expected to appear in the rose garden to make a statement about the debt ceiling agreement vote. that was set for 12:15. obviously running a little later. we will have the president's statement when it gets under way

here on c-span. while we wait for the votes and the president's remarks, we'll go to this morning's "washington journal" where we spoke with a reporter covering the debt ceiling negotiations on capitol hill. >> now that it's here it's not quite an afterthought, but we are at the point where we are just beginning to do postmore tell's about -- about the three or four-month exercise and what it's been about. i think what i'm looking at is just what was this all about,

basically. host: in the senate, though, today there will be some opposition. do you expect it to be on both sides like it was last night? >> yes. host: and who, who do you know right now, who as a name and what factions do they represent that are going to vote no? guest: that's a good question. clearly there are some conservative republicans who opposed the bill because they don't think it goes far enough. such as the group that's consistently been opposed, conservative robbles include toomey, senator from pennsylvania. rand paul from kentucky. both freshmen. also mike lee, freshman from utah. david vitter from louisiana. these have all been consistent opponents. on the other side liberal democrats who as in the house

likewise have been liberal democrats who say this bill has too much in the way of spending cuts and there needs to be, the liberal democrats say that there needs to be a tax increase, revenue component. tax re needs to be increases or a revenue component. i think one person in iowa has made clear voice of his opposition. some democrats have been unhappy and will vote against it. host: the senate will go forward quickly to vote on this. how does it work out? given what has happened over the last few weeks, negotiations between the senator harry reid, the president, mitch mcconnell

-- what does all of that say about their relationship: forward and negotiations going forward? forward? guest: you make an interesting point that this will happen quickly today. nothing has happened quickly at any point in this whole debate. it is rare that anything happens quickly in the senate. it is happening quickly, because it is august 2. we want to avoid any possibility or any sense that there could be a failure of government or congress to take action. and number two, it may happen quickly because everyone has

been going out for so long and everyone knows the debate is over. it is just a matter that there will be 60 votes. the senate will pass this. it is not a sense of an afterthought, but we know what the outcome will be. everyone is exhausted. it is the beginning of august and congress is ready to go on recess. host: for how long? guest: just after labor day, for a month. host: take a look at the headline on your story this morning. what is going to be the impact of how the negotiations unfolded over the last month? guest: we will be waiting to see that. the question really i