>> commissioner? >> so far, my votes have not been affected adversely by any action of the chairman. in fact, in the letter to the chief of staff, we said that there may be some harm in the future if this continues. i believe if the chairman let the staff send us their views on various issues come before the commission and if he also controls his temper little bit, he can't continue to lead the commission. >> there was an apology issued and i don't know whether you drafted it for the white house drafted it. who draft your apology? >> i prepared a letter that i sent to mr. daley. i'm not sure that's the letter you are referring to. >> have you apologized for the

ones? >> i have indicated to mr. daley in that letter that i was sorry for the destruction that this has caused. >> is that the only been your sorry for is the destruction? do you admit any of the conduct that has been alleged this morning? >> many of these accusations i am hearing for the first time. >> that does not impact whether they are true or not. that does not mean they are not true. my question is simple -- are they true? >> i don't believe they are true. >> what does that mean? have you been verbally abusive to female step? >> know i have not, have withheld information. >> know i have not. let me tell you what it looks like from my vantage point. my background is not in a clear science. when you have four eyewitnesses that testify to something under oath, you know what the call the

defendant after that? an inmate. four eyewitnesses to the conduct. it is unprecedented to me to have colleagues criticize each other publicly. to do before a committee of caen -- congress is unprecedented. none of the allegations they have made is accurate, is that your testimony? >> i believe that many of these instances they are referring to have been misconstrued. as i have indicated, there are issues where i think we can improve our communication. >> what to do apologize for? >> i apologize for -- >> did you apologize because they misunderstood? >> i have offered to my colleagues that we sit down with a third party, someone that we all could agree on -- >> do we need really need a counselor for the nuclear

regulatory commission? >> i am very interested in approving the communication. >> does it matter to you that the four of them are rapidly losing confidence in your leadership? >> is very important to me and is something i am interested in working on. >> but you deny the allegations that they testify to under oath? >> congressman, i believe i have answered this question. >> do it again for may. you deny them? >> i believe i answered this question very well to the best of my ability. >> i recognize the gentleman from illinois. , mr. davis. >> i would like to yield 30 seconds to my colleague from ohio. >> with all due respect, these allegations are not allegations of criminal misconduct or anything like that.

they are allegations that he does not get along with his commissioners. that is not a basis for either imprisonment or having the chairman resigned. i think we have to put this in perspective and continue to insist that the commission focus on safety. i want to take this opportunity to wish all the members of the commission a happy new year. >> i reclaim my time. let me thank the witnesses for appearing. i will shift gears a little bit. in july, the union of concerned scientists issued a report entitled "u.s. nuclear power after fukushima." these are common sense recommendations. this report includes recommendations to changes that the nrc should make to improve the safety and security of u.s. nuclear plants.

one recommendation made by ucs was that nrc regulations should be extended to cover severe accidents. this is what the ucs report says. the nrc defines severe accidents as those more serious than the so-called design-basis accident that u.s. reactors are designed to withstand. while unlikely severe accidents can occur as in fukushima and caused substantial damage to the reactor core and failure of the containment building leading to a large release of radiation, for example the agency does not evaluate the severe accident management guidelines that were voluntarily develop. neither the nrc or the public can be confident these guidelines would be effected.

mr. chairman, i understand there has to be a reasonable limit on what licenses are required to do and that every plant cannot be fully prepared for every imaginable worst-case scenario. fukushima should provide a wake- up call that severe accidents do happen. the gulf oil spill is a prime example. that was the worst case scenario. the industry was not prepared and it resulted in the worst environmental disaster in our nation's history. would you agree with that statement? >> yes. >> with the gentleman suspend for a moment? we will have a minority hearing in a few moments. i want to make sure that everyone understands that i have been very tolerant but his hearing is not on nuclear safety. we're not a committee with

nuclear safety as a direct oversight. this is on the leadership of the nuclear regulatory commission and although i will allow anything you want to do with your five minutes, i have been very understanding, i would caution all members on both sides of the aisle that this is about a concern that has been legitimately raised all the way to the white house that the committee believes is well within our unique jurisdiction as the oversight committee. we are not the energy and commerce committee. the gentleman can continue and a chairman can enter but if we're going to make this about nuclear safety, we have essentially hijacked a legitimate issue and anyone who does it, shame on you. >> just a clarification -- i did not hear the question that the gentleman asked. part of this hearing goes to safety.

and whether this commission can function and carry out its safety responsibilities. the majority report that came out talked-about a catastrophe. and that they would not be able to function properly. i don't know whether that question goes to safety or whether they can -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. davis was probably the best example -- i know he was well intentioned but nothing is comment or question seemed to go to the management and the questions of the management capability to manage. hold on -- i respect every member of this committee. i have always said and i was not that way when we were in the minority in a couple of cases

-- mr. mchenry vividly remembers being shut up because he was off subject. use your five minutes and what you want but i would caution members that in fact our jurisdiction, are legitimate jurisdiction, is not second- guessing safety but in fact our oversight of the entire federal workforce, all commissions, all agencies. i only would ask that we do as much as we can to recognize that if there is an additional hearing and if we legitimately can hold a hearing on the safety of our nuclear facilities more broadly, that is a legitimate hearing to ask for. this hearing is very narrow and it had to do with exactly why these five commissioners -- >> there are two. want to make briefly. thank you for holding this hearing. i think it is important that we have the hearings. the second thing that relates to mr. davis is concerned -- if the industry is upset with this

chairman and they would go through the members of the commission to try to get a new chairman, the industry might be upset because they are concerned about safety. i think there might be a connection. >> i completely agree with you that if in fact the line of questioning goes toward the intent and the reason behind two democratic and two republican appointees that arnett -- not based on the failure of the allegations of mismanagement or particularly of outburst and erratic behavior, you are absolutely right. those kind of questions fall within the question of management at nuclear regulatory commission. they would be in order and i apologize mr. davis and i apologize. >> i want to thank you for the manner in which you conducted this hearing. i am very grateful. >> thank you. mr. davis --

>> it is difficult for me to understand in any way, shape, form, or fashion and we have not got into my question yet. it is coming in a second. the mission of the regulatory agency is very important. the mission - and the outcomes of the decisions that are made. no matter how much you may disagree or becker, i have difficulty with management style and personality differences. in the end, the bottom line is do we make the best and most effective decisions for the people of this country and other

environments that are impacted and affected by those decisions? mr. chairman, my question is -- do you feel that the interaction between yourself and other commissioners have had any negative impact relative to decisions that the commission has made? >> no, i don't think it has. certainly, want to work to improve the communication but for example -- since this letter was worked on, the commission has held nine meetings where we have gotten together and been briefed on a variety of different issues. we have held one of our significant hearings related to new reactor licensing. we have held three of our voting type sessions where we formalize legal opinions of the

commission. yesterday we held a meeting on a very important safety issues related to fire protection. the commission is also -- has also held two agenda sessions which i have held routinely every month and there was one suggestion and recommendation from that 1999 inspector general report that the commission have regular sessions to talk about the agenda and that is something i have instituted. >> with your indulgence, can i ask the other commissioners would just respond quickly to that? >> 30 seconds for the gentleman. >> the decisions have not been affected by the management issues we have raised. i believe all the decisions have been made having in mind the safety and the protection of the american public. i am personally very offended by

the suggestion that i am an instrument of the industry in its efforts to overthrow the chairman. >> i agree and i am offended by the implication of the statement by mr. kucinich. >> i want to respond. >> please continue, sir. >> with respect to mr. davis is stable, i cannot more wholeheartedly agree with your focus on nuclear safety. we have done our very best and we are making good decisions. we are still operating under a very difficult environment that does not give me confidence that our staff feels free to bring us the best information and influence. -- uninfluenced. >> the gentleman is trying to get answers from the commissioners and i would like to have that in order, first. >> i agree with my college.

i think we have been able to continue the people's business very well under the circumstances. i think the senior staff has managed to keep the senate -- agency focused during what ever conflicts have been occurring. the staff at the nrc has been focused on their mission of safety. i believe the agency is functioning at the bottom line protecting health and safety as well as it ever has. that does not mean it has been easy. >> i agree with that response. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> would you yield to the gentleman from ohio for a few seconds? >> thank you. i did not call your name. i gave my hypothetical about the potential influence that the industry and members of the commission. since you objected to that, i find that very instructive. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time is expired and i yield back.

>> we now go to the gentleman from michigan -- i'm sorry, i will now go to the gentleman from florida, mr. ross. the republican on the democratic side >> i am very impressed with your experience in the industry but as an administrator. i read your opening testimony and you talk about incidents involving some abusive behavior with female employees that you had encountered. i think you indicated that the misogynistic behavior is entirely offensive. you immediately let -- let the supervisors go. that behavior that those people you let go, does that compare to the behavior expressed by chairman jacszko? >> it was similar in the fact

that it was verbal abuse. it involves screaming and pointed language. the women involved found very emotional strain. >> when you let go in your previous situation, when you let those supervisors go that were being a be abusers, that changed -- improve the situation? >> let me emphasize that i did not have the ability to fire these people. >> you eliminated the distraction? >> the very day i found that, they remove from supervisory responsibility and relocated. >> do you believe that removing the chairman would be appropriate to protect and a further abuses to female members of the nrc? >> i suspected a question like that might come up. i am just presenting the facts as i understand them and let

others make that decision. it is not within my power to appoint or remove a chairman. this is information that region >> it rose to the level of abuse you have seen in the past? >> it was very similar. >> removing that abuse correct the problem? >> yes, it did. >> you talked about a lack of confidence. is there any way to repair the confidence and as chairman? >> -- in this chairman? >> effect the context would be completely changed, there is the potential to rehabilitate relationships. >> how do you feel? to your lack of coffins at this point is repairable or it is lost? >> i have to agree. it has been severely damaged. once there is an erosion of trust, it is extraordinarily difficult to regain the trust. i will not say it is impossible. >> i cannot help but sit here

and think back to the kid watching memo "the caine mutiny" and him being put on trial. how has the voyage been so far at the nrc? you have made an apology and specifically, what did to apologize for? >> as i have indicated in a letter to mr. daley, i apologized for the destruction. i look forward to discussions with my colleagues and reinstalled trust. >> what the suggestions is that you have a third party, a facilitator, to try to reopen lines of communications with your fellow commissioners. my concern is that if the issue becomes more of maintaining your position as opposed to restoring the integrity of the nrc, what

is your course of action? are you considering resignation? >> i have no plans for that. >> even if it means more to focus on keeping your job in restoring the nrc? >> i have no plans to resign because i continue to believe that under my leadership the agency has performed very well. we have committed ourselves to safety and i believe my record shows that. >> it is on president where we are today when you have the four commissioners who have made these allegations. as a student manager myself, i can only suggest that management by intimidation may have short- term goals but long-term effects that are very adverse. management by motivation is probably the only way you can restore the integrity of this organization. i implore you, i beg of you, if you seek to keep your position, it is the integrity of this organization that must be foremast and done so through a facilitator or motivating these people to be the best they have been able to be.

what is at stake is not only the 4000 employees but the safety of this entire country. >i yield back. >> wouldn't you agree that what is going on here today and what has been going on for months now clearly hurts your ability to retain, recruit, many of those 4000 people and motivate them to do the best job? >> i have not seen any drop-off and many of those areas. >> none of this has effect on 4000 people? >> i think it is unfortunate we have this distraction but the men and women at the nrc are professionals and they will continue to do their job effectively. >> ok, we now go to the gentleman - mr. welch. >> thank you for calling the hearing. i regret obviously that we are

here. this is not a personnel committee. it is regrettable that there is this conflict at the senior level of the commissioners. i don't think that congress is the place to go to resolve this. i assume that each one of the members of the commission is professional can make decisions based on each of your own independent best judgment. the obstacles in the -- and challenges you face, professional and personal, not withstanding. i think we all owe you that debt of gratitude. the concerns i have are less about trying to resolve something i don't believe it is within the capacity of a congressional committee to resolve, it has to do with the safety and focus on safety. i say that as a representative from the state of vermont were we have a contentious situation

involving our local nuclear reactor. when things like a cooling tower fall down and the reaction on the part of the company that runs it is that it is not a big deal, that does not provide greater assurance to the people of vermont when there is discovered leaking underground reactor material and the response of the nuclear power company is that they do not have underground pipes. it turns out that they do. that causes significant concern aboute vermontrs. there is litigation now and we understand that this body voted between the state of vermont andentergy about its future and i understand the commission voted by a 3-2 margin to come

in as a friend on the size entergy about this litigation and that causes concern. safety is my concern and i know safety is your concern but i have a few questions -- it caused me some concern about how active and aggressive the commission is a coming to a conclusion about some safety standards. the most recent and arce fire protection standards were promulgated in 2004. earlier standards that apply had not been met for 25 years. currently, 47 nuclear power plants are still not in compliance and they are requesting another 12-year delay. understanding is the commission is basically accommodating a 12- year delay on top of a 25-year delay. could you address that? >> yes, the reason why the new

regulation was promulgated is that because of the large number of exemptions -- request for exemptions we received regarding the earlier rule, we decided this was not brought working very well. i would like to point out when we say 47 plants or units do not comply, they have implemented compensatory measures. they don't comply with some provisions of the original rule but they have done something else to meet the intent of the. . rule. it is not that they are not safe. >> thank you, i only have a few minutes but i appreciate your response.

i would like to express to each of you the concern we have about what appears to be a very slow turnaround on the implementation of safety standards. you know full well that if you are living in the shadows of a nuclear plant that the closer you are, the more anxious you are. this is what is so profoundly important is that if something can go wrong even when we think it won't, it probably will go wrong. that is what we saw in japan if something goes wrong, the consequences of an event are so catastrophic and i am preaching to the choir here, but i am doing it because this is the anxiety that we live with in vermont. when we have a nuclear power plant and a cooling tower collapses and we are told not to worry about it, is hard to be

comfortable when there is leaking pipes and we're told there are no pipes and upon investigation there is, we need to see a sense of urgency and, in some cases, some penalties associated with from information being provided and failure to comply with safety standards. some of these things that happened in the beginning that fortune we do not cause harm give you some apprehension that an event will occur that does cause harm. thank you very much. >> we now go to the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you to the panel for being here. this is truly not a hearing that i ever expected to be part of. as a member of congress. certainly not with the nuclear regulatory commission. i think it is a hearing that apparently is very well- positioned and important to. have

when i read through the letter that was sent to the chief of staff daily, and i read bullet points in that letter, i would like any commissioners that would be willing to comment to a question a lot from this, where it says that the chairman intimidated and bullied senior career staff, that he interacted with fellow commissioners with such intemperance and disrespect, that the commission no longer functions as effectively as it should -- that is strong language in a letter. it is an unprecedented letter that has been sent to this administration. i would surmise that this administration from this hearing understand the gravity of this situation and how this could blow up, no pun intended, still further as to a regulatory agency that has amazing

importance to us. that strong language is telling. can any of the commissioners ex- boyfriend to me why this language -- and any of the commissioners explain to me why this language was used in this illustration? >> i don't want to pick a university of michigan grad but why was the language included and what are the key illustration's you give for its importance? >> i would state that i realize the significance of putting my hands to that language. i did not do so lightly. i would characterize that i did it very reluctantly and candidly. i realized that ultimately could bring this to the kind of you that we are holding this morning. i regret that but that language

at that time, i supported that but i realize the significance of my actions. >> and a significant illustration -- examples? >> a number of the events have already been testified to this morning regarding interactions between the chairman and the professional staff of the agency. there also have been very tense interactions and '80s between the chairmen and members of the commission. i think people can be passionate about issues without a fundamental kind of conduct that i have observed. >> any other commissioners want to respond to that? >> yes, sir, i will comment specifically that senior staff has complained to me personally about the chairman taking an approach that led them to

believe that they were not in a free environment to bring forth their best of views with respect to how the near term task force reported on japan were there was a paper that was acknowledged to have been withdrawn back in july. there's also a step that complained to me about how the chairman responded to their content of the 21-day report with respect to short-term actions with respect to fukushima. >> so this goes to safety? >> those two reports dealt with how the commission would take actions in response to the fukushima event. >> any other commissioner response to that? mr. chairman, i want to yield to use some time but i have one final question -- i would be glad to yield if you allow me to finish -- >> for each of the

commissioners, do you believe that employees, professional staff, of the nrc have experienced intimidation, hostile or offensive conduct on behalf of the chairman? anything that would be considered to be intimidating, hostile, or offensive by the chairman? any professional staff experience that? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> that is the definition of harassment i hope we can all agree that that is what we put into statute. i yield back. >> reece da inle klen suggested -- reason dale klein suggested that the commissioner does not have to be removed but the

demoted and a new chairman could be chosen from the existing members. would anyone on the tunnel like to comment on this particular solution? -- would anyone on the panel like to comment on this particular solution? >> i don't think you would get anyone who wants to be chairman today. you can have an additional 30 seconds. >> that is my point -- i probably did not expect someone to say they would like to be the chairman. i think this certainly indicates a very significant problem with this commission, being able to function together for the best interests of this country, the citizens it serves, the regulatory response that they have. indeed, if this is a problem to this extent the and the administration is willing to let it go on, we in america have concerns beyond simple management styles.

the function of this regulatory agency and the responsibility to the american people. chairman., mr. >> would the gentleman like to respond? >> i appreciate the opportunity. my colleague mentioned a meeting our phone conversation i had had on the development of this so-called 21-day paper. i believe the committee has an audio recording of that conversation. i am certainly comfortable with that audio being made publicly available. i believe it characterizes my passion and demonstrates my commitment to open discussions among members of the staff and my strong interest in them providing me with their candid views. i can ensure that the commission is informed with the information it needs.

>> i thank the gentleman i get anodding of eds by all commissioners that this could be made available to the committee? hearing no objections, i will assume that will be delivered to us. >> i want to welcome commission magwood the work del cid leaked at the idaho national laboratory. thank you for being here. this has been truly one of the most frustrating hearings i have ever participated in. i have never seen such self- deluded behavior by any individual in my entire life. the lack of awareness of what is happening here in the commission is truly outstanding -- astounding to me. to watch an individual sit here

and say that the only thing he is responsible for and he is sorry about is that it is a distraction that was caused by your behavior is truly just embarrassing to watch you this entire time i have been here let's get down to what is happening. you did not answer this question when my colleague at to the question but you believe that you are more passionate than the other four individuals sitting here about nuclear safety, is that not true? >> well - >> just answer the question. are you more or less passionate? it is a simple question. >> my voting record shows that i have taken positions on safety -- >> you believe you are more passionate? you believe you have better judgment than these four

individuals, is that not true? a simple question. >> i believe i have good judgment. >> entered judgment is better than the four individuals here combined? >> it is up to others to determine a -- >> it is up to you because you are making the decisions that are making their life living hell. do you have more passion and better judgment, yes or no? >> i feel strongly that i have an appropriate judgment >> . so you have better judgment on the other four individuals sitting here according to you? >> as i have said many times, a -- >> you will not enter the question when it is clear that your judgment and passion surpasses the four of them combined. your distraction that is being caused -- i have managed an organization -- i had a law firm for a while and have to manage my congressional office.

your management style is bringing problems that are being brought here to the floor and you say that you are willing to work with them but you are not willing to admit the you have done any. thing wrong that is what i cannot understand. the only way you could work with these individuals and change your management style is by admitting that you actually screwed up and did something wrong. are you not willing to admit that there is something in your management style that has brought us to a congressional hearing that is unprecedented in american history? >> i take responsibility -- >> yes or no? >> i am willing to discuss these issues with my colleagues and figure out how we can better communicate them up by you have not done anything wrong. what will you discussed? they are wrong and you are right, correct? >> i would like to discuss this communication is used -- >> have you done anything wrong in the management

of this agency? >> i take full responsibility -- >> for what? for what in your behavior are you taking responsibility for? name one thing that you admit that you have done wrong. i don't believe that these four individuals would come here if you haven't done a single thing wrong. name one thing you have done wrong. >> as i said, i am very passionate about safety - >> so it is wrong for you to be passionate about safety is that we were telling the american people right now? and they are not passion about safety, right? >> i am very passionate about safety and of that has ever been misconstrued by my colleagues, -- >> what in your passionate statement was wrong that would bring this to a moment that we have to have these four individuals, these four commissioners who have dedicated their entire life to public safety of our nation -- what in

your behavior is wrong? name one thing. that is all i am asking. i can name 20 things i have done wrong in my life of somebody asked me. you cannot name one thing? >> as indicated, that is a conversation i would like to have with my colleagues -- >> it is ridiculous. your answers today have been ridiculous. there is no way these individuals who have the same passion, the same commitment to the safety of united states would be sitting here complaining about you unless you had done something wrong. it is absolutely ridiculous for us to think that under any circumstances you would change your behavior because you are not willing to admit you did one thing wrong. that is just incredulous to anybody who is watching this meeting. i have run out of time >> we now go to the gentleman from new hampshire. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman. i have a couple quick questions -- for anyone on the palle other than the chairman, can anybody talk to me about a i firstg report and what conclusions did made relative to this issue? >> sir, the nrc inspector general has testified before the energy and commerce committee earlier this year on the content and conclusions of his report. that report focused -- it covered a number of issues but spent much of it content on the decision-making around yucca mountain-related activities at nrc. there were some other more broad findings about the relationship on the commission. i would like to reacquaint myself with those findings rather than testify to them generally. >> to the chairman, i see a

letter here dated december 12 from the president's chief of staff. it was i chairmanssa and it says he has indicated his intention to reject to his fellow commission colleagues. he is referring to you. on the back of the letter, he talks about the development of and recommendations to improve the circumstances. it sounds like what he is saying is that the president will not take action and he prefers these issues to be resolved by you and the commission. is that your understanding? >> i don't want to speak for the administration but as i read the letter, i saw that the chief of staff who would be looking at the situation and would be looking to an inspector general's report to get guidance on ways to improve the organization. >> would you agree with the assessment of this letter that

disagreements among the commissioners were over policy matters? >> i think we have policy disagreements. they are also organizational miscommunications and misunderstandings about roles and responsibilities. >> it appears that the ig's report has not improved things. from what i have read and heard, you can make an argument that things have further deteriorated. i appreciate your interest in wanting to work with your colleagues but it seems that that point has come and gone. as stated by other members of this committee, i think there is growing frustration that we are at this level of inquiry. i would prefer that this be handled in one of two ways.

you say you would take full responsibility for actions of the committee. would you consider stepping down as chairman? >> i have no intention. >> i would yield back the remainder of my time. >> i think it is clear that the chairman is making no apologies for misconduct, only for the lack of harmonious life among the five of you. i asked the chairman who is board of directors -- i asked him about collaborative that normally consensus-type activity. for each of the commissioners, when the chairman was not the chairman, do any of you have believe that he would of him the the wyou treating way he is treating you? >> i believe i'm the only member of the commission that serve with the chairman when he was that a commissioner. we were both commissioners when

i began my service on the commission. i would characterize that when i was never the commission, i found it helpful that he tutored me and many of the ways of insisting upon the role of individual commissioners, that they have an important contribution to make -- i learned many of those points from an. >> life was collaborative and he got it and he was a former staffer to house and senate people and got the idea that you will have to work together and reach the three-2 vote whenever possible. this is a very capable commissioner just not capable chairman. >> i would characterize that it was limited to policy differences and not the differences we see now. >> 30 more seconds for a simple question -- one has been asked repeatedly. for each of the commissioners,

i'm not looking at you as republicans or democrats because as far as i can tell, none of you are partisan in your background. you have been accused, sort of, of being allowed dogs for industry, not caring enough about safety. there has been insinuation that could be the case. with each of you briefly tell me about your passion about safety and how that brings you to be when you gettes the opportunity? >> my sole motivation is to work on advanced nuclear safety for the country. i have many family members in wisconsin and michigan that live near nuclear power plants. i am concerned for all americans and a motivated by my own family in their protection and safety. >> as someone who has spent my

entire professional career working in the nuclear field, i have a deep appreciation for the hazards presented by the end of nuclear materials. i have overseen it for many years. as a result, i do any nuclear activity as a matter of great responsibility. i think anyone who is involved in that activity should be held to a very high standard and i expect the best of everyone involved, thank you. >> i have a record going back to 1976 of being involved in nuclear power and nuclear weapons issues. having operated entrained others to operate and maintain nuclear power plants and submarines that i have a rigid sense of safety and a very concerned on safety issues. i welcome anybody to examine and discuss my voting record on safety issues at the nrc. >> i have spent my entire professional career working on

nuclear safety issues. i was elected to the national academy of engineering based in my contributions. >> i will yield the same amount of time to the ranking member. i will be very brief -- as a former navy officer from your experience, not just within your commands but within your military service which is much longer than mine, don't you have counselor -- countless examples you have seen a fine officers who were competent, technically capable, who were relieved because in fact they exhibited behavior that lost the confidence of the men and women that work for them? >> yes. >> thank you. thism listening to all of and i swear to god, this is incredible to me.

we are better than this. i feel like i am sitting here trying to referee a fight. i said from the beginning that i am not a referee. i have not done that since my kids were tiny. now they are adults. chariman jaczko, i appreciate the fact that you want to sit down with your colleagues. i don't want you to quit i do not want to quit. i want to continue to fight for the american people and to what is right for them. i don't think your passion and your commitment and your expertise is any greater ahead than the other commissioners. i think all of you are wonderful, strong, americans, very committed to our safety and i believe that you have given everything -- you are giving

everything you've got to make things work but we have to do better than this. there is no reason, i think, why this should have risen to this level. commissioner, people have been trying to get you to admit you have done things wrong but i would imagine people up here with having difficulty admitting that they were wrong. i don't know what they would say, to be frank with you. i do know one thing -- after 61 years on this earth, i have come to realize something significant -- one of the best ways not to achieve the goal is to be distracted. if you look at people who have not achieved the things they tried to achieve in life, a lot of times it is because they got to. attracted

-- they have got distracted. i have come to beg you to work this thing out. sit down like reasonable people and work it out. the american people are tired of dysfunction. they are really tired of us. what you all are doing is so very, very important. i have listened to everybody and commissioner a >> when you get to know him better, his name is george. >> you summarize a better than anyone else. you said you think he can do it but he has to change its attitude a little bit. i don't want to take words out of your mouth that that is pretty much what you said, is that right? >> that is a summary of what i

said. >> i don't want to miss state you. >> he should control is tempered, yes. that is the view of the staff. >> can you live with that? >> absolutely. >> i keep thinking that you guys have to go back -- the press people are loaded up and typing away. they like controversy. they are doing all kinds of things right now. their body knows your names. i am telling, when all this is over, you have to go back.

the president will not get rid of you. you are doing a great job. you need to change some of these attitudes but you have to do that. i beg you, for the sake of the american people, please, sit down, work this thing out. share the information with your fellow commissioners and to which you got to do but make it work. that is all i have to say. >> i think -- i thank the ranking member. as i close the first panel, i would like to make it very clear that if this does not get results, this is not the last time this committee will come to a full committee hearing to review the status of management at the nrc. additionally, we are the personnel committee of the converts to a greater extent. we do look at the management structure and we do so like a board of directors. it is not ours to tell you what to do, it is ours to find out whether it is being done as is

prescribed by law. we will retain continuing jurisdiction. we will expect all the promises made here today of material to be added to our discovery. we will, in fact, also remind everyone that we're the whistle blower committee. people come to us by the hundreds per week. those people and expect that if they give us information there will be no retaliation within any agency of government. we will strictly enforce an protect anyone who comes before this committee at any time. in the opening statement that was mentioned. people come before us, protected from the moment they come to tell us something. the only time they are not protected is if they are not telling the truth, to use a double negative. we will continue to look. we will not tolerate harassment. we will not tolerate

retribution. the ranking member said it more eloquently than i could. we want you to resolve this. it is not the kind of thing that comes before congress and it is not particularly good other than fodder for the press. as we continue to retain jurisdiction and oversight, bear in mind that we will be looking at every action of all of you. we want you to do everything you can to live up to your oath and chairman, i would hope as you work with chief of staff of daily, that you recognize this is an extraordinary opportunity with the president retains confidence in you to change dramatically how these four men and women believe you are working. at least one commissioner has said it very well that he believes that change can happen and others to a certain extent it did, too. we are not your ceo.

we are the american stock all the board of directors and will assert our rights and obligations if we do not see this resolved. that will be something i am positive will come from both sides of the aisle. i thank you and we will break briefly for a second panel and we thank you for your testimony. we stand in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio] >> that was the head of the

nuclear regulatory commission testifying yesterday. he will be back on capitol hill this morning. this time on the senate side at the environment and public works committee. he was criticized yesterday for his management style by fellow commissioners. live coverage will be this morning at 10:00 eastern on cspan 3. later today also on c-span 3, the former ceo of an of global, john forsythe will be asked more questions about missing company funds. -- mf global, john corzine that will be at 1:00 p.m. eastern. >> this weekend on c-span 2, peter schweizer says members of congress profits from insider trading saturday at 7:00 p.m. and sunday at 11:00 eastern.

also walter isaacson on his best-selling biography of steve jobs. that a saturday night at 8:00 and sunday night at 10:00. she travel and the internet make it easy for immigrants to stay in touch with their home countries and the connection fosters innovation and economic growth worldwide saturday evening at 10:00 eastern and sunday at 9:00. watch book-tv every weekend on c-span 2. >> in a moment, today's news, your phone calls and e-mails live on "washington journal." the house will debate extending the temporary assistance for needy families program. members gavel in at 10:00 eastern. legislative work begins at noon eastern. congress has a number of items it wants to finish before the winter recess including payroll taxes and federal spending for 2012. coming up this hour, we'