>> in a few minutes, president obama on passage of the debt ceiling bill. in about 10 minutes thomas and leaders from both parties look ahead to what is next for the debate. nancy pelosi talks with reporters about creating jobs. >> this weekend on c-span2, the life and times of clarence darrow, attorney for the dams. afterward, amanda foreman

three hours of your calls and questions. how the liberal lobby is in danger in america. but for the complete schedule at booktv.org. >> before president obama signed a bill raising the debt limit in cutting federal spending, he said that any future efforts to reduce the deficit should include changes to the tax code to raise revenue. he called on congress to improve infrastructure dills and extend unemployment benefits. this is 12 minutes.

>> good and afternoon. congress has moved eight move that would have devastated our economy. it was a long and contentious debate. i want to thank the american people for keeping up the pressure to put politics aside and march together for the good of the country. this guarantees more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction. it is an important first step on ensuring that we live within our means. it also allows us to keep making key investments on things like education and research that lead to new jobs. it assures that we're not cutting to abruptly what the economy is still fragile. this is the first step. the compromise requires that both parties work together on a larger plan to cut the deficit which is important for the long- term health of our economy.

they are there for future generations. it also means reforming our tax codes so that the americans -- wealthiest americans pay their fair share. a means of getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies and tax loopholes of held billionaires' pay a lower tax rates and teachers and nurses. i have said that before. i will say it again. we cannot balance the budget of those that have borne the biggest brands. we cannot make it tougher for young people to go to college or as seniors to pay more for health care or as sciences to give up on promising medical research because it cannot close a tax shelter.

everyone is going to have to chip in. that is only fair. that is the principle i will be fighting for. in the coming months, i will continue to fight for what the american people care most about, and new jobs, higher wages, and faster economic growth. washington has been absorbed in this debate about deficits. people across the country are asking "what can we do helping the father look for work?" "what we do to make it easier for businesses to put up that now hiring sign?" that is part of the reason that people are so frustrated with what has been going on in this town. in the last the month, the economy's already had to absorb an earthquake in japan, and the economic headwinds coming from europe, the arab spring come and

oil prices, all of which have been challenging for the recovery. these are things we cannot control. air economy did not need washington to come along with a manufactured crisis to make things worse. that was in our hands. it is likely that the uncertainty surrounding the raising of the debt ceiling for businesses and consumers has been unsettling and one more impediment to the full recovery we need. it is something we could have avoided entirely. voters did not vote for it dysfunctional government. they wanted to solve problems. did they want us to get this economy growing. well deficit reduction is part of that agenda, it is not the whole agenda. growing the economy is not just about cutting spending. it is not about rolling back

regulations to protect our air and water and keep our people save. that is not aware when to get past this recession. we how we are going to get passes recession. i will urge congress to immediately take some steps, bipartisan common sense steps, that will make a difference. i will create a climate where businesses can hire and folks have more money in their pockets to spend. we need to begin by extending cuts for middle-class families a you have more money in your paychecks next year. e.t.f. more money in your paycheck, you're likely to spend it. that means small and medium-size and large businesses will have more customers. they will be in a better position to hire. we need to make sure that millions of workers were still pounding the pavement looking for jobs to support their

families are not denied needed unemployment benefits. through pageantry form we can cut the red tape that stops to many entrepreneurs from quickly turning new ideas into thriving businesses. i want congress to surpaspass it a trade bill that will help displaced workers looking for new jobs and allow them to sell more products in countries. we need to give more opportunities. we gave them to work right now by giving loans to private companies that want to prepare our roads. we have workers that need jobs and a country that need rebuilding. and infrastructure bank would

help us. topic, theren the is another stalemate involving our aviation and issue a test of projects all around the country. to put the jobs of tens of thousands of construction workers at risk. it is another washington inflicted wounds. these are some of the things we could be doing right now. them tono reason for send me the bill so i consign them into law as soon as they come back from recess. both parties share power in washington. both parties need to take responsibility for improving this economy. it is not a democratic or republican response ability.

i will be discussing additional ideas in the weeks ahead to help companies hire and expand. we have seen that washington has the ability to do this when the timer is coming down. this gives folks in the town to work together and do their job. there's a lot going on in families and communities. looking at work for a while. they're trying to make ends meet. that ought to compel washington to cooperate. it ought to be enough to get

them in this town to do the jobs in recent here to do. we have to do everything in our power to grow this economy and put america back to work. that is what i intend to do. i look forward to working with congress to make it happens. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> senate leaders also spoke with reporters about the debt limit and what happens next. harry reid will be first followed by mitch mcconnell. this is a little less than a half-hour. >> this brought the economy back from the brink of disaster. this is our system works. neither side got what they wanted. each side limit some of the

things we have to give up. this would compromise is all about. it was not be right wing cut. this was not bipartisan. it is nothing that we could agree to. it is a disaster for america. this agreement cuts the deficit by $1 trillion and lays the groundwork for much more in the near future. we afford to the work on the committee. this is the middle of thinking what goes on. we need to do more for families spend we must be creating jobs

for the american people. today we made sure that america will pay the bills. now this time to make sure all americans can pay theirs. we have averted a crisis. the fears and concerns of americans across the board were considered by the congress. we have come together on a bipartisan basis. the down payment on the deficit included with this bill comes primarily from working families. we have to put everything on the table and bring everyone to the

table for shared sacrifice we make sure we do this in a fair and just manner. we are trading good paying jobs right your home for the people who were struggling in this economy. >> washington, the nation can breathe a sigh of relief. >> this is been averted. he mentions and had a lot of things we did not like.

our regularly scheduled programming. that means jobs. while washington has been consumed with defaults, our nation's unemployment problem has been worsening. it is time for jobs to be moved back to the from burner. it is predicting come together to get our deficit under control.

we have a chance to pivot away from budget battles. there is the jobs issue. they will not have to play second fiddle to the deficit issue any more. as democrats, this is our strong suit in our high ground. >> this was a very important vote. we needed to raise the debt ceiling to avoid an economic calamity. we needed to cut spending and getting our deficit and debt under control. we still have a very long critical road ahead of us. we're going to work hard to make sure as we tackle the challenges in front of us, we do it in a

fair and balanced way. it is time now to give back to our priority number one, getting our economy back on track, and people back to work. this begins to address the budget deficit. as every family in business knows, we also have an infrastructure deficits skills and training deficit, and a jobs deficit. we want to get back on track and address that critical issue some american families can feel secure again. we can work in a bipartisan well. i hope we can do that going forward. >> no. why would this committee be more

successful in addressing taxes or entitlement programs when the group did this? >> it is pretty obvious. hanging over the headed the joint committee is this trigger that is pretty drastic. >> is there a thing to keep this from happening? is there a chance that they can say we're not going to support the increase after 2013? >> this is a tone for what happens in the near future. if it does not comment the trigger comes in. it makes it easy. there is a place between that.

is there a temporary extension? when you except the house version? >> i have said that we have 80,000 jobs at least on the line. in nevada, we have a new airport tower. all these people have been laid off. it is a huge project. they have a problem with the control tower. they have shut down the construction. they only have one. that is difficult. this is a program that i believe in. i also believe that $3,500 is a little extreme. i do my best to protect the state. you have to be reasonable. we learned about this big deal. he had to step back and find out

what is best for the country. he cannot be bound by some of your issues. i hope the other senators will do the same. >> [no audio] >> we are working on it. there are all kinds of things. for example, there is an emotional proceed to the patent bill. as of the papers that we have. it is too bad that it has taken so long. i indicated to my friends here. as the chairman baucus today. he found a source of money to complete the bill. there are many things that we can do.

we are concerned. there are the new energy jobs out there. we do not have been finalized out there. >> i think people going on the joint committee should be open to solve the debt problems of this country. this is more about saving our country from the future long- term deficit problem than ideology. >> under the law, you have to do within 14 days. thank you.

>> i know you're going to miss us. you just hate to see us go. where was intimacy of course. the biggest concern the american people has is jobs in the economy. thanks of action gotten worse since the president came to office. we need to move in a different direction. the american people did not believe that raising taxes and the middle of this serious

recession is a direction we ought to take. the bill we pass avoided doing that even though administration desperately wanted to raise this. every meeting i meant talks about the regulatory burden. there are massive increases in regulation. he has been our leader on that subject. i am often asked, what would you do to get the economy going. we need to quit doing what we are doing. but trying to raise taxes. let the private sector flourish. when a chance to have a growing economy that will produce more revenues. this ought to be our single focus. what they think the administration could do is get those trade agreements up here.

they enjoy bipartisan support. they will create jobs in america. we hope they will be waiting for is when we get back from the august break. >> i'm amazed how the white house seems to believe that the campaign team can override the issues with rhetoric. it is very interesting that the moment we got this debt ceiling issue behind us, the president decided to pick the job creation. we have never taken our eye off the job creation. just to illustrate what it did things we had to deal with during this debate during the debate, one of the things he in prose -- proposed we increase

was the office of advocacy. the report did that this could ultimately force many small businesses to close. that is a direct quotation. what the president today would have all of us believe that now he has the light in the ones to pivot the job creation, i would ask, what about the whole debate we had the last month there's so about the effects of your tax proposals and job creation. that is why republicans are so fixated >. >> the president has pivoted to jobs.

we do not blame the president for the problems he has inherited. we do hold him responsible for making the economy is worse. he is made worse in terms of unemployment and the federal debt. he made it worse in terms of higher gas prices. individual health premiums are higher. debt projections are up. he has thrown a big wet blanket over private sector job creation. we know how to make it better. he uses less. our job is to make it easier and cheaper to treat private sector jobs. >> i want to welcome the white house and the ministrations on

the debate for jobs. we've been piling up the records. if you think about the legacy of this demonstration so far, it is chronic unemployment and massive amounts of debt. we have unemployment that is over 9%. we saw last week the anemic growth numbers for the second quarter. there is a downward revision from 1.9 term. this economy is sluggish. the job creators out there are worried about what washington is going to do next. that will probably be verified by a poll that was some by the chamber of commerce press. 64% said they are not going to add to their payrolls. twelves some said they were going to cut jobs this next

year. of the businesses that responded, have said the reason is economic uncertainty. economic uncertainty because of washington d.c.'s policies. read've had a job crushing agenda. >> the president came to office. the unemployment rate was 7.8 cent. now it is 9.2%. millions of americans are looking for work. a lot has to do it deregulations. this has been approximately 300 expense of regulations coming out of washington. it is in terms of an impact.

the whole impact has been almost $10 billion of expenses. this administration seems to be fixated on finding ways to make it tougher and more expensive. >> one of the most important things to come out of this agreement is a commitment for a boat on the balanced budget amendment. when you look at everything congress can do, it cannot find cute future congresses. this is absolutely essential. 47 republicans have co-sponsored a version. we have the opportunity to take a small step in the right direction.

this is to finish the job by passing by 2/3 margin. we know there's a lot we can do between now and the time it is ratified. are we going to be living by the same rules apply to every family and every small-business ta? they cannot spend more money than they have. this is the altman measure of fiscal responsibility. i congratulate our leadership forgetting that commitment. we cannot get a vote on anything unless harry reid agrees to give us one. this is what it will be about.

quite to consider them together. >> to you have a top line? >> >> i do not have it in my head. we said it for 12 and 13. it to be immediately available to you. we should have a normal appropriations process.

normally come into a pass the budget. it has been over a hundred days since the past and the senate. you reconcile the differences. you got the top line. not being optimistic that we would get this. we have put into the measure the top line for fiscal year 12. cleisthenes have about the presence of the white house backs there were even further cuts in the joint committee. >> the joint committee will not go to the gridlock. it is designed to function. it tackles the problem so we have been unable to deal with.

the trustees both are improv rigid in trouble. if not been able to do anything on the tax reform side. we decided to concentrate power. the normal way we do business, we would have to dig not have a $14 trillion debt. this is clearly not taking it down the road. >> will come out in the next 10 years that ?

>> [inaudible] >> we are so late. it begins at the end of next month. it is difficult to have a normal appropriation process. they will have to be clumped together. they know what the top line will be. it is our hope you'll be able to do the basic work. we're getting them done. this shareware so late into be very difficult to have fax normal process. >> we do not have enough time. we end of putting together several different appropriation

bills. that is not the best way to do it. it would be hard to move 12 bills across a. >> house minority leader nancy pelosi says that now that the debate is over, it is time to focus on jobs. she and other democrats spoke with reporters for about a half hour. >> this afternoon. >> good afternoon. we just completed a leadership

meeting of the house democrats. we talked about about the necessity of democrats to save the day, pulling our country back from the brink of default. it was a bitter pill to swallow. we did. we saved medicare, medicaid, and social security. yesterday we crossed a bridge. we had to talk about jobs. we started with how many days it has been since republicans have been in office. today it is 210. we're not seen any legislation yet that has created jobs. legislation has cost nearly 2 million jobs. more than 9000 jobs a day would be lost.

in addition to that holds up, we're hoping it will be resolved today. we will be hearing more of that. jobs. we cannot say it enough. i really like what willie nelson said. the american people are more concerned about a ceiling over there had been raising the debt ceiling. we need to do both. i was pleased to hear the president talked about this and how we create jobs to meet the needs of the american people. some suggestions have very strong support in our caucus there will be talking to us about making it in america.

will talk more about this now. everyone has been intensely involved. they took us from the brink of default even though they were not happy about the legislation. it is over. it is now time to talk about jobs. they will tell you more about it. >> >> thank you. let me suggest that talking about jobs is talking about the debt. the only way we will successfully deal with debt is

to do this. there's no jobs bill. democrats have focused. it creates middle-class jobs. it is essential to the growth of our whole economy. on our agenda, a long list is a manufacturing strategy. our competitors have manufacturing strategies. we need their own game plan to out produced and out build and

out invest around the world. with me on the podium is there a chairman. he has been a champion of the infrastructure bank. we need to facilitates private sector investments. we need to compete. we need to out build. we will be able to outbid. this is the future.

in making america competitive in the new perspective. china is doing that. europe is doing that. america is and must do that. it is doing it as a result of this. they passed a bipartisan bill. they can gain under trade advantages. we know china is doing that. they need to pass legislation if the level the playing field for

our competitors. this is the assistant leader from the house represent is. >> thank you. despite coming of 44 boats low -- votes low, republicans in washington continue to play the political games. they have turned it into my way or the highway into my way or the runway.

this has been bottled up for 10 days. we have lost about $300 million in revenue. i am pleased that the senate seems to be willing to put a tourniquet and some of the hemorrhaging. the legislation that seems to be agreed to is the house version. it leaves out a big chunk that is small airports.

is important for job creation. it is important for them to continue to wreak havoc. it affects the lives of those working men and women in the contracts in order to put food on the table. i would hope you begin to the point of really setting aside political gains and start doing what is necessary to resolve

these issues. let me conclude by saying he talked about energy. one of the most elementary ways of getting people back to work in a hurry and having tremendous impact on energy savings is for us to do something. it is an energy savings program which will immediately create jobs. it is being held up by these political shenanigans. we ought to do something rather quickly. these committees can be looked

at. with that, i would like to yield now. i assume i am yielding to the chair about our policy. >> i am pleased to join my colleagues today. we now have a debt ceiling behind us. we cannot afford to have any more distractions. we have to do everything we can to create good and well paying jobs in america. it is time for this republican majority to break the streaking and start to pit row jobs legislation on the schedule. the president spoke. he talked about we need to have a piece that is about growing our economy. unless we can grow it, we will not be able to put people back to work or deal with our deficit.

in order to create jobs, we have to invest in our infrastructure. and our domestic manufacturing capacity. they are the engines of economic growth. we have to go back to being a country that builds things right of them one -- rather than ones that just consumes things. this can leverage private capital. failing to invest in our nation's infrastructure could cause the united states $129 billion a year. it reads u.s. businesses would pay an added $430 billion in transportation costs. u.s. exports will fall by $28

billion. meanwhile, we are falling behind. china invests 9% of gross domestic product. this is brought by a bipartisan support. the can help restore our growth. he can do something about bringing tele-communications across this nation. allow them to build a 21st century infrastructure. this cannot be outsourced. this is a great nation. it has been built on perks and

mortar. we have got to get back to doing that again. we do not have the time or a luxury to play political games in a longer period -- any longer. this is a bank that will create jobs. >> thank you. the legislation may not have been a great deal. it is not a done deal. we're moving forward into august. we will hold them accountable for eight months of wrong choices for the american people into areas, jobs in medicare. house republicans made decisions.

they're willing to close down the government. they did not have one bill to open up a small business. house republicans made a decision 20 years ago when they said they would allow medicare to weather. they have been fighting that battle relentlessly every single day for decades, culminating in the majority. they're trying to pass a budget battle at $6,000 project that will add six and a thousand dollars. they made a decision that they would rather close down the government in a pursuit and medicare and the funding of tax thisoles we're calling accountability august. the american people are going to

ask them why did you voted to end my medicare. you could have stood with me. the could have protected my medicare. i do not know what the national weather service is predicting for its investors in august. they will spend their august defending it. >> thank you. this is a when the few democrats. thank you for your great work. works thatoud of the the house democratic caucus has been doing. we heard what was said.

they have a society of civil engineers. they are rebuilding the infrastructure. they have partnerships on how this is funded. he has the bill. he has a discharge position. his are a passing it. we wanted to come up again.

this is not about creating jobs, it is about developing small businesses in an entrepreneurial way. it is to the transformation of where they know they will be successful. he will lead the way. you'll continue to be number one. in the meantime, we will make sure that all americans participate in the economic prosperity.

>> i want to follow up on this. legislators are about to go on recess. workers are being prolonged perio. do you think it is fair they're going home for a month vacation of people are suffering that's what we do not think it is fair. i think he agrees with that. it seems that way that before we came in here senator harry reid has agreed to come into the legislation. in the south these small airports. they're all these jobs. that is my understanding.

>> i want to say something on that. i think it is an example of what they have done. they are clearly prepared to let america default for the first time in history. unless they got their way. secondly, they were prepared to leave washington as they have now it is essentially done with almost 4000 federal employees out on the streets. with over 70,000 people who are helping to outbid. they're helping to make sure that there airports are safe.

they were prepared to walk away from here and lead almost 95,000 people without a job. they passed a bill and said either you take it our way or there will be no runway. that is a perfect example of the politics not of persuasion and compromise with the politics of confrontation. senator harry reid is confronted with a terrible decision. my friends are absolutely right on this issue. none of us would say to anybody

i want to be in an election in which everyone who does not come to the polls this a judge. that is not how we run america. senator harry reid says he will not leave washington for those folks out on the streets would do. >> he voted for the bill. it seems to be an emotional moment.

>> it was a great moment for our country. it is with respect to encourage and patriotism. she really wanted to come. she felt so strongly. she enhances the clients of bipartisanship.

it was a great moment. this went at next to her name. it is a highly emotional moment for us you will witness a great deal of history. she wanted to save our economy. she knew she is going to default. >> when you make your point, is that going to be something that ease into the committee? >> thank you for a galling to

this. we did protect the benefits. that is a priority. it is a value for the american people. he knew it to be someone to protect those benefits. >> what do expect to announce that >> i wanted to as we what kind of people you're looking for.

for the past few months, and the people have wondered why we're talking about this debts rather than talking about jobs. he had the vote. it's a done deal. it is time for us to focus on jobs. i have no intention for weeks and months to talk about this. we will make our appointments. the nature of who they are will be self evident. we cannot turn ourselves into a place where we are just talking about the process of this. we have to be creating jobs. yes, ma'am, one last question. >> i was going to follow with a different committee to ask -- will you be picking people that are more apt to compromise as opposed to people that will take you down the same road of a stalemate? >> our caucus was united in

hoping this committee has some level of success in reducing the deficit with a strong element of growth and job creation as part of it. we are fooling ourselves if we ever think that one element on the table, whether it be cuts, is going to solve it. if we are serious as our caucus is about reducing the deficit, we have to go in there recognizing that some cuts will have to be made, that you cannot accomplish what you set out to do without considering revenues in a strong way. some of those revenue had been mentioned by mr. israel, whether it is subsidies for big oil, whether it is tax benefits for corporations sending jobs overseas, we have a long list. you cannot reduce the deficit unless you bring revenue in. job creation is deficit reduction. again, we are pretty unified in

our commitment to reducing the deficit by creating jobs and by having an affair and bipartisan approach to getting it done. but do not expect us to spend every day between now and then into the committee makes a report talking about the process of that. what we are talking about is the promotion of jobs, small business creation, and entrepreneurial spirit in this country. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in a few moments, a hearing on u.s. nuclear plant safety. in an hour, a news conference in

iraq with admiral mike mullen. after that, an update on the political unrest and violence in libya. the senate environment and public works committee yesterday looked at recommendations for improving u.s. nuclear plan safety in the wake of a japanese nuclear disaster. the recommendations come from a special task force of the nuclear regulatory commission. this portion is a little more than an hour, and begins with the first round of questions for the witnesses. >> we are dealing with is potentially fatal doses of radiation.

if you do not do your job right, we do not do our job right. today "the new york times" had a story. he said the operator of tokyo electric power said that workers found an area near reactors one and two were radiation levels exceeded the measuring device's maximum reading, a fatal dose for humans. when i your colleagues -- this is my interpretation of what they said -- call for recommendations for safety, more washington red tape, i believe that is what the ranking member said. i can tell you that people in japan would have got down on godr knees and prayieed they had more safety measures. i want to ask some questions. the task force recommends requiring vent designs in mark 1 and mark ii reactors. the fuel in reactors of units

one, too, and three were uncovered, which led to a buildup of gas. explosions occurred in all three reactors. we know that some of the mark ii reactors have made some safety improvements. the task force requires hardened vent designed. only three actors in america have installed these vents. there are five remaining reactors that have not. why do we have to wait before we implement that recommendation. i will ask each of you, do you think we have to move on that recommendation to move forward with this recommendation of the hardened vent designs? i want a yes or no or do not know. >> i think that is of fine

recommendation . >> i do not want an editorial comment. yes or no. >> yes. >> it sounds reasonable. >> i cannot answer. i support assessing our vending capability. the task force noted they do not have a clear understanding of whether the operators were able to operate the vents. >> i take as a no. it is not good news. what is your purpose, when you became a commissioner, what was your high as in duty? >> public health and safety protections. >> the safety and security. >> public health and safety. >> protect health and safety. >> good. then i would like to consider looking at what happened in japan and looking at the similarities that we see in some of our plants and move on it. let me tell you why i am concerned. after 9/11, the nrc took

seemingly decisive action. i hope the public is listening to this. you ordered u.s. nuclear power plants to take a series of improved security measures, because we worried about a terrorist attack. in my a state there were handing out iodine pills. that's how worried they were carried we have millions of people that live within 50 mile of power plants.t he nrc later codified those orders. do you know when? with compliance required by march 31, 2010. from 2001 to 2010. i want assurances from each of you that you will not allow that to happen. and i want to hear from you as to whether or not you believe we can move on these recommendations and put the

a year.ce within >> i believe we can move on them within 90 days and have full implication with potentially long term recommendations in five years. >> let's have 90 days, if we can move on these, most of these recommendations, and put them in place in 90 days. there is a yes from the chairman. >> i do not believe that all can be. >> how many? >> i'm not certain. i propose we receive an evaluation. >> you do not know. next? my time is over. go ahead. >> i agree with the chairman that we should position within 90 days. >> excellent. sir? >> i think some of them can be within 90 days. it is hard to say if all of them can. >> i agree with the commissioner. >> thank you. my time is up. >> thank you, madam chairman.

i recall when we had our june meeting i had the armed services commitment that kept me from being here, so i asked senator braso if he would ask chairman iasco to provide a full account of actions he took while exercising his emergency authority as provided in section 80.f the nrc's plan of 19 section 3 states, "following the conclusion of the emergency, the chairman shall render a complete in time the report to the commission on the actions taken during that emergency." let me start by asking you a question, has the chairman provided such a report? let's start with you. >> i have not received a report. >> you have not? >> i have not. >> i have not received a report. >> the second thing i would ask, has he informed you that he has

ceased using his of emergency authority? >> he has not informed me of that. >> he has not. >> he has not. >> she has not . >> i have to assume he is still using the emergency. this is very confusing. >> would you like a response? >> not yet. the want to extend my time, that is fine. >> my colleagues have been informed. >> it might be better if i finish. >> fair enough. >> all right. so i have to assume he is still using, since i have not received. i want to do this, because i think it needs to be in the record. none of us were around at that time, but in 1980 was when the emergency provision was passed, and it was the democratic congressman from connecticut. i'm going to read this because i think it is important to have this in the record.

this is from 30 years ago. "there will be to situations in the future. those were the chairman is in basic agreement with the majority and those were he or she is not. in those cases where the chairman has a majority of commissioners with him or her, it is obvious that the chairman will not need the extraordinary powers tucked away in his plan to work his or her world. the chairman and the commission can move in unison toward their chosen regulatory policy. what about where the chairman is in minority, regardless of party affiliation, when the majority of the commissioners opposed the chairman? is it not equally obvious that it will be at that moment that these special powers will be most appealing to the chairman? isn't it clear that if these powers are ever to be needed and utilize at all, it is precisely by the chairman and on going against the majority of the

commissioners? if that be the case, is this plan not clearly constructed to gut the commission form of regulation, and would not be subject to debate, the sort of partisan political manipulation? " that was 30 years ago. i would have to say before you make your comments, chairman, i would like to get a commitment from you that you will respect the will of the commission majority on this report and in all other issues and you will not attempt to act unilaterally to implement any of these task force recommendations. do you feel comfortable making that commitment here in this hearing? >> of course. everything i do i do consistent with that. >> all right. >> with regard to the emergency powers, the commissioners personally have been briefed by me on the status of our situation. we no longer have all our emergency operations center activated, which is a clear signal that there would be no

emergency powers. >> that is not what they said. they said they have not been notified by you. >> which is a true statement. but for one to infer that they are not aware of the status of the agency and whether or not as you indicated you were there for assuming that i am continuing to use emergency powers. i do not believe that is a fair assumption. the commission is fully aware. their staff is briefed on a weekly basis on our response activities related to japan. they were provided reports throughout the activity, everything going on. moreover, they received a report that you received the task force with force that summarizes and looks at the actions that were taken following the fukushima incident . to some of and for the commission is kept in the dark is simply -- to somehow infer the commission has been kept in the dark is simply untrue. >> so all four are not telling the truth when they answer the question have they received a

report? >> i cannot speak for them. but they have received many reports, including the report you have in front of you. that is one of the clear requirements of the report in the statute. their response i cannot explain. >> i think i can. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. ok. how about a smile from everybody here? can you do that? not quite. senator? >> we don't always smile up here, either. >> we try to. >> i'm sitting here and listening of this and i reminded of something my mother used to say, with respect to moving along at expedition retr -- alog

expeditiously. my mother used to say haste makes waste. my father on the other hand would say that work expands to fill the amount of time we allocate to a job. and so, i had one parent pushing on the accelerator and one parent tapping on brakes. not a bad combination. this is what the commission thinks we ought to do here. some of the recommendations we can push on the accelerator and with others we can push on the brkaes. akes. i try to encourage consensus across the aisle, and i will try to see if we can get a consensus here with some of these recommendations you mentioned that you thought that some of these recommendations could be implemented pretty much right away. it leased it would take some time. could you mention some of those that fall into the implement

right away category, please? >> i have generally tried not to point out specific recommendations, but just to anticipate. a clear example of what we called a walk downs, inspections to confirm the plant are prepared to deal with seismic events. i think that is an obvious one. it can be done quickly. a half a dozen have been highlighted. i am in general agreement with what he recommended. there are others. when we have to study to understand very carefully before those are implemented. those will take years to do. it simply may not be possible in a few weeks. i think many of these could be implemented very quickly. let me just share personally. i have talked with other members of the commission. i have absolutely no sense if there is anyone on a commission that was to delay this. i think everyone is taking this seriously and wants to move

quickly. but we want to make sure the process is done correctly. >> ok, good. that is encouraging. the debt i hear the commissioner say the half dozen? >> yes, sir. there are six things that i think could be done very quickly here and decided on in a matter of weeks. the first is reevaluate the seismic and flooding hazards at all sites. second, perform seismic and flood protection walk downs. look at specific of all abilities. third, issue advanced notice rulemaking to address long loss of power, the blackout rule. fourth, b5b. fb. fire protection equipment. we have additional equipment and prevent a vote -- in the event

accident and six, maintaining train it to severe accident management guidelines. we have a severe accident management guidelines. making sure that those are in court order and people are fully trained on those is a high priority. >> if you want to react to the half dozen. >> i do not have any disagreement. beyond that, there are not that many recommendations that the task force recommended for near- term action. so i think some of this discussion it is really about semantics. but four of the 12 recommendations were long term recommendations. two of them were targeted towards nrc action.

there is only six recommendations directed towards licensees in the short term. >> were those the ones that the commissioner mentioned? >> they were a subset. the ones that were missing or recommendations related to spent fulel pools. i think that is one that most people would agree is an action that we would want to address near-term. i do not think there is not many left when we take those particular issues that we cannot get all of this work done in 90 days. >> my time is expired. just real quickly. would you like to give some indication whether you are in agreement with the commissioner's half dozen? has he overstated the case? >> i would add quickly that i did not have any negative

reaction to the task force recommendations. i agree they vary in complexity. my proposal was to hear from the nrc staff that would be irresponsible. i think the recommendations, when shade tree the programmatic offices, may come back slightly different -- when shaped through the programmatic offices. prolonged uncertainty is undesirable. >> thank you. >> all i am saying in my vote is that i would like to have the judgment of the senior management before we go ahead. that is the mean it will take forever to get that, but this sounds like a reasonable list. but i willould like to have this before we come up with a decision. plus, senior management might come up with additional things. i do not think we should limit ourselves to what the task force

said. >> thank you very much. >> chairman, how were you involved -- how in fall for you and the selection of the task force? >> i was not involved. they might have told me the list of people that were on that and i ok'ed it. >> were you involved in the deliberations of the task force? >> not at all. i spoke to them before they began the work and told them they have a responsibility and that they should put the best they could request the report talked about a patchwork of requirements flowing from the current regulatory program. do you agree with the implication that our current regulatory program of nuclear safety is effective or not working? >> i do not believe that is what the task force said. i think the inference that it is defective is not true. they said we have a patchwork. it is true we have a patchwork of regulations. we have some things that, for instance, if you look at emergency procedures.

we have emergency procedures in three classes. and those that we call emergency operating procedures. we have severe -- procedures for severe accidents. we have procedures dealing with the 9/11 actions. each one of those has a different regulatory treatment. but all three of them are likely comparable in their importance and should be integrated into a process of emergency procedures. so that was the patchwork that existed. each of those came out of the particular incident. a severe accident came out of the 1980's when we recognize the was a need to have a better preparation for severe accident. the last extensive damage medication guidelines can out of 9/11. there was never an effort to look at those in a holistic way. that is simply what the task force's recommendations. in some cases, some would get greater regulatory treatment than they get right now. in particular, the severe exit

management guidelines. >> you stated in europe notation about response that the -- your notation that the nrc prides itself on openness and transparency. his principles of regulation that you use in your decision making. if the nrc is a couple of public meetings on these recommendations, with that suffice to meet the goals of openness and transparency and meet the standard of nrc principles? >> thank you for the question. i think public meetings were a key component of that effort. we have a public meeting just last thursday at the nrc. i think all of the commissioners your support the chairman's call for open, public meetings as being a key component. there was also the discussions that will happen outside a public meeting that will inform the prioritization of these individual recommendations. >> you said you did not believe the existing regulatory framework is broken. is this report larger in scope

than you expected? >> if i can address that comment. i agree with all of what the chairman said a few minutes ago on his definition, or characterization of the patchwork comment. i think there has been a dynamic evolving buildup of regulations in response to events. and so, i don't think thae patchwork is a fair characterization. i think the chairman's characterization is correct. i think it is something we should look at, but i do not think it is something that is in immediate concern that would suggest existing regulations were not safe and proper. >> thank you very much. if i could, use that in your road, lacking the technical and programmatic steps evaluation -- you said in your vote, you said i do not have a sufficient basis to accept or reject the recommendations.

in your opinion, how could we achieve that sufficient basis of knowledge to then make that decision about accepting or rejecting these recommendations? >> i had made a proposal to my colleagues which was not yet decided upon, but it would be that the nrc programmatic staff would take these recommendations and within 45 days come back to the commission with a prioritization and a plan for how the agency might move forward to get that more complete evaluation. they could identify the more straight for recommendations and how they would propose to move forward on those more quickly. so i did not think it needed to take an excessive amount of time. >> thank you, madam chairman. >> senator sanders? >> just start again by telling you where i began my thinking. i'm going back to the a.p. article. fagot -- regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's -- repeated the

weakening standard's and failing to enforcement in the investigation. throughout this discussion, probably half a dozen times, members of the committee have quoted the statement in a task force which says that the task force concludes that a sequence of events like the fukushima accident is unlikely to occur in united states. we have heard that a half a dozen times, but we have not heard the paragraph before that. the paragraph before that says, "this red of the tory approach established and supplemented -- this regulatory approach has established techniques using those available at the time. the result is a patchwork of regulatory requirements and

safety initiatives all important but not all given equivalent consideration and treatment by technical or during review and inspection. consistent with the organizational value of excellent, the task force believes that improving the nrc's regulatory framework is inappropriate, and achievable goal." chairman, what's the problem? i think, again, my friend from wyoming talked about somebody say they were defective. i did not hear the regulatory system was defective. what i hear is the one to improve it. do we have a problem of improving the regulatory framework? second of all, let's be clear what we are talking about. you have highly knowledgeable people who have made 12 recommendations and, recommendations. they want you to go forward.

no one is saying you have to accept all 12 recommendations tomorrow. what they are saying is a look at them, analyze them, tell us what you like. i think he says he likes some of them. some of them he has concerns about. fine. what is the problem, mr. chairman, in your judgment about taking these recommendations and starting an immediate discussion to see what we like or do not like? >> i think that is something we can do. i think it is something we should be able to get done in 90 days. >> what is the problem with starting this discussion? >> i voted within days of receiving the taskforce report. to begin the discussion. i do not see that my proposal to take -- should take an inordinate amount of time to evaluate them. >> are you ready to go? >> yes, i am. >> the process has started . >> i was the first one to vote.

>> you are ready now to begin immediately to start a discussion on these 12 recommendations. >> absolutely. >> i think we are already. >> i'm glad to hear that. mr. chairman, is the process ready to go? what am i missing here? >> i think there is -- we're stuck in developing a process rather than just moving forward to actually begin the discussion and dialogue on the recommendations. right now what we are talking about is the process to have that discussion. unfortunately, certain with the exception of one commissioner, most of my colleagues have weighed in. >> what is the difference of opinion with regard to process? >> i think they are not severe. they are minor. but a big difference is setting an expectation for when we

can compmletlete it. the 12 recommendations within 90 days. >> do you agree with him that we can get these recommendations done in 90 days? >> no. i believe some of them are complex enough that it would not be possible to make a final decision on all 12 in 90 days. >> i believe the chairman's roadmap would go directly to public meetings of the commission, some of the members feel we should get senior management evaluation first, recommendations. >> mr. magwood? >> as i see it so far, i see a great deal of commonality. so i think there is actually a

consensus coming together quite quickly on a commission to move forward with this. as i stated earlier, i do think some of these recommendations can be implemented. >> do you agree with the chairman we can get moving? >> i think we can launch some of them sooner than 90 days. others may take longer. >> mr. osendorf? >> i believe we can act on most of these recommendations within 90 days. perhaps not all. but i think unfortunately in the press there's been a perception created there's great dissension among the commissioners on this topic which i quite frankly don't think is there. there is more consensus. everyone is ready to move forward. there is an agreement on a need to place this as the highest priority and i think there clearly is. >> madam chair, thank you. >> senator alexander? >> thank you madam chairman. a traffic policeman's job would be to keep the traffic safe and all five of you said public

health and safety was your job, but if the traffic cop just stopped all the cars from going anywhere, his supervisor might come down and say hey, wait a minute, that's not very creative of you. is there anything within the charge of the commission to make it possible for a nuclear power plant to create an environment in which a nuclear power plant can actually operate and which a new one could actually be built? >> well, i don't think there's a charge specifically for that to be the motivation for what we do, but certainly -- >> that's not a part of your charge to create an environment in which a power plant can -- if your only charge is public health and safety, you'd shut them all down. >> no, i think our charge is reasonable assurance of public health and safety. the charge is that we are providing a level of assurance that's reasonable. >> so there's no economic responsibility -- no responsibility you have to make sure that a power plant can also be operated economically?

>> no. our requirements really fall into two categories, those things which are kind of the basic tenets of safety based on court decisions, the commission is required to make those safety decisions irrespective of the economic considerations of that decision. certainly when it goes to the implementation of requirements we can consider the economic impact and look to see which is the most cost beneficial. >> you can consider that? >> on that basis but not determining if something a safety requirement. we're barred from a court decision. >> is it your objective and that the commission to create an environment in which new nuclear power plants can be with the? >> no, my goal is to continue to ensure we have an environment in which nuclear power plants are safe and if new plants are to be built, that they will be as safe as our requirements dictate. >> so you don't have any --

what about the recommendation of the commission that recommended that you complete without delay the design certification of the ap-1000 and the economically simplified body of water reactor design? >> i think that was a recommendation not to encourage the commission to take action but it was a recommendation indicating there was no reason to specifically delay action as a result of these recommendations. >> that sounds like action to me. are you planning to do it without delay, does that mean without 90 days? >> we are continuing to move forward. >> can you do it within 90 days? >> we will be fairly close to receiving a final rule on the ap-1000 in october which again is part of the reason for us to look at these recommendations in 90 days because when we go into the decision of looking at a final design for instance, ap-1000, it's important we've dispositions these recommendations so we know what changes would affect those new reactors. >> will, considering all the recommendations, all 12, delay

your consideration of the design certification for the ap-1000 and the new boiling water reactor design? >> not in my opinion. however, i believe if we don't consider the recommendations in a timely way it could ao potential impact on delaying the reactor licensing. >> but there's a lot of talk here about delay. this report said you should do this without delay, why did they say that? >> i don't know. i mean, that's probably something better to ask the task force. but i think the information relevant there is it was useful information for the commission to know there were no immediate issues with the design certification. >> let me press you a little further. you said you think everything could be done in 90 days, does that include these two designs? >> what i said is that it is important for the commission to disposition the 12 representations. i would note the statements related to the reactors are not 12 recommendations of the task force. >> but they're in the report?

>> that's correct. >> and they say without delay, correct? >> that's correct. we're not delaying any of the new reactor work. if we don't promptly act on these recommendations it will create uncertainty for what actions would be applicable to those new reactors which in my opinion could actually lead to a potential delay in that work if we don't disposition these recommendations promptly. >> well, my -- my hope is that you'll take the -- if you're going to take the task force, if you don't take the commit's advice to do the recommendations in 90 days you'll take the task force's advice to complete the design certifications without delay. thank you,ed a ma'am chairman. >> thank you. senator, i would call your attention to the mission of the n.r.c. which is clearly stated, the u.s. n.r.c. is an independent agency created by congress. the mission of the n.r.c. is to

license and regulate the nation's civilian use of byproduct source and special nuclear materials in order to protect public health and safety, promote the common defense and security and protect the environment. so it's right here. >> madam chair, i would think that it is still a legitimate question whether, you know, a traffic cop should stop all the traffic. that's one way to have safety, his supervisor still might ask him if he couldn't be more creative in at least let people drive in a safe way. >> i don't think that's the right analogy because there's really no analogy when you're dealing with nuclear energy, and i think -- >> we've had a lot more traffic -- we tolerate 38,000 traffic deaths every year, we've never had one with a nuclear reactor in the united states. >> that says a lot for the fact we have an independent agency protecting the health and safety. they said the same thing in

japan until recently but in any event, let's move on. obviously we have differences here just like you have differences there. i want to make the point, and i really do want to make this point because i made it to you before. as many differences as we have here, we're friends. and we differ, we argue, we debate. i just am sensing with you that maybe there needs to be a little bit more friendship, just the point spoken as a human being, not as a senator. i think it's important that these differences not become personal. if inhofe and i can do it, we are really good friends, then anybody can do it. anyway, here we go. we're moving on and we're going now to senator lundburg. >> thank you, madam chairman. and this is beginning to look like a glee club here,

everybody with happy faces. what you say isn't really what you get. the n.r.c. recently renewed the operating license for the hope creek nuclear plant in new jersey. through 2046. now, what did we learn from the incidents in japan that you would take into account when deciding to grant the extension and which condition would that enforce you to place on? >> well, for any reactor, whether it's a reactor that's been operating for 35 years or 45 years, if we adopt any of these recommendations, they would likely apply to every reactor in the country with the exception of some of the recommendations like the hardened vent issue which would only apply to boiling water reactor designs. the license renewal process is really about ensuring that they

have a program in place to deal with the aging of components and systems and nothing that came out of the task force specifically touched on those issues. but called, for instance, for a number of recommendations dealing with earthquakes and those kinds of things that we would expect at any plant, hope creek being one of them would be required then to implement along with the others. >> so not too much specific information came from the fukushima failure that influenced your granting of an extension of the license? >> right, not at this point, nothing that affected the extension. but ultimately if these recommendations are adopted, some of them would apply to hope creek as an operating plant just like any other plant in the country. >> the g mark one containment system used at fukushima is also used at u.s. plants

including two reactors in new jersey and you said in june we didn't know what went wrong with the containment system at fukushima. now, what did this uncertainty factor bringing into the recent n.r.c. task force recommendations? when do you think we know what we can about what went wrong at the japanese plant? >> that could take possibly years. what will need to happen is they'll have to decontaminate the facility and decontaminate the reactor itself to get in and actually analyze and really look at the equipment and try and almost like a criminologist to try and recover and reconstruct what happened in the accident. but as the task force laid out, there are some things we can do in the short term and particularly with the hardened vents, this is something the n.r.c. recommended a requirement. the mark one containments, similar to what was had in japan, are containment designs that do have hardened vents but

haven't been done as a regulatory requirement. the task force recommended we do that. the advantage of that is it brings it under our inspections and oversight and those things so we can monitor it and make sure it's being used effectively. that's something specifically for the mark one's that's been recommended we take action on. >> but it would take years, you say, to fully understand what took place there? >> it may. one of the -- >> it's hard to imagine because there were specific events. we're not talking about the influence on the people who were in the area, that kind of thing, but the specific trigger for this collapse is pretty much obvious. >> yeah, and that's certainly why you see a number of recommendations from the task force. they acknowledge that there were some things we don't yet know and those things will need additional study but clearly there were at least six recommendations they made that they believed we had sufficient action on to take action on right now.

>> looking ahead a the bit, you said in a 2008 speech that i believe that the n.r.c. should -- i want to talk about storage. should develop new regulations which require spent fuels to be moved to dry cast storage after it's been allowed to cool for five years. the task force recommended enhancements to spent fuel pools but did not advocate requiring dry cast storage. and now given that it falls short of your 2008 proposal, how can we be sure that the task force approach here will ensure the safest form of storage for spent fuel? >> i think the task force recommendations are really a short-term recommendation which is precisely to ensure if an event like fukushima were to happen, the challenges we saw, namely, knowing how much water is in the pool and making sure that there's sufficient capability to put water into the pool to keep it cool, that

those things would be addressed. that's what they've asked for in the short term. and then over the longer term, we can analyze this issue more importantly of whether we should have more fuel in pools versus in dry cast storage. but they really went at that short term issue of making sure the fuel that is in pools is going to be in an enhanced configuration and safer that way. >> i'm being ruled out so thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> i spoke a little long i think. >> thank you, senator. senator sessions. >> thank you. mr. jaczko, there have been complaints of your leadership at the commission, as you're aware, i've seen it in the media, and i do believe it's important that you reflect the proper role of the chairman which, as i'm sure some administrative responsibilities, but we have a commission and the commission is established to decide and as a commission important issues. with regard to this emergency powers, did you file an

official document assuming emergency powers of any kind? >> no, nor. >> how did you announce you were assuming emergency power? >> it is not something in this we have procedures in which that is formally done. about three or four days into the incident i was made aware my colleagues on the commission had asked and inquired about that. i spoke with the general council and asked members of the staff, should i make a formal declaration of use of emergency powers? and in all honesty, i got one or two people who said no, that would just distract you from the work that we're doing and quite frankly, i got distracted by dealing with the emergency response and didn't turn back to it until several weeks later when i had time. >> did you seek a formal opinion from counsel whether an event on the other side of the world would give the american nuclear regulatory commission the commission chairman the power to assume emergency powers that would in some ways diminish, obviously, the influence of the other members of the commission? >> i did seek that and the

general counsel advised me it was perfectly appropriate. >> you have a written opinion? >> coy have a written opinion. i believe that's been provided to the committee. >> with regard to this committee that -- well, are you still assuming those powers or have you considered -- >> no, i ceased that weeks ago or perhaps months. >> and you have issued a report what you did during the course of that time? >> as i indicated, we provided situation reports to the commission at the beginning of the incident, those situation reports were issued multiple times a day. they have -- >> the reorganization act, the statute of 1980 said, following the conclusion of the emergency, the chairman or member of the commission delegated the emergency functions under the subsection shall render a complete and timely report to the commission on the actions taken during the emergency, close quote. have you done that? >> i believe that i have. and i've done --

>> is it available to us? >> we can provide you with the boxes of situation reports which detail -- >> well, no, that's not what the statute requires. wouldn't you not agree -- >> nor, i -- >> why would you hesitate to do a complete and timely report of the actions taken during the emergency? >> i have conferred with the general counsel and i believe that i have more than satisfied the requirements of that particular provision, sufficient -- preinformation is provided to the commission about actions that were taken during the response. >> i'm not arguing about that. >> in the form of the report -- >> given my information, i believe the statute under which you, sir, requires that the chairman or the emergency official render a complete and timely report, not a series of situation reports in a box somewhere. wouldn't you agree that that's what it seems to say plainly? >> as i read the statute, it's clear they envisioned one piece

of information because certainly when that statute was -- >> why wouldn't you do that? >> because i think we provided much of that information already to the commission and i have heard nothing on my colleagues on the commission they have any interest in that particular report. moreover, we -- >> well, i have an interest in it. the people of the united states have an interest in their chairman of the n.r.c. following the plain statutory requirement, so i'll ask you, what hesitation do you have to put a formal report together that says what you did while you assumed emergency powers? >> i'd be happy to put that together, senator, and i believe i've more than done, more than provided information to the american people through testimony through a variety of different reports that have provided significant information about the actions that were taken during this event but i would be more than happy to summarize those in a single report. >> to comply with the statutes is all i'm asking. >> i would like to comment i've conferred with the general counsel and we believe i've

more than complied with the statute in that particular provision and can provide you a an analysis of that as well. >> i believe it requires a single report after the conclusion, and it's pretty obvious you have not done that. with regard to this committee of the six members that were appointed, you said you didn't select them but e.d.o. did. who is e.d.o.? >> the executive director for operations. >> and who does that person work for? >> normally to the chairman. >> and so did you know who was being selected and were those -- >> absolutely. >> and did those members discuss about you before they were selected? >> i believe he gave the names to me and said they were appropriate and said they were a good suggestion. >> did you make any sessions to names that might be on that list? >> i don't recall whether i did or didn't. >> you don't recall? >> it was not something formally presented to me and was presented to me verbally and i believe i signed off on it verbally. i believe that they were a good

selection the people that he selected were excellent people and i don't recall if there was a time a smaller group or larger group, i could check my records but it was not for me a significant decision for me and i trusted the e.d.o. to appoint the appropriate people to that task force. >> my time sub. thank you, madam chairman. i will submit a written question concerning how it was that the commission planned that stakeholders would be invited to submit suggestions was eliminated from the staff effort. >> thank you very much, senator. the last hearing we had here we did ask the chairman about this in depth, so i'll also get you about his taking over emergency powers. could you not start the clock yet because i have another thing to do. senator cardin, i'm just going to put this out here. and he would like this in writing, this answer. if the commission delays action

on task force recommendations on the grounds you don't have enough information yet about what happened at fukushima to move forward, does that suggest the n.r.c. also doesn't have enough information to move forward with relicensing existing reactors or licensing new reactors? so that's a question he wants answered. we're going to have a second round here. i think senator carp and senator sanders is coming back and will have a second round. >> i have one brief -- >> i go first. >> i'm sorry. you are the chair. yes, that's right. >> thank you for noticing. ok. here's where we are. i want all of you to know we're going to have you back every 0 days until i know what you're doing. and i'm going to take all the answers you gave and how much you're going to work to make this happen, half a dozen, a baker's dozen, whatever it is, and we're going to stay on this. i'll tell you why. after 9/11, we had all these

great ideas, everybody thought great, the n.r.c. took decisive action and nine years later some of these things went into effect. that is not going to happen. or if it happens, the american people are going to know. and here's the point, whether you love nuclear energy, don't like it, or you're agnostic, it ain't going anywhere if it isn't safe. and it is not going anywhere if the public doesn't have faith in you. if the public thinks that you are somehow not independent, not doing their business. let me tell you, they won't be happy. so i have a question for you, commissioner svinicki, in your july 19 vote on the task force report, you stated, and i quote, the n.r.c. finds itself at the appropriate point now to move away from small group taskings, including the commission itself attempting to

labor in isolation. this is very disturbing to me. very disturbing. the commission itself attempting to labor in isolation. you are an independent entity. what are you talking about, isolated from who? >> i meant that term to reinforce the importance of having public meetings and stakeholder outreach meetings that the commission ought to have the benefit of -- >> you don't think that's up to stakeholders to decide what we should approve on -- you're an independent commissioner, are you not? >> yes, i meant that the process should be informed by the public view. >> and chairman jaczko has laid out a plan and proposes a process to move forward over the next 90 days to receive broad input from n.r.c. staff and external stakeholders and to have votes by october 7, 2011. do you agree with that? >> as i indicated in response to your earlier question -- >> i'm not asking you an earlier question, i'm asking you this question.

chairman jaczko proposed a process to move forward over the next 90 days to address your concerns to receive broad input from n.r.c. staff and external stakeholders and to have votes on specific recommendations by october 7, 2011. do you agree? it seems to match what you called for. now he's put it out there. it echoes what you want. do you agree? >> i support commission meetings, as i've indicated, i'm not sure all the commission -- all the testifies recommendations could be decided in 90 days. >> how many do you think could be decided on 90 days? commissioner ostendorf pointed out six. do you agree with him, can they be decided in 90 days? >> i proposed in my july 19 -- >> yes or no? do you agree with him? >> i don't have a -- >> that six of these could be decided in 90 days? >> i don't have a specific count, senator. >> let me just say your responses disturb me.

when you say that the commission isolated your role by statute is to be independent. chairman jaczko laid this out. i want you to know i have seven million people who live within 50 miles of the plant. i went there with a wonderful friend sitting next to you. commissioner pascalokous. and i said what's your plan if there's an emergency? he said, we have to go out on the highway. that's all we can do is escape that way. you ever go to those freeways? you probably may not have. you can't even move an inch on some of those freeways and i've got seven million people there. and you're sitting here and basically saying you can't move forward on -- and i want to compliment the members of this special task force. it's not red tape at all. it's 12 recommendations. they make sense. and i am stunned to hear that

you -- is there one you can say we can move forward before you hear from the industry, anybody, any one of these you can recommend? >> i agree that the task force identified the correct areas but i would like the n.r.c. staff that would be responsible for carrying out the recommendations to -- i'd like to have respectfully their input prior to deciding on a final -- >> that's right. chairman jaczko laid out a path to do just that. but you say you won't be ready in october. what's the date you'll be ready? what date do you think is good to be ready to vote on perhaps half a dozen simple ones that everyone else seems to think we could move on? what's the date? give me a date. >> my objective would be if some are less complex to move on them before 90 days. >> excellent. which ones do you think those would be? >> i would not like -- >> what is less complex? i looked at all of these. most of them don't seem too complex, especially the ones that deal with making sure that

the plants undertake more safety precautions, emergency preparedness, and all the rest. which ones do you think are less complex than the others. give me a couple out of the 12. >> i think the relooking at the flooding and seismic requirements to make sure that we're using state-of-the-art knowledge there is a very straightforward recommendation. >> you like the recommendation that every 10 years the operators of these plants have to come up with new assessments as to the safety. that's the recommendation? >> i was referring to the recommendation that asks the task staff to relook at our basis on seismic and -- >> how about that one, the one i just said. it's very clear, they say every 10 years the operator of a plant that's located near flooding and seismic has to do a relook at the problems because with science, moving forward, commissioner, we have new information all the time as to whether the seismic problem is worse, less harsh.

right now we're very concerned because science shows us that it's moving in the wrong direction, more tsunamis, more earthquakes, harder, deeper. what do you think about that, every 10 years the operators there ought to look -- that's one of the recommendations. you think that's complex? is that complex? >> i think that we as an agency constantly look at our state of knowledge in those areas, as you suggest. and i -- >> do you think it's 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's any new information that comes forward, as is the case in california with fault lines off the coast, we require even in advance of a 10-year

period. >> good. so you would support, then, a -- every time there's new science, an overall new look at the eight of -- at the safety of these plants? >> yes. i believe we require that now. >> are you ready to vote on that in the next 90 days? what you say you support, are you ready to go for that in the next 90 days? >> respectfully, my proposal asks that the n.r.c. staff come back and provide us with the implementation path on these recommendations, and i wanted before i made a final decision to be informed by that input from the n.r.c. >> well, all i can say is it i'm the people of california and i'm watching this, right now i'm not so sure about whether i want that plant to operate. because it's very simple. it's very simple. and we have our plants there coming in to get relicensed. and i urge them not to do that,

not even to issue -- not to move forward until they've studied it. you seem to be on my side, but then you have to hear from everybody else. i would submit to you it's common sense. there are certain things -- you should have more belief in what you say. because it's common sense. and i'm just saying we have oversight over the work you do. mr. chairman, i want to compliment you and say to the commissioners who are ready, willing and able to act in a time frame >> thank you. if we do not do that, we will not see people supporting this. the more you convince people that you're doing your job, the more they will be comfortable with nuclear power. if you give me answers i have to wait and then you have a situation where it took nine

years, that is ridiculous. i could be used to this. >> just a few questions. some of my republican colleagues have suggested that you have initiated a crew on the nrc. you're running a dictatorship.

does the nonpartisan council believe that you have filled the statute in terms of for utilization of the emergency powers? in terms of american power is, after it, you wanted to make sure that it was the 13th as that we have. is this correct? >> the primary focus is here. most of the issues were dealt with by the commission. that was how we decided to go forward. i did not exercise any

authority. do they believe that you acted appropriately with the knees predict ta appropriately? >> i believe that is the -- do you believe they acted appropriately? >> i do believe that is the case. what did he act within the law? >> please, join us. i am a general counsel.

it to be a threat to the u.s. facilities. given the intentions of president carter, his actions were consistent with those responsibilities. >> and appointed by the commission. >> thank you very much.

clinton needs to be looked at. i have some concerns. >> i just cannot quite get that answer. the ec this as an important recommendation. no one is suggesting that you have to swallow it. what is the problem with beginning that discussion right what i've been around for

many years. i've seen different efforts taken to improve the safety. i have seen how actions are implemented. it'll take a few years to do. i support moving forward. i do not think this should hold us up. >> thank you. >> i think we will vote here pretty soon. this is a question. it is my understanding that the majority isis to take a second look ba? let me ask you directl.

since they made these recommendations in the first place, now we're asking others to provide suggestions. why is this next step needed? my perspective is that it is not simply another assistant. i look forward to seeing what the staff thinks about the recommendations. the most important thing is to have the staff intact by stakeholders.

they have crossed the table discussions. >> thank you. i would agree with this. i would make two points hair- ere. he supported having them come back and give as an integrated one. the agency did not do that.

they call from that in 30 days. not all these recommendations are equal. something should be done right now. >> there are regulatory prospects. can you describe or prepare both processes? there were here for public comment. >> generally, pay have more limit terry -- limit terry -- limited involvement. we need to do it for safety reasons.

they are not the preferred tool. they did not provide for the public in gateman that a regulation would. one of the activities is to better streamline our rulemaking process so we can use that. generally, the orders have less involvement. they fill there is a safety lead. in most cases, we usually initiates a rulemaking process. >> let me just follow up with that. they have shared and discussed concerns about making these recommendations.

what has been their experience with the rule making? they have a role to play. >> everyone that comes then once the process to go forward. we have mixed success with that. a lot of that comes down to the choices. it comes up about four months. it is with how we do with the fatigue. i think this would be a most preferable way. and who can be done in four or

five months. >> it has not started yet. what i would like to do is do something. we always asking if you have an opening statement. i'm not going to ask for a bank to the closing statement. questions have been asked and responses have been given. this may be a closing thought. i ask him. writing you go first tax we talk

all the time. >> how often are you in town? >> we meet about three weeks out of four. >> this is based on my perception that we all want to move forward quickly. we all want to do the right thing. i didn't think we are as far apart as some of the questioning might have suggested. we want to do those things. some are sure term. as the institute for near power operations, do you have an affirmation in order to support this?

report itself said we do not understand whether not the operators actually operated these events. i use this as a discrete example. this could be a month for now. that is just one example. >> this is a closing thought. >> i think you have actually covered it. he said it quite well. i believe we will move forward quickly. there is a lot a willingness to get this done. we were all talking to each other during the event. we began to think about what lessons were being learned.

i see this as a conclusion of what started back in march. i feel very positive that we will get this done quickly into the right thing. >> i agree with my colleagues. i think it will react in a timely manner. there are just a few days that we have to work out. adenosine any problem at all. -- i do not see any problem at all. >> i agree. i do not think there is any overlap in the approach. i think we can. it is appropriate -- possible to strike the appropriate balance. >> i appreciate all the comments of my colleagues. i think there are former areas of agreement than disagreement.

it is important for us to disposition these recommendations. i think it is doable. there's perhaps more agreement than there is disagreement. >> when my favorite people to work here with is a republican from wyoming. i knew him when i was governor. he is the senior republican on the health education labor. they were remarkably effective.

he said they own about 80% of the stock. we disagree on maybe 200. we decided to focus on the 800. 80%. as a result, we get a lot done. i think it should be not just a better place to work, but a better country. it seems that we got in 80's and agreements. haste does make waste. it does fill the amount of time we allocate.

does not more time than we really need. we're going to wrap this up. you take care. thank you. this hearing is adjourned. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] heading their colleagues at two weeks to submit questions. please respond to it. --- our colleagues have two wees to submit their questions. please respond to it.

>> political unrest and violence in libya. them president obama on passage of the bill raising the debt ceiling.

>> now the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff spoke with reporters four and half hour tuesday on iraq. >> the morning. good morning. >> thank you for coming. they entertain that we would give a request for some troops tuesday. i was encouraged to learn that leaders plan to meet to discuss

them for such a request. i remain hopeful that we will soon achieve some clarity. i am grateful that it tends to resolve the issue are now under way. we will continue withdrawing our troops on schedule. to do otherwise would be to violate the agreement we signed and iraqi sovereignty itself. not all the neighbors are so committed. the regime continues to violate the sovereignty by intervening of social and political affairs. they adored efforts to pursue economic growth. these are the acts of a friend. tehran lear that pt

seeks a weakened iraq. it is going against the militants and with coordination. as a result, they have the attack.

it is closer to overseas. these are the of thoughts. this was over. it is sacrificed more greatly bikeway americans and others in our coalition. today it is peaceful and prosperous thing control by citizens of this country. is a matter of sovereignty and the transition to what we have been pursuing. i'd give credit for this regard. regardless of whether or not it is saved and weather are not my government does it, we can do it through hardship and bloodshed. leadership can be yours.

nothing changes about my dedication. we have given thousands of our lives to achieve it. it is time not to finish the work that continue to see it through. ?> are you looking for this t >> he made it clear that we made a decision now. i reiterated that. there are discussions as are ongoing.

they will buy the lackeiraqi leadership. with respect to the forces that are here, as did that begin part of this is significant. you get to a point we cannot turn back. that is why it is so important to make the decision as soon as possible. >> can you give us a little more detail? >> what makes you say that, what do you think that there is a possibility that there needs to be a meeting today?

today given in a sense about the support any other types of troops in the event that something does happen? >> we had no discussions about what specific capabilities might be included should they get to a point where there would enter negotiations. they are aware of the urgency of the issue. they're committed to meeting. i would summarize both meetings from the standpoint of a degree of difficulty. there are some different political challenges associated. it is associated with reaching this decision. it is up to them to continue to work toward it. they are anxious to resolve and

reconcile those differences. that is up to them. >> did they suggest you're getting any more? >> we did not talk about that. they are committed to getting together and getting to a play where they make a decision one way or another. >> thank you. does the u.s. believe in any mission or would it be better to have troops involved that selects i do not -- involved? >> it is not a position. we need to get to the first point of whether we even enter negotiations.

it would need to be the specifics of what the support and training would focus on. that would then drive the answer to your question about what combination of military and civilian contractors would provide it. we are not there yet. >> thank you. we have a lot about what it would do. >> the united states is very committed to the region. it is a strong long-term relationship. as is the case when we work with any country, we understand how

our systems may operate together. trainedre cr opportunities. their relationship is stronger. it possibly put it in place long term. the most important part are the people to people aspects. oftentimes, these relationships get focus on a very senior level. it is strong. he is a good friend. they get to learn about each other when they're young.

we are now beginning a relationship. we're continuing over many years. they're hoping for a democracy in this region. there are many reasons i think to commit to this overall long- term partnership, far beyond the military to military aspect of it. >> have you focused on your concerns stock ? i know syria must concerned with the mounting violence. they discussed about the possible impact.

it obviously does matter to you. >> i think you said it very well. each of these countries that are undergoing this revolution and resistance, we clearly focus on them individually. they all have an impact on the region. the people of syria are seeking a difference and reforms government and governance. many countries throughout the world have called for president as sod and his leadership team to make those changes. we hope the violence would stop immediately and that the changes would be initialted.

this is not a very stable part of the world. there is concern with how things turn out. we would like to see the violence stopped immediately. they resolve the issue. there are in use today are issues that call for substantial change. there is no indication whatsoever that we would get involved directly. we want to bring as much pressure as they possibly can to respect the change.

>> i wanted to ask you about a group that is involved in many of the attacks here. hundreds of these members were held in u.s. facilities. they would most likely be released. knowing what they have done, do you see that as a one you would like to see? have a huge view that? >> on a look back, at one time there were upwards of 26,000 detainees here. that number has been reduced.

this has been part of what of the agreement we reached with the government. certainly as in the case, we are concerned. we worked very hard to the inernment's to support them their rule of law. we continue to do that. we are aware that there are those of gotten back. we continue to press the government very far. on a high level, from the standpoint of looking at the problems and challenges that much, i think we're in a

better placed than me were given our commitment. there are those that have been released. we frankly would like to see that stock. we continue to address it. >> do you fill the top -- fill the top is doing enough to crackdown? it gives them special eminencies. they have been convicted in criminal court. many have been arrested by the american spirit >> with respect, we're very concerns about the extremists groups. al qaeda is certainly one. we have addressed this with the iraqi leadership.

they had taken significant steps. we have seen a pretty dramatic drop from where we were in june. that job needs to be sustained. the united states will take whatever steps we need to to protect their people. i appreciate the fact that they have intervened in that regard. it is a very positive short-term results. it needs to be extended in the long term. he said the biggest threat to the national security was the national debt.

i'm wondering if this will be taken from a safer position that there is still talk of cutting hundreds of billions of dollars. how concerned are you about that happening? the recent debates and resolution i think are important steps. it is really of for congress and the president to figure out how to move ahead. with respect to the debt. i've not changed my view that the increase in debt continually is the biggest well may have. with respect to the deal that is made, i do not have any details on that.

i do not know. i have an expectation that there will be defense cuts as a part of this. i do not know what those will be. i expect we will find out the details. >> i think we're still at a dress when the senate has not voted. we have done a lot of work in recent weeks. with respect to expectations to cut the defense department budget of $400 billion. there are various combinations of options on how to proceed. a lot of that depends on what the top line is. we do not know that yet. also our judgment on the degree of difficulty.

i do not have any more details. some of us will have to move quickly. this starts in under 90 days. this is a budget would put together last year. we'll have to figure out how to educate its. quite a different matter. we spent some time talking to the troops. they are concerns that washington is not fully aware of what is going to happen. there is some concern that the things did not is started out all this will have been in vain. i'm curious what you will say to those who are serving here and the families who died. should they be concerned? >> i first came in 2004.

i took this job in 2007. i have returned many times to see the progress that has been made. i have seen the forces having now turned over all the security checkpoints. there are forces exclusively patrolling these points. they're doing it in a way that i get feedback from my people. it is more advanced and further down the road. i see that is representative of that dramatic change. you see a city that is lit up in

traffic on the road. you see an economic infrastructure starting to emerge that in a few years where there is a tremendous upside. as i look at it, the blood has been sacrificed. it is an entirely different future. that is not clear anymore. i see a change is time for the better. there are challenges. they do not want to understates the is. congress is probable over time.

it continues to be very visible each time i see it. troops are here and are a maze in the progress. from my perspective, this is not them. they are alleging that a unilateral mission led them to the park it. -- to the target. can you shed a lie? i will not talk about any details. the united states will take necessary action.

we do this in conjunction was security forces. this has been the case. i will not talk about a specific incident >> they made statements that they needed this. how long do you think that the u.s. should should remain? there's no plan to have any troops years based on the agreement. i am aware of the statements. we worked hard with the security forces. we are identifying various strength in areas that need to be supported.

that is very clear. we need to get to a point where the iraqis make a decision about whether we will have any kind of training or assistance. whatever the compascontract wou. if that is made, we will work out the details. it will include the length of time. disobeyed negotiation. it's not the one side or another. the two sides will get into the negotiations and make a determination of what capability and how much. we are not there yet. they need to make a decision that as for this kind of assistance.

>> the question of immunity seems to be seems to be one of the key ones. if you feel if there is agreement that they have to have the midday approved by the parliament? is that your view? it is consistent with how we both negotiate and reach agreements with countries around the world. they will be consistent with that. there is agreement that would give immunity for men and women in uniform.

>> the u.s. representative has just returned from four months. it included talks with the rebel governing body. the reported on the arrest and violence. this is one half hour. >> good afternoon. you have heard a lot about him. he has been the u.s. representative to the council. he has been working with them on the ground. we thought it would be helpful

and important to have him come and talk about his experiences. >> hello. i got in a couple of days ago. i'm here. briefly i will say a few words at the top. i have been here for about four months now. we got there a profit. it was difficult to get in there at the time. we came in by a cargo ship and unloaded our gear and their cars. we set of our office there. we have been on the ground since then. my mandate was to go out and made as many as the leadership as i could. they got the council. they got the cabinet. and it just about everybody.

i have gone around. i have tried to get to know other people in the society there. we operate in recent libya. it cannot be controlled. they are making progress. diplomatically, they have made tremendous progress. they gain recognition.

it increases pressure. financially, they have made progress. there are really in a precarious situation. they did not have funds to pay for food and medicine and fuel to keep the power generators .oing pi there are hoping they can gain access to the frozen assets. lastly, militarily, although it has been slow, they're making progress gaining territory from gaddafi. there are three battlefronts.

there are the western mountains where they have fighters inching their way toward tripoli. there is the front on the coast or they have not only bought up the forces successfully, but they're also pushing west of the coast towards tripoli. they're getting close to a significant town. closer to where i am they made a pledge as i was leaving. they are now closely able to get through those. i do not want to paint a rosy picture. there are also challenges. one of them as security.

there's hardly any police around. the militias starting dto pull in. looking after, you have a lot of militias and a few police. better security as they try to move forward to tripoli and to gaddafi's departure. thank you very much. >> thank you.

i question for you about the reports. they have been potentially clocked. this is the case of those that were associated. do you have any insight into how fracture they might be? to you know what this is doing to help? >> my impression is different. it is a reflection of libyan society. it is made up of a lot of different people and groups. this is never a monolithic group that we were doing. i realized this from the start. it is the surprising to me that there are differences in opinion. the problem arises when they express their differences of opinion.

we really do not know who did it. i know there are some statements out there. they have set of a committee to do it. i am hesitant to jump to conclusions. under last point, we have gone into the leaders of. we have communicated the views that they really need to be careful about maintaining their unity and keeping the focus on gaddafi. they understand this. they will work hard to bring them under control of the security.

it is under the army as well. hopefully, that will work. >> de have any concern that it could weaken it to the point where they are not able to act. they could provide services as well? othermelissa's troublesome are really quite small. the main militias are working with the leadership. militias -- and a number of them, and the sprout up all the time -- of the times were in a neighborhood context. i do not see them as posing a

huge security challenge. >> it would impede their ability to either make decisions or to abandon it. the main ones are with their. -- there. they are with the cause. >> kind of taking a larger picture, it does seem that despite their nice plans and papers and proposals and meetings that they're having, that there does seem to be some kind of disarray on the grounds. i think it probably stems from the fact that there has been so little of any kind of government in libya for so many years that these people are not really used to all working together toward a common goal.

are you concerned that despite the passat -- facade that perhaps they do not? how can the u.s. help professionalize themselves deat ? what specific things we'll maintain their unity? what is the status of your office ? what kind of presence do you have on the ground? do you have any more robust presence as you in cress or formalize your presence? >> it is important to remember that it emerged out of emergency circumstances back in february. they have tried to set of government institutions. it is very difficult. they are fighting a revolution

what they're trying to gain international support. they have done well considering the challenges. your point is correct. gaddafi never encourage institutional development. he did the offices. he demolished his government. they are struggling with that. they are trying to help. the main impact is the international contact. there are discussions about what kind of technical assistance to be provided. which permit to be temporary. they are meant to be transitional period.

>> even though they're the biggest game in town, how much support do they have throughout the country? although they are the most well known, would you say this is adequate reflection of the libyan people? >> yes, i would. there is no alternative except for gaddafi. he is extremely unpopular. second, the tnc has representatives from gaddafi- controlled of libya. and in his government. they have increased the size and representation of the tnc along the western provinces. they're conscious of this

sensitivity of not being overly dominated by eastern and libyans. so, i think they are represented. >> short of jumping to a conclusion, can you tell us where you do know of the killing of the general? the circumstances are murky. what effect have you seen so far since that has happened on the military leadership and? ? >> i do not want to speculate. all i've seen are a couple of reports, one by the leadership that khaddafi killed him. another said it might have been one of the rebel militias. i do not know what the truth is. we have to wait to find out. in terms of the impact, high understand that they have

selected or are looking at a general who was in charge of the region in the eastern part of the country. i do not know if he has been confirmed. >> hi. can you give us a sense, what is your sense of how much longer the conflict is likely to go on for a khaddafi leave? three months, six months? >> i would not want to put a date on it. the tnc hopes, what a they envision is increasing pressure on the gaddafi regime such that more and more of the leadership flee and gaddafi will give op. the pressure is political.

there is isolation. there is financial. it is even military as the rebels tried to move out closer to tripoli from the mountains and up from the coast. >> if i could follow up, the u.s. had suggested in the talks with the gaddafi government the power -- the possibility of gaddafi stain in the country. is that something you're still willing to offer to them? >> our position is that it is a decision for the libyan people and their future government. >> in your talks with the tnc, with the exception gaddafi to stay? i have a couple more but i will start without one. >> that is a controversial

issue. as you have seen, they have flip-flop the little bit. that is because there are different views. i am not sure they've reached a final decision. the basic arguments are, he should go because if he's allowed to stay, it will cause more problems. we will have to deal with him forever. the other is, no, he should be allowed to stay because it will end the conflict sooner. take care of him myself. >> have you been able to travel outside of been gauzy -- benghazi? >> absolutely. we try to me with all sorts of people. tribal leaders, and islamists,

ngo's, women, men. we go into the east as well. we do not go into the war zone for security reasons. democratic. they want to have a say in their lives. it did not have that for the last 42 years. to coordinateu -- your efforts? would you recommend to the administration to open up the embassy as soon as possible in washington? >> we talked to them on a daily basis. >> if you coordinate with other missions? >> we talked to the other -- we

other groups as well. we do talk amongst ourselves. and you want to forward the goals everybody agreed on. yes, ala of talk among us. as for their mission, i understand they're going to open up their office again pretty soon. >> is the u.s. doing any planning for what happens after gaddafi leaves? >> yes. first i want to say that the tn c is also a doing planning for the future. that is more important. they have done extensive planning about how to handle this situation in libya and the aftermath of his ball and beyond that. they have done a political road

map as to how they're going to get there and they have done specific planning by sectors. that process is underway. we are working with them in the contact group's to help them, to give ideas based on our experiences. they are open to that kind of corporation. of course the u.n. is very of malta and will be involved in a post-gaddafi era. >> are you leaving it to the europeans or is the u.s. willing to do a substantial role in maintaining security? >> we have a lot to offer based on our experiences. my understanding we're going to do this as part of a joint effort with other international partners. the contact group is the venue for these discussions take place. >> this touches on some of the

other questions, we keep hearing that the nato mission is in a bit of a stalemate. more peoplerces -- are saying there will have to be a political solution. do they feel the same way? do they feel they're in a stalemate? if they are looking at a political solution, what are they thinking about? >> there are of the view they are making progress toward ousting khaddafi. they are increasing the political pressure, the military pressure. they do not see a stagnant situation. they see movement in the right direction. they are glad that nato is part of this. they see that involvement as an essential to protecting them.

>> today expected to last as long? >> they had hopes gaddafi would be gone a long time ago. they're committed. >> the second part of my question was whether they willing to do politically to bring this to a conclusion? >> they're trying to do all they can. they are fighting on the various fronts. they're trying to show the international community they are worthy of our support. >> what percentage of the tnc is now composed of women? have they told you how they want to use the billions of dollars they're hoping to get access to it? how do you draw the assessment -- how do you reach this assessment that gaddafi's demise

is an inevitability beyond that you want this to happen? >> the percentage of women is very small. i can tell you that. i would have to look carefully at the list of who is in. but it is very small. i know one woman plays a prominent role as head of the legal affairs committee. she is very involved about political planning for the future. women are more represented did in a civil society. so that's that. if you could remind me of the other questions. >> the money and assets. >> right. they had specific plans and priorities for how they would spend the money. generally speaking, they would spend it on their urgent

priorities which are fuel, electricity, and the water. the get their water from a man- made river. that takes a lot of electricity. on the medical supplies, they are running short. food subsidies, supporting internally displaced libyans from the west who fled to to eject. that is a big issue. that is how they would spend the money. on the inevitability of his departure, all i can say is that the world is lined up against him and his basis is shrinking. the forces are closing in around him. there are sanctions and other things. i think everybody agrees it is a matter of time. >> the last couple of questions.

>> just a quick one. there are some reports that some of the military themselves are carrying out human rights violations. is that correct? to what extent are they? how effective are they in terms of controlling their own forces? cracks before i came here i met with the human rights watch representatives who was on the ground in the western mountains and who did reports. we had a long discussion. her reports seemed credible to me. i know that she raised to them with the that tnc. the tnc was -- the leadership was troubled by these reports.

they have issued instructions, or try to, to their military and to the rebel militias, fighting on their behalf, to respect international law. they are sensitive to wanting to appear different from the gaddafi forces. and the abuses of those forces. they have an extra political motivation for distinguishing themselves from gaddafi. they got the message. i am sure they're looking carefully to make sure does not happen. >> is that a surprise? some of them are former loyalists. they do not change their tactics, even though they might not like working for gaddafi anymore. >> it is an education process.

education takes time. repetition. >> do you have any idea who might represent the country at the u.n. general assembly this year? has that been any part of that discussion? >> i'm sorry, i don't know. >> one last question. [unintelligible] are you satisfied also as a member of turkey? are the east and west on the same page? >> the tnc is pleased with your course they're getting from some countries like qatar, uae and t urkey. they are planning a big role.

>> he has other meeting so i am going to let him go. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in a few moments, president obama on the passage of the debt ceiling. in about 10 minutes, senate leaders from both parties look ahead to what is next over federal spending. house democratic leader nancy pelosi talks with reporters about creating jobs. before president obama signed the bill raising the debt limit and cutting spending, he said any future efforts to reduce the deficit should include changes to the tax code to raise revenue. he spoke after the senate passed a bill, calling on congress to

approve a free trade deals and extend unemployment benefits. this is 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. congress has now approved a compromise to reduce the deficit and avert a default that would have devastated our economy. it was a long and contentious debate. and i want to thank the american people for keeping up the pressure on their elected officials to put politics aside and work together for the good of the country. this compromise guarantees more than $2 trillion in deficit reduction. it's an important first step to ensuring that as a nation we live within our means. yet it also allows us to keep making key investments in things like education and research that lead to new jobs, and assures that we're not

cutting too abruptly while the economy is still fragile. this is, however, just the first step. this compromise requires that both parties work together on a larger plan to cut the deficit, which is important for the long-term health of our economy. and since you can't close the deficit with just spending cuts, we'll need a balanced approach where everything is on the table. yes, that means making some adjustments to protect health care programs like medicare so they're there for future generations. it also means reforming our tax code so that the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share. and it means getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies, and tax loopholes that help billionaires pay a lower tax rate than teachers and nurses. i've said it before, i will say it again -- we can't balance the budget on the backs of the very people who have borne the

biggest brunt of this recession. we can't make it tougher for young people to go to college, or ask seniors to pay more for health care, or ask scientists to give up on promising medical research because we couldn't close a tax shelter for the most fortunate among us. everyone is going to have to chip in. it's only fair. that's the principle i'll be fighting for during the next phase of this process. and in the coming months, i'll continue also to fight for what the american people care most about -- new jobs, higher wages and faster economic growth. while washington has been absorbed in this debate about deficits, people across the country are asking what we can do to help the father looking for work. what are we going to do for the single mom who's seen her hours cut back at the hospital? what are we going to do to make it easier for businesses to put up that "now hiring" sign?

that's part of the reason that people are so frustrated with what's been going on in this town. in the last few months, the economy has already had to absorb an earthquake in japan, the economic headwinds coming from europe, the arab spring and the rise in oil prices -- all of which have been very challenging for the recovery. but these are things we couldn't control. our economy didn't need washington to come along with a manufactured crisis to make things worse. that was in our hands. it's pretty likely that the uncertainty surrounding the raising of the debt ceiling -- for both businesses and consumers -- has been unsettling, and just one more impediment to the full recovery that we need. and it was something that we could have avoided entirely. so, voters may have chosen divided government, but they sure didn't vote for dysfunctional government. they want us to solve problems.

they want us to get this economy growing and adding jobs. and while deficit reduction is part of that agenda, it is not the whole agenda. growing the economy isn't just about cutting spending; it's not about rolling back regulations that protect our air and our water and keep our people safe. that's not how we're going to get past this recession. we're going to have to do more than that. and that's why, when congress gets back from recess, i will urge them to immediately take some steps -- bipartisan, common-sense steps -- that will make a difference. that will create a climate where businesses can hire, where folks have more money in their pockets to spend, where people who are out of work can find good jobs. we need to begin by extending tax cuts for middle-class families so that you have more money in your paychecks next

year. if you've got more money in your paycheck, you're more likely to spend it. and that means small businesses and medium-sized businesses and large businesses will all have more customers. that means they'll be in a better position to hire. and while we're at it, we need to make sure that millions of workers who are still pounding the pavement looking for jobs to support their families are not denied needed unemployment benefits. through patent reform, we can cut the red tape that stops too many inventors and entrepreneurs from quickly turning new ideas into thriving businesses -- which holds our whole economy back. and i want congress to pass a set of trade deals -- deals we've already negotiated -- that would help displaced workers looking for new jobs and would allow our businesses to sell more products in countries in asia and south america, products that are stamped with the words "made in america." we also need to give more opportunities to all those construction workers out there who lost their jobs when the

housing boom went bust. we could put them to work right now, by giving loans to private companies that want to repair our roads and our bridges and our airports, rebuilding our infrastructure. we have workers who need jobs and a country that needs rebuilding; an infrastructure bank would help us put them together. and while we're on the topic of infrastructure, there's another stalemate in congress right now involving our aviation industry which has stalled airport construction projects all around the country and put the jobs of tens of thousands of construction workers and others at risk because of politics. it's another washington- inflicted wound on america, and congress needs to break that impasse now hopefully before the senate adjourns so these folks can get back to work. so these are some things that we could be doing right now. there's no reason for congress not to send me those bills so i can sign them into law right away as soon as they get back

from recess. both parties share power in washington, and both parties need to take responsibility for improving this economy. it's not a democratic responsibility or a republican responsibility; it is our collective responsibility as americans. and i'll be discussing additional ideas in the weeks ahead to help companies hire, invest and expand. so, we've seen in the past few days that washington has the ability to focus when there's a timer ticking down, and when there's a looming disaster. it shouldn't take the risk of default the risk of economic catastrophe to get folks in this town to work together and do their jobs. because there's already a quiet crisis going on in the lives of a lot of families, in a lot of communities, all across the country.

they're looking for work, and they have been for a while; or they're making do with fewer hours or fewer customers; or they're just trying to make ends meet. that ought to compel washington to cooperate. that ought to compel washington to compromise, and it ought to compel washington to act. that ought to be enough to get all of us in this town to do the jobs we were sent here to do. we've got to do everything in our power to grow this economy and put america back to work. that's what i intend to do, and i'm looking forward to working with congress to make it happen. thanks very much, everybody. >> happy birthday, mr. president. >> senate leaders also spoke with reporters about the debt limit vote and what happens

next. harry reid will be first, followed by mitch mcconnell. this is less than half an hour. >> the debate was long and it was not easy. people have wondered whether congress could get this job done. we got it done and brought our economy back from the brink of disaster. in the end, the two sides came together. that is how the system works. neither side got what they wanted. there were things we had to give up. that is the way it is. that is how our system works. that is where compromise is all about. it was a bipartisan compromise. it was not the right wing cap,

cut, and, whatever it is over there. that was not bipartisan and. it is nothing we agreed to. it was a disaster for america. disagreement and cuts the deficit by $one trillion. we look forward to the work on the committee to make sure that millionaires and billionaires and corporate jet owners and people who have yachts who get tax benefits, oil companies to get these huge subsidies, that is what this committee is going to be about. we need to do more for families. the number 1 job we have is a congress must be creating jobs for the american people. there are a number of things we're going to do. we will address that in a few minutes. today we make sure america will

pay its bills. now this time to make sure all americans pay theirs. senator dorgan. >> with his vote, we have averted a crisis. america has avoided default in for the first time in our history. the fears and concerns of americans across the board or considered by this congress and we have come together. i did not vote for this with a great deal of enthusiasm. the down payment included in this bill comes primarily from working families and those were struggling. if we're going to have true deficit-reduction, we have to put everything on the table and bring everyone to the table. the joint committee has a responsibility to get more savings. let us make sure when we do it,

we do it in a fair and just manner for all people. when return, -- when we return, we'll address the number one issue in america, creating paying jobs for people who are struggling. >> now washington, the nation, the world can breathe a sigh of relief. the horrible crisis that would have occurred, the likelihood of a recession, has been averted. we have a lot more work to do. a lot more work to do. the bill which had things -- had a lot of things we did not like. had some things we like, particular in making sure that no benefits to medicare and medicaid were cut. but it is now time for congress

to give back to our regularly scheduled programming. that means jobs. washington has been consumed with averting a default, our nation's unemployment problem has been worsening. it is time for jobs to be moved back to the front burner. with this package completed, the debt is cleared for a single mined focus on jobs. we can get our deficit under control. we have provided certainty to the credit markets. the debt credit limit to resolve the budget for the next two years of the wrangling over spending should be reduced in the coming months. we now have the chance to put away from budget battles. we can reset the debate. that is what we intend to do. the jobs issue will not have to play second fiddle to the deficit issue anymore.

that is what the american people want. the public is glad to see we moved to rein in our deficit and now they want the political efforts to create jobs. democrats, that is our strong suit, our high ground. we welcome this chance to shift to the playing field to jobs. >> this was a very important vote. we needed to raise the debt ceiling to avoid an economic calamity. we needed to cut spending in getting our debt under control. we still have a very long road ahead of us. we are going to keep working hard to make sure that as we tackle the challenges, we do it in a fair and balanced way for americans across this country. it is time to get back to our priorities, and getting our economy that contract and people back to work.

this vote begins to address the budget deficit but as every family knows, we also have an infrastructure deficit and education deficit and a jobs deficit. we want to give back on track and address that critical issue so families can still secure again that it will have a paycheck and their families will be able to put food on the table and send their kids to college. i think this vote showed us we can work in a bipartisan way. i hope we will address the number one issue for every family, jobs. >> why would this in committee be more successful in addressing taxes or retirement programs when the buying group or the -- >> the answer is obvious. hanging over the head of the

joint committee is this a trigger that is putting -- >> " can you do to keep this from happening again? people are saying, we're not going to support an increase after 2013. >> if it does not, the trigger kicks in. in makes it easy for the ensuing years. will have an election between that. >> [unintelligible] >> i have said that we have 80,000 jobs on the line. in nevada, we have a new airport

tower. they started construction two weeks ago. that is a huge project. it is nearly $100 million. barbara boxer told me they have a problem with the control tower in palm springs. as i understand it, they have shut down construction on that. that is difficult. the essential air service is a program that i believe in. i also believe that the $3,500 per passenger is extreme. i do my best to protect the state but sometimes you have to be reasonable. we have learned what is do we just did. sometimes drop to step back and find out what is best for the country and not be bound by some of your own personal issues. i'm willing to give that up. i hope the other senators will do the same.

>> [unintelligible] >> we are working on it. we will do it during recess. there are all kinds of things. for example, i am doing emotion for the patent bill. that will be the first vote we have when we come back. it is too bad it has taken so long. that is 270,000 jobs. i indicated to my friends here, he has found a source of money to complete the highway bill. there are many things we can do. we are also concerned about the new energy jobs cetera up there. we have a lot of other things. we do not have them finalized but we will.

[overlapping] >> i think people should be open to solving the debt problems of this country and not let ideology stand in the wake. this is more about saving our country from the future deficit problems than political ideology. under the law, you have to do it within 14 days. thank you, everyone.

>> i know you all are going to miss us, right? you hate to see us go. we will miss you. the biggest concern that the american people have is the jobs and the economy. actually, things have gotten worse since the president came to office. we need to move in a different direction. we don't believe and the american people don't believe that raising taxes, job-killing tax increases in the middle of this serious recession is a direct we ought to take. and the bill we just passed avoided doing that even though the administration desperately wanted to raise taxes.

every meeting i'm in talks about the regulatory burden that we are experiencing throughout the economy. massive increases in regulations. senator barrasso has been a leader on that subject. i am often asked, what would you do to get the economy going, and my answer is always have been doing. the same, quit doing what we quit borrowing, quit spending, quit trying to raise faxes, quit overregulating and let the private sector flourish so we could have a chance to have a growing economy which again will produce more revenue for the government. so that ought to be our single focus, not only at home during the recess but when we come back here. one very big thing the administration could do in that direction is get those trade agreements up here. they enjoy bipartisan support. they will create jobs in america, for americans. we hope they will be waiting for us when we get back from the august break. with that, senator kyl. >> i am amazed that the white house believes it's press shop

and the president's eloquence and the campaign team of the president can override the substance of issues with rhetoric. and it's very interesting, therefore, that the moment we got this debt ceiling issue behind us the president decided to pivot to job creation. now, as leader mcconnell pointed out, republicans have never taken our eye off of job creation. but just to illustrate with the very specific example of one of the things we had to deal with during this debate about the deficit and the debt ceiling, one of the taxes that the president actually proposed that we increase was the subject of a report by his own small business administration office of advocacy. and they reported that this particular tax could ultimately force many small businesses to close. that's a direct quotation.

so while the president today would have all of us believe that now he's gotten the light and he wants to, quote, pivot to job creation, i would just ask, what about that whole debate that we had over the last month or so about the pernicious affects of your tax proposals on job creation? that republicans were so fixated on stopping these job- killing tax increases. >> senator rubio said yesterday, washington is talking about the debt but americans are talking about jobs. and the president has pivotted to jobs, and usually he begins by blaming his predecessor for the problems he's inherited. we don't blame the president for the problems he's inherited, but we do hold him economy worse. responsible for making the he's made it worse in ferms of

unemployment. he's made it worse in terms of the federal debt. made it worse in terms of higher gas prices, individual health insurance premiums are higher. home values are down. debt projections are up. he proposes high cost to energy plans. he's basically thrown a big wet blanket over private sector job creation and given a chance we know how to make it better. we'll have simpleler taxes fewer regulations, less debt, more exports, fewer health care mandates, job training and finding more american energy and using less. our goal is to make it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs. >> well, i, too, want to welcome the white house and the administration and the democrats in the debate about jobs after 2 1/2 years of piling up the record that senator alexander just alluded to. if you think about the legacy of this administration so far, it's chronic, high unemployment and massive amounts of dealt.

they add 35% to the debt and we got unemployment that is at over 9% and we saw last week the anemic growth numbers for the second quarter, 1.3% advanced investment and a -- this economy is sluggish. the reason it's sluggish is because the job creators out there, the small businesses in this country are worried about what washington is going to do next. i think that was probably best -- probably verified in a poll that was done by the u.s. chamber of commerce in which they polled small businesses about what they're going to do with regard to job creation this next year. 64% of them said they were not going to add to their payrolls. of the businesses that responded to that survey, half of them said the reason for that is economic uncertainty. economic uncertainty because of

washington, d.c., policies and this administration's economic record which has had a job- crushing agenda since the day they came into office. and so i am delighted to welcome them to the debate about jobs after 2 1/2 years of being missing in action. >> when the president came to office, unemployment rate in this country was 7.8%. now it's 9.2% unemployment. millions and millions of americans looking for work and can't find someone to employ them. a lot of that has to do with the regulations coming out of washington. in this past month alone in the month of july, the 31 days of july, there have been approximately 300 new expensive regulations coming out of washington. 10 of those are major regulations in terms of impact which means they have an impact of over $100 million in terms of the impact on abilities to create jobs and the impact on those businesses. the total impact has been almost $10 billion of expenses when you look at these hundreds of

regulations in the month of july alone. this administration seems to be fixated on finding ways to make it tougher and more expenses for the private sector to create jobs in america. >> looking forward, one of the most important things to come out of this debt ceiling agreement is a commitment for a vote on a balanced budget amendment fought united states constitution sometime by october. when you look at everything congress can do, it can't bind future congresses which is one of the biggest challenges we had which is why i believe a balanced budget amendment to essential. the constitution is absolutely all 47 republicans have co- sponsored a version of that balanced budget amendment, and what we now have the opportunity to do as we have taken a small step in the right direction toward fiscal responsibility is to finish that job by passing by 2/3 margin a balanced budget amendment both in the house and the senate and then send it to the states for ratification. we know there's a lot we could

do between now and the time that amendment is ratified. but ultimately the question is, are we going to be living by the same rules that apply to every family, every small business and 49 states which is that they cannot spend more money than they have? and i think we've all seen that this is really the ultimate measure of fiscal responsibility. and i congratulate our commitment. leadership for getting that as you know being in the minority we can't have a vote unless harry reid gives us a right to give us the vote. that's what the national conversation is going to be about going forward. and this is perhaps the most important things, one of the most important things to come out of this agreement. >> will take a couple of questions. >> [unintelligible]

>> and we will consider them together. i will be acting very soon. >> will the federal government spend more money? >> d. you have the top line on that? anybody? yeah. >> yeah. we set -- i don't have it in my head but we set the number on the discretionary side for 2012 and 2013. it should be immediately available to you. what that allows us to do is to have a normal appropriations process. i mean, normally the senate would pass a budget. you know it's been over 800 days since we actually passed a budget in the senate. and the house had passed one which they have done. you reconcile the differences and then you get at the beginning of that a top line, how much you're going to spend.

not on the mystic that we were going to have a budget process, since we have not had one in 800 days in the senate, but we just put a measure the top line for fiscal year 2012 and 2013. >> and can you talk about the president sank he wrote -- saying he will cut from defense? >> well, the joint committee is not going to gridlock in my opinion. the joint committee is designed to function. and to tackle some of the very difficult problems that we have been unwilling or unable to deal with. the trustees are appointed by the president. medicare and medicaid says they're both in trouble. medicare sooner than social security. dohaven't yet been able to

anything on the tax reform side. we decided to concentrate power in this joint committee because we have an extraordinary problem. if the normal way we do business was adequate, we wouldn't have a $14 trillion debt and over $50 trillion of unfunded liabilities. we needed to do something different and this is clearly not kicking the can down the road. they're going to report by november 23. it will be voted on before the end of the year. and i wouldn't focus a whole lot on what would happen if they didn't function because i think they are. >> what about these president st. it will combated the next 10 years? -- come out of the next 10 years. >> does anybody want to tackle that? >> [unintelligible] >> well, we're so late. i mean, fiscal year 2012 begins at the end of next month.

so it probably would be difficult to have a normal appropriations process. they'll have to be clumped together. but in 2013, now knowing well in advance what the top line's going to be for 2013 it's my hope and i know it's the majority leader's hope that we will be able to do the basic work of government which is the appropriations committee reporting bills, move them across the floor of the senate and getting them done. but this year we're so late it will be very difficult to have that kind of normal process for the fiscal year 2012. what happens is you do not have enough time so we end up in either a cr or putting together different bills. that is not the best way to do it. hopefully that will not be done. i do not see a way to avoid it. we will see how we sort it out.

it would be hard to move 12 spills across the floor in the month of september. thank you, everyone. >> house minority leader nancy pelosi says that now the debate is over, it is time to focus on jobs. she and other democrats spoke with reporters for about half an hour. >> good afternoon. we just completed a very lively leadership meeting of the house democrats where we talked about the democrats to save the day yesterday. pulling our country back from the brink of default. it was a bitter pill for us to

swallow but we did. we saved medicare, medicaid, and social security. yesterday we crossed a bridge. enough talk about the debt. we have to talk about jobs. we started with how many days it has been in since republicans have been in office. today is to attend. we have not seen any legislation. we have seen legislation which has cost nearly 2 million jobs. more than 9000 jobs a day would be lost if the republicans' legislation or signed into law. we have seen a holdup on the infrastructure build which we hope will be resolved today. we will hear more about that from our colleagues. job, jobs, jobs, jobs.

you cannot say it enough. i like what willie nelson said. the american people are more concerned about a ceiling over their heads and raising the debt ceiling. we know we need to do both. i was pleased to hear the president talk about infrastructure and how we create jobs to meet the needs of the american people. some of his suggestions have strong support in our caucus, whether it is infrastructure, rebuilding our country, make it in america. and when he talked about the bill which we will talk more about now. again, everybody has been intensely involved on this discussion. the american people's top priority is jobs. we have crossed the bridge.

interesting it was something the republicans did not have the votes to pass. i am proud of our members that we took this step to polis from the brink of default even though they did not -- were not happy about the legislation. what was good about it is it is over and now it is time to talk about jobs. a person who has been a leader in beating the drum, he will tell you more about it. >> thank you. let me suggest that talking about jobs is talking about the debt. the only way we're going to successfully deal with debt is to create jobs and economic growth in in america. we know that. eight months on the job, and no jobs bill for the american people. that is the negligent record of the republican majority.

democrats have focused on our make it in america plan. because america's renovation, invention, and manufacturing creates middle-class jobs and is essential to the growth of our whole economy. on our agenda, among a long list, is in manufacturing strategy. our competitors from the world all have manufacturing strategies. we need our own ineffective game plan to help reduce, out- innovate, out-built, and out- invest our competitors around the world. we must develop plans to increase manufacturing and manufacturing jobs. infrastructure. with me on the podium is our

chairman. the president mentioned it just a few minutes ago. we need to facilitate efficient, private sector investments in infrastructure. we need to compete. we need to build. with an infrastructure bank, we will be able to out-build. clean energy. clearly that is the future. that is the vision we have of america that has -- that is powered by clean energy. we need to invest to make america competitive in the most important new economic sector. china is doing that. europe is doing that.

america is, and must to do that. it is doing it as a result of the bill we passed. we need to continue on that path. currency reform. under democratic leadership, we passed a bipartisan bill that sought to level the playing field by holding accountable countries that manipulate currency. we know china is doing that. we know others are doing that. we need to pass legislation that will sent to the senate a bill which will level the playing field for our manufacturers and our competitors. i am pleased to yield to my good friend from south carolina, the assistance leader of the house of representatives for the democrats, mr. jim cliburn.

>> thank you. madam leader, distinguished shares, despite coming up 44 votes short, to prevent our nation from being devastated by default, republicans continue to play political games. they have turned their my way or the highway into "my way or the runway." that is what is taking place with this bill. the federal aviation administration has been bottled up for the 10th day. we have lost. about $300 million in revenue.

i am pleased that the senate seems to be willing to -- to put a tourniquet on the some of the hemorrhaging. but the legislation that seems to be agreed to, which is the house version, leaves out a big chunk that is small airports. and the jobs, the contract in jobs that are being held in abeyance. they have already been decided upon. there is little that is more important to job creation in an oral communities -- rural communities and the small

airports. for my republican friends to continue to wreak havoc among the the lives of those men and women, those working men and women, who are dependent upon these contracts in order to put food on the table and in order to put a ceiling over their heads, and prepare for a future for their children. this is unconscionable. i would hope we will get to the point of really setting aside political games and the start doing what is necessary to resolve these issues. the republican people like us -- like to see is resolve them. let me conclude by saying, you talked about energy. one of the quickest ways and one

of the most elementary ways of putting people back to work and having a tremendous impact on energy is to pass onstar and rule star energy savings program which will immediately create jobs. the bipartisan legislation that have been pushing for more than a year is being held up by these political shenanigans. we ought to do something rather quickly to turn our attention to jobs so these communities can be looked at. with that, i would like to yield. i am assuming nine yielding to the chair of our policy. >> thank you very, very much.

i am pleased to join my colleagues. as they have said, we have a debt ceiling fight behind us. we cannot afford to have any more distractions. we have to do everything that we can to create good jobs in america. it is time for this majority to break its streak and start to put real jobs legislation on the schedule. the president spoke a few moments ago. he talked about whatever we're doing, we need to have a piece that is about growing our economy. unless we can and grow our economy, we're not going to be able to put people back to work. we will not be able to deal with our deficit. we will not have economic security for the future. in order to create jobs, we have to invest in our infrastructure and our domestic manufacturing capacity. they are the engines of economic

growth. we have to go back to being a country that builds things. rather then one that just consumes goods that are produced overseas. with that in mind, i have championed the legislation to create an infrastructure bank. that can leverage private capital. according to a recent report, failing to invest in our infrastructure could cost of the united states $129 billion a year over the next 10 years. it reads, "u.s. businesses would pay an added four hundred $30 -- for another $30 billion. u.s. exports would fall by we are falling behind.

here in america we spend less than two% of gdp. it could help to close these gaps and restore our roads. it is something about bringing tele-communications across this nation. it allows us to build century infrastructure. a can work to create jobs all across america. that cannot be outsource. we are making things in america. we have to give back to doing that again. we do not have the time are the luxury to play political games in a longer.

let me introduce you the chair of our campaign committee. >> the legislation to extend the ceiling may not have been a great deal. forward into august. there were willing to close down the government. they have not this. they made a decision with the budget.

they said they would allow medicare to wither on a buying. they have been fighting this religiously every single day. this would add $6,000 to the ones to form holes. they made the decision going into this debate. they would rather close down this. we're calling this accountability of august. the american people are going to ask the republican members of congress from one end of their district to the other why did you vote to end my medicare tax you could have stood with me. he could have protected my

medicare. i do not know what the national weather service is predicting. i am predicting it'll be very tough. they're going to spend their august defending it. >> thank you. >> thank you. he is one of the few democrats we can call on. we are honored that you are both here. i am very proud of the work that they have been doing over time. as you heard, and it is a tremendous need for rebuilding the infrastructure. they say it is in the trillions of dollars. america will create good paying jobs.

we need some partnerships on how this responded in a way that creates jobs. he was naked. their suggestions that he had in terms of rural america. they had this issue. they have over 170 already. there were signatures to discharge a position. they pass it in a bipartisan way. we wanted to come up again. it is about developing small businesses and an entrepreneurial way. it takes people from survival to

transformation back to where people are. they know they will be successful. they are willing to take risks. they will continue to be number one. it is about innovation. they will continue to be number one. in the meantime, we have to make sure that all americans participate in the future economic prosperity. thank you. >> i want to follow up on the comments about the faa. legislators are about to do

this. workers are being provided. construction workers and doing this. it is a fear that their coming home for a month vacation decks but we did not think it was fair. they agreed to that. it seems like just before we came in here that they have a agreed to the legislation. they have these small airports. they had all these conflicting jobs. >> i'm sorry? >> i want to say something on that. it is an example of what this republican majority has done.

they were clearly prepared to let american default for the first time in history on its debt. unless they got their way. as you point out, they were prepared to leave washington as they have now done with almost 4000 federal employees out on the street. with over 70,000, with the numbers as large as 90,000 people who are helping to out bit and make sure our airports are safe and usable and more efficient. they were prepared to walk away from here and leave almost 95,000 people without a job. why? they passed a bill. they said i did you take it our

way or there will be no runaway no, highway and no way. this is a perfect example of the politics not the persuasion and not of compromise a coming together but the politics of confrontation and my way or no way. senator harry reid is confronted with a terrible decision. my friends in organized labor are absolutely right on this issue. none of us would say to anybody i want to be in an election in which everybody does not come to the polls is a judge. this is not how we run american

elections. it is what he put to the senate. senator reid because he cares about this 90,000 jobs is going to say that we're not going to leave washington or those folks out on the street. >> he voted for the bill. he seemed to be incredibly emotional. catalysis what look like for you? >> it is a great moment for our country. we had a person who was so highly respected. there's certainly an elected official.

it was synonymous with respect and courage. he really wanted to come. i was not one he would have incurred sure to come now. we did not think it would hinge on one vote. they felt so strongly about it. we're very proud that she did. i do not know when she leaves town. she enhances the nonpartisan ship. it is a great moment. when the green light went up, next to her name was a highly emotional moments. there it was.

this was our last name. as i had said, nothing like what is happening today like a person so respected and courageous. she knew she was going to default. >> when you make your appointments, they send them to the police. >> one of the sites we were successful income is that we protect the medicare benefits. that is a priority for us.

it is more than a priority, it is a value for the american people. it is one that all the members of our caucus share. whoever is at that table would be someone who would fight to protect those benefits. >> what do you expect to announce? >> -- when to expect to announce the death squads when i do. you'll be among the first to know. >> 01 it to as few along those lines. what kind of people are you looking for? >> for the past few months, the american people have wondered why we're talking about this debt residents talking about jobs. we had the votes. it is a done deal.

it is time for us to focus on jobs. have no intention to be talking about this committee. we cannot turn ourselves into a place where we are talking about the process. >> would be taking people who are more apt to compromise t? >> we hope there will be a strong element of growth and job creation. we're fooling ourselves if we think that one element on the

table whether its be talkincut r what. if we are serious, we have to go in there. some cuts will have to be made. you cannot accomplish what you set out to do. some of those revenues have been mentioned whether it is will for tax benefits or jobs overseas. to we have a long list. we cannot reduce the deficit unless you bring revenue in. he said it. job creation is deficit reduction. we are pretty unified in our commitment to reducing the deficit by creating jobs and having a fair and bipartisan approach to getting this done.

to not us expect to spend every day talking about the process of that. they have an entrepreneurial spirit. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> following a series of tweaks, arizona rep gabrielle return to the house to cast led the last votes. there is not a name that stirs more love, more admiration more

respect and more wishing for our daughters to be like her then the name of congress will malwon gabbie. >> watcher online. it is washington your way. >> in a few moments, in a little more than an hour, at a news conference with the admiral, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. it is in the middle of violence and unrest in libya. tomorrow morning, we will look at how the republican candidates are responding to the debt ceiling deal.

foreign-policy professor will take your questions about the bill. we will examine the debate over reauthorization. it is live every day from 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the public works committee works are recommendations for improving the safety. the recommendations come from a special tax force of a regulatory commission. this is a little more than two hours. >> good morning.

i am delighted that he is here. the course we have a good turnout considering adnan considering we have a crucial votes. today is the fourth time they have all the disaster in japan. since their first briefing, i asked them to keep the wake up call and reevaluate our safety. recession wanted them to look at the ones that are located in areas that face possibilities of natural disasters. california's two nuclear power plants are located in

seismically active areas. any recommendations more recently, they issued the results of this 90 day task force review. i understand this tax force that conducted the review was made up of senior staff of more than 135 years of combined expertise. they have full access to all staff and to all experts as they prepared their report. they found continued operation and licensing activity. it does not pose a risk.

that means that they found that no plans need to be shut down. problems were identified. they highlighted some issues that should be addressed right now. further analysis is needed before other recommendations can be implemented. last month they sent a letter in which they urged the committee to act properly on the task force recommendation. these need to be implemented now. i support the road map within 90 days. i will ask the commission to move forward. this did not take 90 days for them to move it toward implementation. they have their confidence.

it is waning. they concluded that the safety approach is a complete myth of a strong program for dealing with the unexpected. continued reliance semplicsimily would lead this. these findings are important. although they stated that an accident like what happened in japan is unlikely, they did conclude changes should be made to our regulatory system to improve safety. we cannot afford to make the

same mistakes. we should make improvements that will enhance safety and prepare us. the 90 day review includes important recommendations. they can implement the safety recommendations contained in the reports. more work should be done as part of a review to do this that was not fully address. today i call on the commission to announce a plan of action for adopting the recommendations. i am not alone. the july 23 editorial stated its nuclear powers have a future in this country, they are taking all steps necessary to ensure safety.

they went on to say that this task force issued a thoughtful and common sense recommendations. they should quickly adopt them. an editorial stated that the not just respondld to the single event but to ensure that it is actively a success of low probability. on july 19, 15th governments sent a letter to them. the bottom line is we cannot let them become a forgotten story. there are long-term improvements that can be made now.

i look forward to hearing to make a commitment that you're ready to move. i consider my response ability. >> thank you. they put this in. i was reading this. they say the task force lacks the rigorous analysis that traditionally accompanies requirements. >> absolutely.

this is a joint committee. i used to chair this a few years ago. it relates to our june hearing. he said we have always ask yourself are they still say? is there anything we need to address that. the answer continues to be no. we wanted a good information. we have time to do that. mib a while until we have this. we need to make sure we have the right lesson. the spirit describes the events. they took a number of actions

which are not subjected to structure review. they were not found to become a safety benefits. i am pleased to see a majority are committed to ensuring that they proceed very structured review process that incorporates the views of a wide range of agency's staff. the industry and other stakeholders. a commission can take action at any time should new safety information warrant. there fax we did not know about. there's an emergency preparedness. it is important to remember the japanese regulatory system is very different from our own. it is crucial for them to

understand these differences to assess whether the changes will adequately address the problems. i look forward to receiving your responses. i was pleased to see him and doors that concept. i was disappointed to hear from the chairman. i do not believe that an accident in the country with the different systems means that ours are broken. they must take time to learn not just the technical sessions but the regulatory policy lessons. it allows them to be distracted by the regulatory framework. the principal states that the

actions should be consistent with the degree of rejection they achieve. it is akin to commons. it goes a long way. thank you. >> thank you. i will call on the subcommittee chair. >> thank you. welcome. it is nice to see all of you. this is a day they could have melted down. in the sec will be able to do that. we will make sure the recommendations can some house seized the opportunity. when make sure that we have meltdowns. we're happy with what we're hearing.

the former to this testimony. these are challenging times. to get through this day. hopefully, we will get their the recommendations. we can get this show on the road. as many as dino, my interest comes from a clean air and energy security perspective. a lot of my buddies lived on nuclear power plants. i lot of interest. they held this on dirty fossil fuels. it causes global warming. there was one wrong step. quick and have bad consequences.

this crisis is this strong reminder that we can never be complacent. safety must be our top priority. we afford to an update on our commissioners. i look forward to hearing more about the recent recommendations. i hope to learn how they expect to move forward. an accident like this is likely reject unlikely to happen in the united states. it posed no imminent risk. this is due to the due diligence protect public safety. i believe it is not perfect. we need to make it better. they took this to heart. we can do better. some of these are common sense.

they should be done sooner than others. it is slowly leaking. it can be dealt with relative ease. ofre's a fair amount vetting. they're likely to be taken a part in. more time is needed. i hope the commission will take time. i will be disappointed if we are down the road in not seeing any action.

thank you. >> i appreciate that. i think he for holding the hearing today. there are a couple of points i believe need to be stated. this protect our nuclear plants. it is working. although complex, and the current approach, said the commission in the public well. it allows them to conclude that a sequence of events like those occurring is unlikely. it could be mitigated.

i didn't believe that our existing regulatory framework is broken. >> i agree with the conclusion and a tax report. this occurred in another tragedy. there is still a great deal that we do not have. there's so much remaining.

this includes an entire system of oversight in safety. these are specific and detailed for what was to be an initial 90 day review peri. recommendations. to be based on old agendas. some of these may be good in worth pursuing. some may not be. we are lacking the technical on problematic steps.

there is no immediate threat that needs to be addressed hearing there's no need to rush to regulate. perhaps many to the get these suggestions more closely. i'm talking about real staff and stakeholder input to an open and transparent process for recommendations can be priorities and either approved or rejected. that is essentially what they have said in his letter of july 20 died. -- july 29. this is what they're advocating.

>> thank you. thank you for holding this hearing. the function is not to represent the nuclear power industry. it is not your job. your job for most is to make sure that the nuclear power plants that we have is safe. my friend from wyoming mentioned that it is unlikely that we're going to have a disaster in this country. most people in this country, and likely is not good enough. -- unlikely is not good enough.

we want to make everything that is done is done. >> the commission is here today. it seems we should take note of the associated press. it is a disturbing report that recently found that the nuclear industry has worked. they have weekly standards to keep it within the rules. americans are concerned about nuclear safety. they have the same as the fukushima owplants.

their recommendations to improve safety. there are nuclear power plants. this is a lesson path toward. this will reduce the risk of hydrogen explosions.

does not happen and that a major nuclear accident happened in the united states. the answer from what i am hearing is that nothing is going to happen with regard to these recommendations. the chairman has asked them to move forward on all 12 recommendations. this is not sound very ambitious. we hope they dispel what i read in the media. they want more review. i know what happens in this town this is unacceptable.

they have recommendations in a swift and transparent manner. we should commit to start action on the safety recommendations within three months. >> thank you. this is always useful. >> there is no desktop on any navy reactor.

we celebrated this. we always strive to improve. what if we did not have nuclear power? 70% of our electricity. we use about a quarter of a vetch's the in the world to power of this country. what if we did not have nuclear power? this gave a picture of it. they turned their air conditioners of to 82 degrees. it is close down for maintenance.

the air conditioners are at 82 degrees. they're operating on weekends to avoid setting up electricity. they expect the bills to go up. this is higher costs. bloomberg is even more graphic. our young people will move

abroad. japan's gross domestic product will fall by 3.6%, of this 200,000 jobs in all of the reactors close by next spring. we have an aging nuclear fleet. i have advocated building 100 new nuclear reactors. with barely put in place their reactors that we had in the need for electricity.

it estimates that the increase and the need for the trustee will be up by 31 term. -- 31%. we cannot afford that if you want to have a high standard of living to lose 200 or leavens arm of our electricity. % of our20's ter electricity. need lots ofo nuclear power. they have designs for this.

they will move ahead building a sufficient number of nuclear reactors. there will have a low-cost energy to have jobs. it might happen to them if it cannot have it online. >> thank you. i think many others have said it already. safety is the key here. i want to hear how you believe we should move forward on the safety issue. i think it is unacceptable if we have the kind of thing happen in the united states that happens

in japan. i hope you are on a wavelength than the you will move in the direction of taking seriously what this says. this is a task force with 139 years of experience. there are people that know what they're talking about. we talk about recommendations of fall into five categories. you have to take a hard look every now and then about how they work. they can evaluate potential enhancements.

we need you to take a hard book. the tax force recommends the shrink. a healthy will have times to discuss that with you did i hope you have time to discuss -- i hope that we will have time to discuss this with you. i want to get to the questions.

>> let me start in tell you that we appreciate you being here. it did almost be sufficient to say that i adopted a statement. let me offer a thought or two. i'm very anxious to hear about the safety concerns. it has been a good neighbor. i would be remiss if i did not mention the quality jobs picture.

as you know, for many months we have been in the throes of a historic flooding events. that has implicated our nuclear facilities. it has been an experience. so much land has been under water for so long. i am very anxious to hear about the safety recommendations. we needed to make sure our facilities are safe.

there is a reason we are not building nuclear power plants these days. there's no guarantee you'll get anything on the other end. i have no nuclear background whatsoever. what i am anxious to hear about is the economics of what you're recommending concurrence sometimes you have to make hard decisions appear the cost is there. there's no other choice.

we really have benefited this situation. i did not say these things to criticize you. we have our experience in working with the commission. it has been a good experience. people and the staff has worked with the spirit i am interested in how we do this in a way that is safe but economically viable.

>> hello. i think you do a very good job. >> since the nuclear crisis began unfolding, americans have wondered could it happen here? while this is reassuring news, our work is just beginning. this insures reactors remain safe including long-term dodging.

they act on these recommendations quickly. we can hear from our country's most important guardians. this is important. they provide our state with half of its electricity. the shares the same design as the damaged reactor's in japan.

we had to continue to take every precaution to make sure it is as safe as we can make them. this will continue to be part of our energy future. the disaster in japan has told us nothing can be taken for granted when of their power is concerned. japan is a world leader in technology. they believed that the issue among -- the fukushima was not strong enough to withstand the worst case scenario. it was not. the chernobyl tragedy taught us that the effect of a single

nuclear accident can linger for generations. we've got to pay attention. indentures plans are in compliance at all times. they have to ask the hard plans. we asked them to act quickly. >> thank you.

it is an important hearing. they produce a report that is a good first set to help make sure our nuclear industry continues to be the safest in the world. they provide a emissions freeze supply of energy to power economies and create jobs. they are power and since it. we need to learn and implement short-term and long-term lessons. safety must remain our highest priority. this industry is the gold standard. they confirmed that opprobrium mitigation measures have been

put in place. i would very much like to encourage the commission that as they move for that they do so wispy. it allows the commission and the staff and others stakeholders to become fully engaged. >> thank you. thank you. we spent a good bit of time on the committee. there is the report of a near- term tax force. it provides a good start about improvements that

can be made. we have not single one event. it has nuclear effects. that is a significant thing we need to remember it. it is coming from nuclear power. it is really safe. it provides the fuel. it puts other pollutants into the atmosphere. i am