don't anticipate it would have an impact on many of the license renewals because many come well in advance of the time that they need their actual approvals if they were to be granted. >> do any of the other commissions want to add to what the commissioner has said? anybody? ok. the other thing i want to say, i want to go back to the dements of senator alexander. senator alexander is an aide a long time ago to senator baker. . 6

>> i would like to pursue the report issued and the issue of a chairman -- the allegation that the chairman feels is appropriate with regard to

information that gets to the other members of the board. i think that is pretty important with regard to the integrity of everything you do. as board members, you have the right to insist on that. when asked about that yesterday by chairman issa, is it true that any information that you have has ever been withheld and your request, he replied, not that i am aware of. i work every day to ensure that the commission has the information it needs. i guess i would ask that the chairman is not entitled to decide the information you need, that you are entitled to have the information that the commission and its status as? has?ff

>> we need to have the full information and full views un influenced by any other office. we provide a few examples of those. i know it has been a concern of ours and that was a key factor that led to us writing this letter when we did not believe that our senior staff -- i have talked to a bunch of them and i think my other colleagues have as well and they do not feel that they can always present their views that might be different from those of the chairman. >> when you ask for a staff report an evaluation about an issue, you weigh their recommendation very seriously? >> as i said today, the efforts

from of fukushima are perhaps one of the key efforts that manifest the need to hear from staff. not all of the safety recommendations made by the fukushima task force equal safety significance. some more important. i mentioned that the station blackout is necessary to do quickly. the value of hearing from the staff and they ask where we can get the biggest bang for the buck in the shortest period of time. >> the report that you got on that and the information from staff, was it unfiltered in your opinion? >> we have concerns with respect to the paperback in july -- with respect to the paper back in july as to how to go about moving forward with an external stakeholder engagement.

>> do you agree you have concerns in that area that the staff reports are not getting thieu unfiltered on occasion? >> i do because there have been occasions where the staff comes in in directly and asked -- and says what is in a report is not what we think. this is not a widespread thing. in some instances it has happened and that is certainly not a healthy situation. >> do you share the same concern? >> yes, i rely on the staff providing their independent recommendations and i have had concerns that i have bad -- i have not had their views and on varnished form. >> commissioner magwood? >> i have seen the same thing, either step telling us after the

fact that the paper does not represent their views or they cannot get a paper to us. we have had those conversations many tons. >> are you aware of the incident in the issa report that it alleges that the chairman became shaking angry? a vote paper already altered - do you know that incident that he is referring to? are you familiar with another incident cited from the review that the chairman used his supervisory authority -- time is up. >> we will have another round. we'll stay here as long as we can. ok, will move to senator

lautenberg. >> thank you, madam chairman. is there a difference among the commissioners in how quickly the task force should implement task force recommendations? is anybody able to answer that? what kind of time frame? what kind of brush gets put on these things? >> i will take the first shot at that. much on thee pretty same wavelength. our understanding is pretty common. we want to move forward as aggressively as practical i think we have been moving through the issues as quickly as we can. >> ok, thank you. do you want to volunteer? >> i agree. >> thank you.

>> i do believe that the goal of completing everything in five years is a good one. >> the chairman has been public about a five-year goal and we agree that is inappropriate: we support that. i would like to note that the paper did the third of october 2011 provided to the commissioner has a detailed plan. it is a plan to move forward in a number of different areas to do this in a very responsible, response of time. . period. >> why is it felt that the commissioners wanted to thedelay the task force report on

fukushima? i want to ask you this question -- we have heard about the scoldings that took place and that is not nice. iran may company that now has 45,000 employees and i was ceo. i will be darned if i did not lose my head and told somebody. i had the job for a long time. i would ask you and i will go in order -- is chairman jacko incompetent to serve in his capacity? >> i would say that my experience with the chairman jacsko is he is an extraordinarily bright and competent individual. i have never questioned his commitment to the mission of the

nrc or to nuclear safety. i have had significant reservations without he conducts himself with his colleagues and staff. i have had some frank discussions and these areas and there have been real concerns. >> i don't think i can add to that. i agree with that. >> restated for me please. >> i admire the germans grasp of regulatory's -- policy -- i admire the chairman us grasp of regulatory policy. that has been demonstrated, however, there are other issues which i think have overwhelmed those positive attributes and created problems for us. >> that is pretty heavy hollering to say you admire his skills and knowledge.

do you think the chairman is competent? >> i joined in the letter to the white house because they shared the concerns of my colleagues. these decisions ultimately reston hands of others and i leave them to judge -- >> so you have no different opinion? >> as i said yesterday,yes, he can do a great job. there are two things he has to correct, control his temper and did not impede the flow of information to the commissioners which he does not do all the time but sometimes it happens. >> thank you. everybody thinks that the german is competent -- the chairman is competent.

he has to be careful about hollering at people. it seems this was a sketchy kind of appraisal. >> i am sorry to interrupt you but we will move on. >> the house ranking member yesterday on the oversight and government reform committee warned that internal disagreements among the commissioners should not become a weapon of mass destruction from the issue focusing on nuclear safety. -- massive distraction. when employers and commissioners with an agency are expected to execute the mission in protecting the public from nuclear disasters, is investigating allegations of a hostile work environment, abuse of rage, is a weapon of mass

diustraction or is this something we should investigate? >> i always welcome congressional oversight. i think it is held across as an organization to have that. i welcome these issues. if there are challenges i want to address that verthem. i think it would be a good opportunity to sit down with my colleagues and talk to them. i propose that about one year ago that we have a meeting and work through these issues. interest with all my colleagues to do that. i continue and am committed to having a better dialogue and understanding that i am exercising my authority and a way that is leaving them to feel they're not getting full access to information. i feel like i am working to provide that. i would say that there is a

tremendous amount of information that comes to commission offices. there's a tremendous amount of information within the agency as a whole. in fact, our commission procedures of the state -- are commissioned specifically states when there are multiple requests from information from commission offices, that has to be balanced somewhere within the resource needs of the agency. that is ultimately the responsibility of the chairman burto. >> at yesterday's hearing, you spoke of misleading results and a smear campaign against the four commissioners who wrote to the white house expressing concerns about the hostile work environment. you stated that you do not intend this tactic to succeed. are there things you like to respond to in terms of and a attacks? >> i appreciate that. it was rather disturbing to see some of these reports in the

media focusing on my background prepar. my background focused largely on research and development. i don't see myself as a voice or representative of the industry by any stretch. the industry sees me as an internationalist and someone focused on advanced technology rather than day-to-day problems. i had a consulting business after i left doe. i did two small reports for tepco on policy issues that have nothing to do with work on the nrc reportc. one was on emergency planning. these influenced me today. i don't have an relationships with people in the industry which i consider to be inappropriate. i found these allegations and

the press to be irresponsible. the larger allegations against my colleagues or under the control of the industry were completely outrageous. >> i appreciate that and thank you for clarification. hear testimony during the house hearing said the situation was mischaracterized. >> i said that intentionally because i was very concerned about the letter we received monday night. in great candor, i would tell this committee that this is an unprecedented action. the four lowest up. this is not something we decide on the spur of the moment one afternoon. this is the culmination of many months where we have been frustrated and seen plans that are happening that are wrong. we have an obligation to the american people to stand up and be counted and that's what we did. i feel like mr. daly's response to us, with all due respect, it

is not about lack of communication among the commissioners. it is not about internal disagreements. from my standpoint, is about doing damage to the agency. we received direct reports from senior career executives about the hostile environment in our agency. >> thank you. >> mr. magwood, you said it was disturbing to see reports in the media about yourself. do you think it was disturbing to the chairman to see what you said about him in terms of his relationships with staff tax was a disturbing to him? >> i am sure it was. >> ok, let's say it was disturbing to you and disturbing to him. senator vitter opened up the issue of treatment of women so i will take that up. what is said here reminds me of

the day of joe mccarthy. i have in my pocket a list of three people who said this and they are anti-american. i know of one incident and i know of three. that is outrageous character assassination. we went over and talked to several women to find out anecdotally it what you are saying is universally true. one respected woman said the chairman is the most fair person she had ever met. she went on to say that he treats everyone equally. others said he invites people and i have never seen him mystery people. they said they were floored by the conduct of the other commissioners. let's put this thing to bed i have to be honest with everybody.

there are times and i am intense when i talk to my staff. i hope they understand. i get intense. i care. i challenge. let's not be holier than thou. that is something that is hard for people to take. senator barrasso prove that there is a witch hunt going on against the chairman. he put in the report from yesterday's hearing which was a witch hunt and quoted from the report. he puts them in the record. that is what it was. mr. chairman, when you are in public life, anyone of us can tell you that anyone can say anything about you and mr. magwood is finding that out, too. i'm sorry, i am really sorry

about this. i think what it is about is something entirely. entirely i think it is about how fast we will move on safety of our nuclear power plants. there are many people who don't want to move expeditiously. that is not a fact unknown. all you have to do is look at what happened after 9/11. it took 10 years and without the chairman's leadership when he was sitting on the commission moving forward, we would never have gotten it done. it is life and death stuff. who is on the side of the staff? it is my understanding that in september with the chairman's leadership, the senior nrc staff endorsed action without delay in statement they said the staff believes that all the task force's recommendations if adopted would enhance safety and the staff agrees with moving forward with each of these recommendations. the commission is slow walking this that. and blaming -- the staff and

planning the chairman. these people of 135 years of experience. i have to say, mr. magwood when we last saw each other it was not the most pleasant, i s to the following question -- will you assure me that the task force report containing the recommendation is delivered to my office and senator inhoffe's office and you said yes. i have an e-mail that i will place in the record that shows your chief of staff suggested you had will rue whether to meet this commitment and as such a good contact other offices and you wrote back it is appropriate to discuss this with other chiefs of staff to see what they're thinking of. i don't know why you thought you felt you needed wiggle room for turning over a report. there are other examples of this which i will put in the record.

i think this is all about safety all dressed up as something else. i have to tell you that if i go back to my areas where they have nuclear power plants and millions of people live nearby, they would not be happy if a chairman was strong are a little bit intense with his staff. they want the chairman and everyone of you to make their nuclear power plant safe. with that, i will call on senator vitter. >> thank you. commissioner ostendorf, i want to go back to the flow of information. i understand indeed vogel matter, the staff recommendation was different why did not the new program explain that changed?

>> on august 10, i had a routine periodic with mike johnson, the office director for the new reactor office which has about 600 people and their, maybe 500. he discussed the upcoming paper we would be receiving in about two weeks with respect to this timing a license effectiveness. he told me he recommended that that effectiveness be concurrent with the date the nrc sent the federal register notice. we discussed it at great length. there was no nuclear safety issue at all. i was surprised on august 25 when it came around and the recommendation in that paper was not what i thought it was going to be. this is the same paper that was

referred to earlier. i had heard there was an interchange between the chairman and mike johnson about this issue. the chairman requested that the recommendation was changed them not can you comment briefly on the incident as well? >> you were just given more detail than i am aware of. i was informed that what we received was not the steps original recommendation. originalaff's recommendation. >> the responses 16 paragraphs long and you use the word apologize once. i am still unclear what to apologize for? >> i am deeply disappointed that some of these internal concerns

are being made public. i take great pride in my job as chairman. part of that job is ensuring that my colleagues fully trust and are willing to work with me. clearly, i have some work to do in that area i am committed to improving that situation. a lot has been made of this particular paper. >> can i go back to the apology again? the letter says something you apologize for this being a distraction. that strikes me as a classic non-apology apology. what are you apologizing for? >> i'm sorry if this is distracting us from nuclear safety. that is our fundamental job reporte. >> do you plan on apologizing to anyone soon about anything else?

>> i absolutely intend to talk to my colleagues either individually or as a group, understand their concerns, and based on that discussion, i intend to do what ever is appropriate to remedy the situation. >> a while ago, one senator asked if you agree with the bottom line of the marquis report and you said yes based on the e-mails from your fellow commissioners. that is a pretty bold answer. >> that was not my answer. >> do you agree with the bottom line of the markey report which is that all of this hubbub from your commissioners is really a coup attempt and slow-walking safety? >> i will not comment on any congressman's conclusion -- >> do you agree with that characterization? >> i was very disappointed to

see the content of many of those e-mails. those were clearly conversations that were going on without my offices knowledge. i don't think that is in the spirit of the openness in which we pride ourselves as a commission and i think it is clearly indicative of a need for better communication among commissioners. i was very disappointed when i saw those e-mails. >> unless you want to clarify, i will take it as a yes and i find that very staggering. do you think your four other commissioners to hold nuclear safety at a lower priority than you do? >> no, i think -- i believe we all have different interpretations of what city mains and that is why we have a commission. >> let's stop at that point. senator sanders -- >> this has been a very interesting hearing.

i think there are two issues -- #one, there is concern to the people of united states of america that would make sure our nuclear plants are as safe as they possibly can be. there is a lot of concern especially since fukushima about the safety of nuclear power in this country. i suspect what we have here among five intelligent people all of whom i am absolutely convinced are concerned about nuclear safety is perhaps a different opinion as to how aggressively and rapidly one moves forward. i suspect there are differences of opinion and in some cases are being cloaked as personality differences or personal attacks against the chairman. for a start, my suspicion is looking at some of the votes that have been cast there are differences of opinion among intelligent people.

the second issue that concerns me is some of the personal attacks that have been made against mr. jaczko. there is a charge that you have intimidated, brought to tears, some of your employees and indicated to this committee that you are not aware of that theme that's correct i learned within several days or a week. >> you have been charged with having a temper. let me ask my fellow commissioners --mr. jaczko has been forced to respond to something was not aware of. have you ever lost your temper over something? >> no. .> wow, that's interesting tend -- i tend to get quieter if i am upset.

>> any chance that you may have upset somebody in the course of your discussions texas >> yes. >> any chance? >> are remember one incident when i was in command of a submarine and i recognize that animatedly apologized in from the people that witness to it. >> maybe i should ask my co- members of the senate who in their long careers i am sure never under any instance ever said anything they were feeling badly about to any of their staff members. the answer is i have no idea what kind of workplace the nrc is. someone may have hurt the feelings of other people and i suspect that as possible. in all of our lives, i have lost my temper. i expect i have inadvertently

hurt people's feelings. i think the issue we have got to focus on is that everybody in the nrc and everybody appear has to do everything we can to make certain that the people of the united states of america understand that nuclear power in this country is as safe as it possibly can be. with that, that is all i have to say. >> thank you very much, senator. senator sessions -- >> thank you, i just don't believe that our problem here is policy difference. our chairman said she thought this was about moving expeditiously and safety and that the four commissioners did not agree with that as a matter of policy and this explains your

criticism of the german in your letter to the president. -- the chairmen in your letter to the president. is that the reason for you writing the letter, that you disagree about moving expeditiously to insure safety? >>no, not at all. if the commission took -- the commission took action on all the action recommended and we have moved behind what was contemplated. i feel we have moved forward very aggressively and comprehensively. >> do you agree that this is a complaint about moving faster for safety? >>no, i don't agree with that characterization. >> the letter has nothing to do with fukushima. >> i agree with my colleagues. this is nothing to do about moving forward on fukushima's. >.

>> i did not get to complete my question aboutiss report entered viewingstaff and it was reported that the chairman used his supervisory authority to withdraw a voting paper that included a suggestion that was contrary to his preferred course of action. we have talked about that in a. general are you aware of that concern? >> this was referenced in our letter to the white house. the staff had a detailed recommendation presented by mr.borchard as to how to move forward with fukushima recommendations and that paper was withdrawn and replaced by a cover sheet >> that did not do

important information as you are seeking to make a decision? it could have had that affected you did not otherwise -- it could have had that effect? >> yes, it could. >> one allegation is that the chairman introduced political considerations as part of his discussions with a democratic appointee. are you aware of any instance in which you were purged for political loyalty or other reasons to vote one way and another on an issue? >> i think of it like to not answer that question right now. i would like to get back to you for the record. >> fair enough --

>> a long time ago there was a hint that we should act in a certain way. >> madam chairman, i will ask about the incidents of abuse of women. mr. magwood, your chief of staff but it was said that the tactics of the chairman are intimidating. do you have a reason to question comments about one woman's dealings with the chairman? n >>o, i don't but i don't the she has a personal experience in that direction. >> madam chairman, thank you for

allowing the full hearing. we have had some disagreements and i would urge the majority to understand that i believe this does -- is divorced from policy differences. it really is a matter obol operation of a commission who has to depend on reports and advice they get and be able to be sure the judgment of the chairman in declaring an emergency in which he then becomes the sole authority of the commission is very real. i thank the chair. >> i just want to say before my good friend leaves is that the german check with the general counsel immediately before taking on any of his powers and within seven days of fukushima and i have been the record, he

got a letter back explaining exactly what he was permitted to do. i really think a lot of this -- i think this is really about culture at an agency, the safety issues. this is really interesting -- at the same time these commissioners were exchanging e- mails and doing all they did and plotting their letter or whatever they did to send to the white house against the chairman, there was a confidential survey of all the employees at every federal agency. this is what happened -- this is supposed to be a man without leadership? this is supposed to be a man who is cool to his staff? listen to what happened -- on the issue of effective leadership, the nrc is rated one out of the 30 agencies. on the issue of fairness 1 out of the 30 agencies. the issue of fairness of

supervised ,1 out of 30. on the issue of family-friendly culture and benefits 1benefits out of 30 while colleagues on the other side make it sound like you don't really care about people's feelings. your agency can out on top. 1 out of 30. why is it i think this is really a diversion which is a nice way to put it. i think it is a subterfuge for something elsemr. magwood, it is disturbing to me. you had opposition from one of the groupen selfviros. i voted for you because you came before us and said you firmly believe that maintaining uncompromisingly high levels of safety is the first and most important job of any organization that handles nuclear material. that's what you said. you had every single player in

the industry support you. don't say you didn't because i have the list and i will put them in the record. let me just say this -- why i am so troubled -- a sense of the nrc a letter emphasizing -- the importance of transparency and urging the nrc to act promptly to implement the task force recommendations. that was a letter i sent to a. all of you by the way, you have not done and it is a nightmare for me to think this will take 10 years just like the other commission took. that is a disaster but we will talk more about that. i have a document showing that one day after sent this letter, your chief of staff wrote to you saying attached is a letter bo fromxer on the task force report. i don't know in ifhofe plans on sending a counter letter. he said it would be nice if he

did. why do you need a counter letter to a straightforward letter it asking you to be transparent? why did you feel the need to want to counter letter to my very open letter? >> to be honest, i don't remember that exchange. it was never any possibility or any question that we were going to release a task force report quickly. it was really a conversation of whether it was a media or to give a couple of days for the commissioner to read the report. >> i will send this over to you. it is your e-mail. can you send as a m over tor. magwood. that is not right. if you come before us to get our votes and i have to stand up to 100 environmental groups -- he convinced me and you have to get a counter letter from my good friend, an adversary on certain

issues, when all i'm asking for is transparency and quick action. it is extremely disturbing that is why i say that this is not a court of law. i think we proved, i believe and i bring to bear a certain prejudice about my own argument, i admit it but i think we proved today that this cannot possibly be about what you four say because your own staff rates this agency high in leadership and family-friendliness. this is not about that. it is not about grabbing power. your general counsel told you exactly what to do. the ig , his findings never found that anything was done that was improper. you said if it was a matter of style, he is willing to change. let's move on from here and i am

happy to call a senatorbarrasso. ." >> do you think these other commissioners who are with you have a lower commitment to safety than you do? >> i have worked on the commission for a long time and i think all commissioners come with different ideas of what safety is. it gets to a question of how safe is safe enough. my voting record shows that i tend to be more conservative when it comes to safety decisions in the sense that i am willing to perhaps require more "of licensees than my colleagues. that varies by issue. it is hard to say generically that there is a way to categorize that. in some cases, i tend to take positions that i think are more restrictive on licensees.

>> i'm looking at the letter you sent eight days ago to build daily. you say that all too often when faced with tough policy calls, a majority of this current commission, these four people, has taken an approach that is not as protective of public health and safety as i believe is necessary. that says to me that you truly don't believe they have the same commitment to public safety as you do. >> i think that really is a reflection of our voting records. we have disagreements on policy. i don't have a problem with those differences on policy but i think if you look at our voting records, there are some differences in our take on the approach to safety and was appropriate. >> to the other four commissioners given every move that happened and your repeated attempts to solve the problem

internally, do you have the confidence that the german's behavior will change? is there anyth8ing and navy would like to ask? >> i don't have any further to add. i am skeptical that change will occur very one can always help but skepticism is quite high. >> i don't have anything additional to add. i would say is a personal matter. it is not my nature to completely give up on people. i don't approach relationships that way. >> i am hoping he will. >> this is a difficult issue. i know that the four of us have done what we think of. is right we have had grave concerns and

felt an obligation as -- about the damage we've seen at the agency. i took the german at his word when he said today that if he is committed to changing the way of doing business and behavior, then i will listen to his proposed changes but i will tell you that if we had great confidence that things would change, we would not have sent a letter to the white house. >> what i read this letter that the chairman does not believe the majority of this current commission has taken an approach that is not as protective of public self -- public health and safety, do you believe you take positions that are necessary and are protective of public's -- health and safety in this country? >> yes, i do. >> absolutely. >> yes, senator. >> absolutely. >> thank you, thank you very much. >> senator sanders.

>> i think it is important to reiterate and make sure we have in the record that after all of the attacks about the hall style work environment that in the major surveys that are done of various government agencies in terms of being the best places to work, time after time on issue after issue, the nrc comes out to be number one and #two out of 30 or 31 agencies. that is pretty good. i would congratulate the leadership of the nrc. for making that happen. there is an issue that has concerned me for a while. when members of the senate have to vote, we go down to the table and we say yes and we say no. in two seconds the whole world knows how we voted you guys have

a much more obscure and complicated process. it concerns me very much. i will ask you a very, very simple question. to increase accountability so the american people know how you are addressing and voting on very, very important issues, will each of you commit to conduct votes in public where people can see for themselves how you fulfill your responsibility to protect public health and safety? >> i have to be honest, i am not sure i understand the question. we do vote in public to affirm our decisions. >> when we vote, we say yes or no on an issue. sometimes, you both and people don't know about it for weeks later. sometimes your votes are cloaked

in reports that you make. that is an unusual way to do democracy. what i am simply asking is will you commit to us to conduct votes in public where people can see for themselves how you vote? >> let me commit to follow up with you later. i am still not sure i understand exactly -- >> it is not a complicated question. people would think we are silly if we vote this afternoon but no one knows how we vote and maybe two weeks letter we issue a report to tell us how we voted. people want to know how you voted, yes or no. >> there is a practice of releasing our votes within two days of casting the if that is what you're talking about, i would be willing to consider that. >> my understanding is the nrc's

voting process is similar to that used at many boards and commissions. when a decision is arrived at, our votes are posted to the nrc website and made public. a fundamentally different voting system of yes or no would be a departure from the way we vote now which is to about on complicated 100-page report. we often vote on a lot of commentary and arrive at a majority. >> sometimes we vote on a 1000- page reports but we still do and three seconds later we get telephone calls from angry constituents. i'm asking you, will you support changing that way of doing things? >> i support the process that we use now. i think allows us to consider the complexity of these issues. that has been used since the beginning. >> in all due respect, some of

the issues we have to deal with are fairly complex as well. >> i believe we should return to some of the practices that were undertaken by the commission in the past. in the past, the commission conducted its actual deliberations on voting in public meetings and conducted the meat -- the process of voting in public meetings so that the notation process was introduced i believe in the 1980's by a particular chairman and has been refined over the years. i think it would turn back an actual voting session where we get into her and say yes or no and deliberate and discuss ever need to edit or modify positions, we do it in public simultaneously rather than our current process. >> there is great value in the notation voting process we have now.

but there are intense deliberations in my office with my staff. i don't want to lose that. i'm all for public information, public votes and so on, as long as i don't lose that. i'm not sure deliberating in public is as easy as that the chairman presents it but i am willing to listen. the votes now are public. they are delayed some time but they are public. >> i'm looking at might vote cast july 27 on the fukushima report and it was a five-page vote made public a couple of weeks after it was kasparov the notation voting process we currently undergo provides a very full explanation of our positions and is very transparent. >> i am not quite clear -- what does that mean, a five-page about. you voted yes or no. >> i worked as the council for

the armed services committee and i have seen many votes in the house and most of the yes or no votes, we have a different process. that deals with notation votes to explain our positions. these are complicated matters. >> i appreciate that they are complicated matters. virtually everything that united states congress does is enormously complicated. if we could drink for -- it would bring forward transparency -- there should be folsom debate. you should take as much time as you can to work out compromises and do what you do. to the degree that could be done under public scrutiny and your votes are made public on the day you make them, i cannot see why that is not a positive thing. >> and a of my colleagues on the other side wish to make a closing comment before i close?

>> thank you, madam chairman. you have let us have our questions that we have had a healthy debate. we disagree a lot on motivations and how this thing happened. i would express my appreciation for those members who felt it necessary to raise the problems with the white house. i believe you did that with integrity and i believe there is a factual basis. to justify your concerns. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> we have four members of the commission who are here, two republican, two democrats, all unanimously confirmed by the united states senate, three appointed by president obama. it is historic to sign a letter like this. it is courageous and want to

thank you for your commitment to public safety and public service and i am grateful that you are all members of this commission. thank you for being with us today. >> i want to thank all of the commissioners for being here. i want to say to the chairman that you are one strong, good man. you are a good man. as i look at the history of nuclear power in this country, the people who are calling for safety pounded -- get pounded. there is just no proof that what my colleagues are saying about your leadership at the time they are writing a letter, you are being raided by your own staff and your own employees as one out of 30 ineffective leadership in terms of the way you run the place.

i am disturbed at what has gone on. i had a sense of this the last time we met. i urge you at that time, please, all of you, set down and do what is right for the country. a lot of us took their chances when we voted for you, ok? on both sides of the aisle. because this agency is not about partisanship. it is about safety of the highest degree. look at what happened that fukushima. god forbid something like that ever had. since it has stood that country on its head and whether they ever recover, a history will note. it will never be the same. we're not dealing with some harmless waste material. you know that. you are all smart on this. i will ask you each one

question and you must enter yes or no. it is not a hard question. i will send you a letter with centre sanders and others and it will ask each of you individually -- of the 12 recommendations made by the staff, the task force, which you feel can be accomplished within a timetable of nine, the day's six months, one year? we will give you a chance to explain. and i will ask you today if you would answer that letter to the best of your ability. if you don't know, that is unfortunate because you should know at this point but my fear is that we will wait 10 years to get this done. my people at home, they may shut down the nuclear plant with an initiative. they need to know that we are doing our job.

that letter is important y yousefe. you said yes to me on other occasions. will you please respond to me and i will share it with all members of the committee on both sides of the aisle on which of the 12 recommendations you think could be done within 90 days, six months, your best analytical answer on the time frame for each of those. >> we went to that letter? >> yes. >> yes, chairman i will. >> yes. >> you mean to implement the plans that >>no, a decision to send your decision to send out the order to the plants. >> yes, i will. >> yes, madam chairman. >> i could not be happier. i the great suggestion -- what you guys go out and celebrate

the holidays together. [applause] i will buy, on. a split -- honestly. you are also smart, let's get on the same team and let's do what's right for a. the country thank you very much, we stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [no audio]

[no audio] >> a house oversight and government reform subcommittee this morning will examine the impact of the european debt crisis on the u.s. witnesses will include members of the federal reserve and international monetary fund on c-span 3 at 9:30 eastern. in a few moments, today's headlines and your calls, live on "washington journal" the house is in session and a couple of hours to vote on the house- senate compromise on the omnibus spending bill that will keep the government operating for the rest of the year. members may wait until next week to continue debate on extending the payroll tax cut. in about 45