golden laboratory -- goldson labs or black labs. the soldiers will come and get the dogs and then stick around. host: we are out of time with our guest, dr. cameron ritchie. thank you for being here. guest: i want to thank everybody for calling in. host: beginning now is the senate in -- is a post-japan tsunami one year later. this is the entire -- the nuclear regulatory commission is all there. all five commissioners are there including the chairman of the nrc. this hearing is just beginning. thank you for being with us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> i'm very pleased to welcome you back before the committee. a year ooling this week in japan magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the coast of japan triggering a tsunami that's reported to have reached up to 45 feet high and stretched up to six miles inland. the fukushima die atchy nuclear plant was hit hard. it lost power, multiple hydrogen gas explosions tore apart buildings. containment structures were damaged. three nuclear reactors melted down and radiation poured out into the environment. people's lives were uprooted by evacuations to avoid the threat of radiation poisoning. many of these men, women, and children have yet to return to their homes. some may never be able to go back. i know that our thoughts and our prayers go out to the people of

japan and the victims of this catastrophe. the purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the n.r.c.'s efforts to ensure that the 104 nuclear reactors in our nation are operating safely and that these plants are swiftly implementing the lessons learned from the disaster in japan. i'd like to take a moment to discuss the safety issue concerning the nuclear power plant in california. after i learned of increased deterioration of tubes that carry radioactive water into the plant's steam generators, i wrote to the n.r.c. in southern california edison and asked for focus on resolving the safety issue. if these tubes rupture, radiation could be released at levels that exceed safety standards. today the n.r.c. announced that it is flying out a special investigation team to conduct a more intensive evaluation of the plant, and i want to say thank

you. to each and every one of you. i've got nine million people living within 50 miles of that plant. it is critical that the n.r.c. thoroughly review all of the safety implications of this problem and that the public is assured that the plant can operate safely before it's restarted and that the n.r.c. keep me up to date on its investigation. so today is the sixth time after the events in japan that members of the committee have gathered to conduct oversight of the n.r.c. in late march, 2011, the n.r.c. create add task force to review our safety requirements in light of the events in japan. in july 2011, the task force made 12 safety recommendations to help prevent and reduce the impacts of such a disaster in the united states of america. the n.r.c. staff prioritized these recommendations and said that several should be implemented without delay. on monday, the n.r.c. sent three

orders requiring these high priority safety improvements at domestic nuclear power plants. a couple days ago you took this important action. the first order requires plants to better protect safety equipment needed to address emergencies. to have enough equipment to address an emergency that hits all the reactors at a plant. the second order requires plants to install enhanced equipment to better monitor the conditions and spent fuel pools. and the third order requires the 31 boiling water reactors in the u.s. that are similar to fukushima to improve or install venting systems that help to maintain safe conditions within the plant. the n.r.c. also directed nuclear power plants to re-analyze earthquake and flooding risks, assess their ability to safely operate following such events, as well as their capacity to communicate with a prolonged loss of power and address

emergencies at more than one reactor. the n.r.c. has said it will also issue two notices of proposed rule making in march and april on steps to take if plants lose electric power and improve emergency procedures. i am very encouraged that the n.r.c. has moved forward. it shows the public that the n.r.c. is acting on the information gathered since the fukushima disaster. but i want to say something here. i am concerned about the timelines for requiring plants to meet these safety standards. the commission asked the n.r.c. staff to, quote, strife to complete and implement the lessons learned from the fukushima accident within five years by 2016, unquote, however some of the proposed timelines allow plants to avoid meeting needed safety improvements for longer than five years, and i will have questions for all the commissioners on this issue. you have done good work. now let's make it happen in the

field. according to fema, the federal emergency management agency, 120 million people live within 50 miles of the nuclear reactor. including more than nine million people in my home state of california. i also want to take this opportunity to say to you that your actions on santa nofri are pleasing to me. i have had a history here of having to push hard and i didn't have to do that in this case. and i feel since i have been critical that i owe you a thank you. so that thank you not only comes from me and senator feinstein believe me, and i'm sure the whole congressional delegation, but it comes from the people who are counting on you. they don't know your faces, but they appreciate the fact that you care enough about them to send an investigative team out

there today to make sure that you understand what's happening with these tubes and why they are failing. they shouldn't fail. they are too new to fail. something's happening there whether it's the chemistry of the water, we don't know. but i so appreciate this. with that i'll turn to senator sessions who came first here on the other side. >> thank you, senator inhofe is on the armed services committee where he's a senior member. good morning, i thank all of you for being here and appreciate the work that's being done to deal the aftermath of the fukushima incident. to review that carefully. it's an important challenge for us and we need to look at that. from everything i see here have been focused and working hard on it. i think we need to confront the fact that the administration claims to be in support of american energy but their

policies continue to drive up the price of energy and reduce the amount of energy produced in the united states. certainly true with oil and gas production and also with nuclear power. he says he's committed to restarting the nuclear industry, but the record indicates otherwise. i was disappointed that the president appointment as chairman of the n.r.c. was the overwhelm member to vote against issuing the license to the plant in georgia. you can't delay these things forever and ever. they drive up the costs, create uncertainty, and basically will kill the new restart of nuclear power in america, which we need for energy, for the economy, and for the environment. also i would note that the chairman has played a central role in the administration's effort to close down the yucca mountain repository. an endeavor that essentially

eliminates 25 years of investment, $14 billion in government money has gone into that. on december 15, we heard testimony about the abusive behavior of chairman jags could he, his abuse of the -- jass could he, his abuse of the law including use of emergency powers, his abusive personal behavior and intimidation of staff. we heard testimony about the troubling circumstances that led the other four commissioners, including those appointed by the president, to write a letter to the president, to the white house. it told the president that the chairman's actions are, quote, causing serious damage to the n.r.c. and are creating a chilled work environment, close quote. yet five months after that letter was sent, the president has not responded in a responsible manner and regrettably instead of seeking to get to the bottom of these facts, the president and the senate democrats have circled the wagons to protect the chairman from accountability.

so i'm concerned about it i have to say. i think it's obvious there are serious problems in the leadership of the commission, in the chairman's office, and it's not -- needs to be confronted. one other thing i would like to say, and i think that the president obama should act soon to ensure the commission ervin vin is not forced from the commission in june. she was confirmed by the senate in 2008 with broad support. she brings to the n.r.c. a long and distinguished career as a nuclear engineer and public servant. she's worked at various levels of state and federal government. she held an important staff role during the nuclearish -- dealing with nuclear issues for senator john warner object the armed services committee. she's -- on the armed services committee. she's a hard worker and sound character. very recently she was willing to sign the letter that blew the whistle on the problems in the commission. the n.r.c. needs a full panel of

experienced, qualified commissioners and i'm sure and i'm convinced that senator -- commission ervin vin should not be forced to leave. -- svinicki should not be forced to leave. i would urge the president to renominate her. she has the support of the republican seat and republican leaderp -- leader. it would be a travesty, i think, if we reached a situation where commission ervin vin's service on the n.r.c. is allowed to expire and we would keep the chairman who has created so much controversy. i don't intend to let that happen. i'm not going to let that happen if i have anything to do about it even if we have to bring the senate to a grinding halt. madam chairman, thank you for having this hearing. you have been an open and fair chairman and i was pleased -- i know you're still celebrating that big highway bill.

>> how quickly one forgets. >> i'm pleased to work with you. you really demonstrated a tremendous amount of energy in bringing people together on that highway bill. you deserve great credit for it. >> it's very sweet of you. i want to remind everybody that this hearing what the title is. just to focus ourself. on lessons from fukefuke one year -- fukushima, one year later n.r.c.'s recommendations for enhancing nuclear reaction safety in the 21st century. with that i turn to senator carper. >> i want to say to my friend from alabama, who a lot of times we call them our friends, this guy's my friend. i like him a whole lot. i concur with you on your views on commissioner svinicki. she's a valued member of the commission. my hope is she'll be reconfirmed. i expect to support her. i also want to say this commission has been through a tough time over the last year

trying to figure out how to work together. the chairman to figure out how to lead effectively and play his role well. we had like a public come to jesus meeting here several months ago. you were part of that, i was part of that. and my sense is that maybe it had a positive effect. we'll find out. we have seen the license nowish shied for not one but the first two new nuclear power plants being built in this country for 20, 30 years. i think that's pretty good progress. two out of the three appointees of our president actually voted for that. i think that's a good sign. i hope that this hearing focuses more on what can we learn from the awful events of fukushima. what we are doing about what we have learned. what is the timetable? what do we need to do to make sure the lessons learned are

implemented in a timely and effective way. thank you. >> thank you so much, senator. senator barrasso. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. on the one year anniversary of fukushima the american people want to know that nuclear safety has improved. they want us to ensure there will not be a repeat of the nuclear disaster in japan here in the united states. that communities across america are safe from harm. the nuclear regulatory commission is tasked with protecting us. it's not a responsibility that any of them should take lightly. the incident at fukushima has led to a process at n.r.c. of developing recommendations to improve nuclear safety here in the united states. and i have stated before this process should be allowed to continue free of partisan politics. at our last hearing, we learned from four commissioners who said that the agency isn't working as effectively as it should under this chairman's leadership, and inspector general's report on the activities of the chairman is pending.

it's my hope that once the report is released, it is thoroughly reviewed and taken seriously by the committee no matter what the findings. we also need to have a full slate of commissioners that have stuck with the best, most experienced men and women in the field. as both senator sessions and senator carper have said in a bipartisan way that among those is commissioner svinicki. she's very well qualified and i hope her renomination is not being stalled by the white house or others for political reasons. that would not serve the public interest in keeping folks safe. we need the most qualified people to serve on this commission and i agree o on in a bipartisan way that commissioner svinicki is a very critical member of this commission. i look forward to working with both my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure that that happens. second, in a february 9 speech

at the nuclear energy conference in rockville, maryland, the chairman spoke of two futures for the nuclear industry. he spoke of one future 20 years from now where there was a continuous process of construction of new reactors. as senator carper mentioned. the other future was one where 20 years from now we would see an industry dominated by the process of continuous decommissioning and embarking on a process of long-term trend of continuous decommissioning. the first option to me is the only way forward for america's energy future. it is the only responsible course of action for this committee to follow if we are serious about providing affordable, domestic energy for seniors, working families, and small business owners. the president has called for an all out, all of the above energy strategy at this year's state of the union address. the president if he's serious he will join those of us who seek to strengthen this important energy source and staff the commission with qualified and experienced people.

i thank you, madam chairman. i look forward to the testimony. >> thank you so much. senator sanders. >> thank you, madam chair. thanks for the members of the commission for being here. clearly we must focus, continue to focus on the need for safety reforms after the unthinkable disaster in japan happened, reminding us one of the issues that we always have to be aware of with regard to nuclear power, 99.9% safe is not good enough. today tens of thousands of people remain evacuated from homes, tens of thousands, near the three fukushima reactors that suffered meltdowns, an area that has elevated radiation levels in everything from fish to rice to vegetables. i found it interesting that my friend from alabama used the word incident. i suggest you were talking about the fukushima disaster.

is that correct? i think that the people of japan it probably was not quite an incident. i think it was a disaster impacting their country and when we understand that, we have got to understand how serious we must be in making sure the nuclear power in this country is safe. in a letter to the president following fukushima, i called for a moratorium on licensed renewals until we could examine what happened. and implement reforms. i'm especially concerned about that because in the southern part of my state we have a nuclear power plant with a similar design of what took place in fukushima. and in fact we have 23 reactors in the united states with the same g.e. mack one designed as fukushima. but license extensions continue without accounting with lessons learned. safety officials express concern about this design in the early 1970's at a -- and a top n.r.c. official said in 1986, i quote,

mauch one reactors had a 90% probability of bursting should the fuel roads overheat and melt in an stent, end of quote. that was in 1986. a week after fukushima, the n.r.c. timing was extraordinary, relicensed a mauch one reactor in my own state. the vermont yankee nuclear power plant, for 20 years, without taking time to examine the implications of fukushima. relicense, one week after fukushima. the n.r.c. has granted 71 license renewals and has never rejected one. 71 to zero. in every single instance the n.r.c. said it is appropriate to relicense a nuclear power plant. the n.r.c. also voted 3-2 in secret to recommend the government side with energy and litigation against vermont's energy future. in my very strong view, the n.r.c.'s job is safety, safety. that is what your job is.

it is not to tell the people of vermont or any other state how they go forward in terms of energy. in my state there is a strong feeling we want to go forward with energy efficiency and sustainable energy. i believe we have that right. i believe every other state in the country has that right. if we want to move to sustainable energy and not maintain an aging troubled-plagued nuclear you poer plant, i think we -- power plant, i think we should be allowed to do that. a year removed from fukushima, the n.r.c. voted 4-1 to move forward with the first new nuclear plant license in this country since three mile island, without requiring the plant to fully incorporate all post-fukushima safety reforms recommended by the n.r.c. staff. the last time we had a hearing with the n.r.c. we heard that the chairman, we heard it again today, was responsible for all of the problems associated, he's just a terrible guy. interestingly enough i would mention to my colleagues there

was a 4-1 vote on whether or not to go forward with the relicensing of the new plant in georgia, and it was a division. chairman voted one way, four members voted the other. i would suggest as i did at the last meeting that maybe the difference that's taking place here is not the personality flaws of the chairman but a philosophical difference which exists about hue the n.r.c. should proceed. i look forward to the questioning, madam chair, thank you. >> thank you so much. senator merkley, welcome. >> thank you, madam chair. is it my turn? >> it certainly is. >> great. i wanted to ask a couple things. particularly around the venting of gases, because one of your orders, third order requires improvement or replacement -- >> senator, this is your time for opening statement. >> ok. i want to pass on the opening statement so we can get to your testimony. >> that's fair enough. ok. we will turn to our esteemed

panel now. we will start off with our honorable chairman, jaczko, he's going to have five minutes as chair and each member will have three. go ahead, chairman. >> chairman boxer, chairman carper, ranking member barrasso, members of the committee, on behalf of the commission i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to provide an update on the n.r.c.'s implementation of safety enhancements based on our review of the fukushima daiichi nuclear accident. i stress that the commission continues to believe there is no imminent risk from continued operation of nuclear power plants in the united states. at the same time, however, our assessment of the events at fukushima daiichi leads us to conclude that additional requirements should be imposed on licensees to increase the capability of nuclear plants to mitigate and protect against beyond design basis extreme natural phenomenon. when we last appeared before you in december, the commission was considering the staff's report

on prioritizing the recommendations of the near-term task force into three separate tiers. tier one consists ever actions to be taken without delay and sufficient resource flexibility, including the availability of critical skill sets exists. tier two actions can be initiated as soon as sufficient resources or critical skill sets become available. finally, tier three recommendations require further staff study or shorter term actions to be undertaken first. i would stress these are not necessarily in a priority order. while tier three items may require additional staff study, they are not necessarily actions that are of less importance to safety. as a result of public meetings with stakeholders, including the industry and the public, and with the advisory committee on reactor safeguards, there have been a number of enhancements to the tier one, tier two, and tier three recommendations. as has been mentioned on march 12 the commission issued three immediately effective orders to

u.s. commercial nuclear reactors. the orders reflect a tremendous effort on the part. n.r.c. staff and commission to produce a comprehensive package in a expedited manner. the first order requires the plants to better protect safety equipment installed after the september 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and obtain sufficient equipment to support all reactors at a given site simultaneously. the second order requires the plants to install enhanced equipment for monitoring water levels each plant's spent fuel pool. and the boiling water reactors that have mark one or mark two containment structures. these reabors must improve venting systems or the case of the mark two plants, a smaller number, install new systems that help prevent or mitigate core damage in the event of a serious accident. for all three of these orders, licensees are required to submit their plans for implementation for implementing the requirements to the n.r.c. by february 28, 2013. and complete full implementation

no later than two refueling cycles after submittle or december 31, 2016, which ever comes first. lnchesees are required to provide periodic status reports so the staff can monitor their progress. in addition to these three orders, licensees will were also issued a request for information. licensees were asked to re-evaluate the seismic and flooding hazards at their sites using current n.r.c. guidance and identify actions planned to address vulnerabilities. licensees were requested to develop a methodology and acceptance criteria and perform seismic and flooding lockdowns. finally licensees were required to assess the credibility of their current communications to perform on on-site and offsite damage and prolonged loss of electrical power. as part of this initiative they were also requested to check their staffing levels needed to respond to a large-scale event and implement strategies contained in the emergency plan. there are remaining tier one

religiouses which address station black down and integration of emergency procedures and these continue to be worked by the staff. the station blackout rule make something a high priority activity with a goal of completion within 24 to 30 months from october, 2011. and the staff is recently provided or finalizing an advanced notice of proposed rule making for that particular rule making. we anticipate beginning work on tier two recommendations when we have the necessary information from the tier one activities and when we can free up critical resource from these efforts. the issuance of the orders and letters on march 12 is a significant step forward on our post-fukushima efforts. we are making strong progress and as always i continue to be impressed by the staff dedication and expertise. there is still, however, a great deal of work ahead of us for both the commission and staff. this past year was very challenging for the n.r.c. but also a very productive year for us.

the agency expects to meet new and up anticipated challenges. we are confident that the n.r.c. will continue to ensure the continued and safe operation of the licensed facilities and safe and construction and operation of new nuclear plants, possibly including small modular reactors. with that i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and be happy to answer any questions you have. thank you. >> thank you, chairman. the honorable kristine svinicki. >> thank you chairman boxer, ranking member barrasso, and members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today on the topic of the n.r.c.'s implementation of recommendations for enhancing nuclear safety in the 21st crepetry. in his testimony on behalf of the commission, chairman jass could he has described the -- jaczko has described the progress the n.r.c. has made to improve the safety. i also join him in acknowledging the hard work of the staff and their sustained efforts towards

the progress that n.r.c. has made to date. as he has described we have now issued a series of orders to nuclear power plant licensees which require features to mitigate beyond the design paycies extreme natural events, require hard venting systems, and require greater capacity of measurement for spent fuel storage fool instrumentation. we are also requiring that nuclear power plant licensees conducts system lockdowns by teams of relevant experts and understeak substantial re-evaluation of seismic and flooding hasards -- hazards at their sites using current n.r.c. requirements. they must also identify actions to address vulnerabilities down. the n.r.c. will assess the results of these developments to determine if further actions are needed. in implementing these recommendations the agency's broad staff of stakeholders have been engaged in many meetings. we have been fitted from the insiket from nuclear operators, nuclear safety and environmental groups, and the public.

i believe all of these efforts have strengthened the n.r.c.'s activities in response to the fukushima events and will continue to do so. as the n.r.c. acquires more information about the accident, we will assess the impact of such information on actions already under way and consider appropriate actions going forward. thank you, i look forward to the committee's questions. >> thank you very much, commissioner. the honorable george apostolakis. >> chairman boxer, ranking member barrasso, members of the committee, good morning. as i reflect on the lessons on fukushima one year after the accident, i find that my views have evolved. the first time i testified on this subject before you, i interkated that the accident was a lesson -- indicated that the zent was a lesson in humility. i said that as a community of safety analysts we had been pretty confident there would be no new surprises but the fukushima challenged that belief.

as more information was obtained, i then said the accident was not of extremely low probability, it was not unthinkable, it was not unforeseen. today i can report that others have reached a similar conclusion. for example. the report issued by the car nage yea endowment for international peace last week states, quote, the plant would have width stood a tsunami had its design previously been upgraded in accordance with state-of-the-art safety approaches, end of quote. furthermore, a report by the american nuclear society special committee on fukushima also issued that last week states, quote, the committee believes that in responding to the accident that the fukushima daiichi plant human error and flaws in governance and regulatory oversight contributed to the severity of the accident, end of quote. in light of these observations, it is reassuring to know that the n.r.c.'s a strong and

independent regulator, our decisionmaking process is open and transparent, and we have long recognized the importance of a positive safety culture. however, there are still lessons to be learned from the accident. for example we are requiring all operating plants to re-evaluate their design basis and strengthen mitigation strategies for external events, taking into account all units at the site. i am pleased with the progress the commission has made as well as the fact that the process for reaching decisions has been transparent and methodical. i continue to work with my fellow commissioners to apply the lessons learned from fukushima. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. the honorable william magwood. >> thank you, chairman. chairman boxer, chairman carper, ranking member barrasso, members of the subcommittee, committee, it's a pleasure to be here before you today to talk about our work regarding the fukushima

disaster. first, let me say u.s. plants are safe. we are quite confident about that. but as we reported during our last appearance before this committee or agency's moved swiftly and systematically to understand the events of japan and design a prudent and regulatory response to address the lessons of fukushima. this has been our central focus over the last year. the commission's devoted a large portion of its time and energy to this challenge. the chairman's already outlined the details of our response so i won't repeat that now, but let me ultimately say that while we have moved quickly i'm very confident the decisions we have made to date are appropriate and fully implemented will address the large portion of any risk revealed by our insights gained from studying the fukushima event. this week we met with many of our international colleagues at the 24th regulatory information conference. through my conversations with our colleagues, it's clear that many of the world's regulators have viewed these issues in much the same way and i expect the

response of fukushima across the world will have considerable similarities in many countries. the n.r.c. staff has performed an outstanding fashion in pursuit of this outcome. they have worked tirelessly to review these issues working with our many stakeholders and consulting with the advisory committee on reactor safeguards. i'd like to recognize the invaluable contributions provided by marty who serve as chairman of the steering committee that leads this overall effort at the agency. he recently announced he will soon require after 34 years with the agency and his leadership will be missed. finally, i want to conclude by sending my thoughts and encouragement to the citizens of japan as they continue to recover from last year's earthquake and tsunami. commissioner ostendorff and i visited the site in january and saw firsthand how hard or friends in japan are working to deal with the aftermath what they now call 3-11. that term is deep and enduring resonance that the americans understand quite well.

i wish our japanese colleagues the very best and success in their efforts. thank you for your attention. i look forward to the questions. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner ostendorff. >> thank you, madam chairman. chairman carper, ranking member barrasso, members of the committee. just over one year since an earthquake and tsunami devastated japan, led to severe accidents at fukushima daiichi. last july the fukushima task force at the n.r.c. conclupeded that the sequence of events, the united states similar to that in japan is unlikely. the task force also concluded there is no imnentrisk for continued operation of u.s. nuclear power plants. i believe those conclusions remain true today. no less i continue to support the n.r.c.'s actions to make our plants even safer. the n.r.c. has taken positive, concreelt steps to strengthen the n.r.c.'s regulatory framework in response to fukushima. i join my colleagues here at this table and also commending the men and women of the n.r.c. for their hard work.

i also appreciate the chance to enengage with my four colleagues to the right. since i last appeared before this committee in december i voted to approve of three orders submitted to the commission in february. as mentioned by others, those orders were issued earlier this week. i think it's important for this committee to note while we may have had slightly different variations on the basis of these orders, all five of us in a unanimous act approved all three orders. i think that's a significant statement. >> it is. >> to me these three orders represent sound policy decisions for nuclear safety and as commissioner magwood mentioned, i think we saw in our visit to fukushima, the importance of us taking strong, decisive actions as regulators. i am confident the path the n.r.c. is on today. i think we are taking responsible actions. i appreciate the fans to appear before this feet and look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. commissioner magwood you said

our nuclear plants are safe. i just wanted to point out that's what the japanese said before fukushima. i think we need to be cautious. when i think the answer is, we are doing everything in our power to ensure they are safe. that is crucial. i have some questions. chairman jazzo, the n.r.c. -- jaczko, the n.r.c. staff has proposed two rule makes to implement high priority recommendations. i'm glad to hear everybody's support of these. it's very, very heartening to me personally. one of those rules would require plants have the ability to safely operate when they lose all electric power. a station blackout. another rule would require new emergency operating procedures and guidelines to address severe accidents. chairman, when will the n.r.c. propose and finalize these rules? >> right now the station blackout rule, the first

proposal, what we call an advanced notice of proposed rule making, is due this week to be finalized and released to the public. the emergency operating procedure, the second rule you referred to, an advance notice is also planned for next month. the station blackout rule the commission has asked for that to be done in about 24 months. from now. and that would put it somewhere in the 2014 time frame. the second rule right now i think is on a much later schedule to be finalized closer to 2016 or some time in 2016. i feel comfortable we are on a good track with the station blackout rule. that is a high priority. the commission has recognized that. i certainly could have concerns that the second rule will be a challenge for us to not only complete the rule itself but the implementations within the five years that i think the commission has laid out. again i think part of our work in the next couple years is to

figure out ways we can get some of this worked on timely. >> as i understand it the safety commission recommended that these all be done in five years, is that correct? >> the commission itself encouraged the efforts to get these things done within five years and we did have our advisory committee on reactor safeguards to encourage some of the rule makeses -- makings be accept rated because it's such an important piece. >> do you feel comfortable on this issue you are speaking for everyone when you say you are striving to meet that 2014 and 2016 date? you're striving? i want to just ask -- let me put you on the spot. you can't speak for everyone. does anyone disagree those two rules should -- you should do everything in your power to implement the first one, 2014, station blackout, and second one, 2016? is there any dissent from that? ok. the n.r.c. staff has stated that high priority safety

recommendations should be implemented without delay. we talked about them, the n.r.c. told its staff to strive by 2016. so i just want to make sure that you would keep us up to date, our committee, on the progress being made so that if there's slippage we would know about it. would you do that commission? if you see things slipping. otherwise we are going to assume it's on track unless you tell us -- i don't want to be surprised and find out it's going to take 12 years or 14. because that's what happened the last time. after 9/11, the recommendations took 10 years or more. >> chairman boxer, if i could just add right now, one of the areas where i do have some concern is with the efforts to re-examine the seismic hazards at the nuclear power plants. this is an effort right now that would probably push out to the earliest completion date around sometime 2017. the latest completion date for

some of the lower risk plants into 2019. so that is one that at this point does appear to be off target a little bit. and given the importance of seismic hazards, i think commissioner apostolakis said, this is an area which we recognize that there is new information that tells us the plants may not be designed to the right seismic standard. for this one to be taking so long is a bit of a concern to me. >> i agree with you. another time and place, and also i'll work with all of you, this is very concerning because in california we have updated reports that are not good that say there's been a lot of change. did you want to add something? >> i'd like to add something. first of all i agree with the chairman's statement, but there will be a lot of activities related to seismic upgrades. and right now the focus is on

the plants east of the rocky mountains where the u.s. geological survey has issued new seismic data. and the staff will prioritize in terms of risk the activities there. so a lot of it will have been accomplished before these dates after the 15 years. it's -- according to the staff and my understanding, it's the plants with low risk that will have to do some upgrades, perhaps, that will take longer. and the california plants, by the way, according to what i know today, will complete their upgrades before the five years. >> good. one last question. chairman jaczko, when the fukushima reactors released large amounts of radiation people were evacuated and many have yet to return home. does the n.r.c. consider harmful

impacts beyond the racialation including such things as evacuations, cleanup of contamination when determining to require safety measures at our nuclear reactors? in other words the cost and benefit ratio would change, it seems to me, if the n.r.c. considered what it would take, just look at my southern california plant. there's almost nine million people living within 50 miles. so i am interested in to whether or not you consider harmful impacts beyond the public racialation when you determine the cost benefit of improvement. >> we really don't. our focus is really primarily on the direct and short-term and longer term direct health impacts from radiation exposure when we are making our safety judgments. this is clearly an area that is, i think we need to look at and need to examine because as you look at the fukushima event, that's really, right now, what is going to be the long-term

impact. it is significant. >> it is. when i asked -- i'm going to give everybody an extra two minutes because i have gone over. when i asked the sheriff near my plant what she thought, she said, i said how do you get people out of here? she said, well, if it were to happen an earthquake were to happen during rush hour, this is the road. you can't even move on that road. so it seems to me there needs to be more work done because radiation is the worst of the things that could happen, but being homeless and is a whole other situation. not being able to evacuate. i would like to work with all of you on that. would you-all agree you would be open to looking at that as far as cost benefit ratio? thank you. i see everybody nodding. senator barrasso, you go forward with seven minutes, sir. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. i think we have heard good news.

u.s. plants are safe. there are steps to make them safer. we are on the right path. i have heard that across the board. views have evolved. there have been lessons learned. i do have a couple of questions specifically there was actually a critical report that came out by a group called the union of concerned scientists. critical of the n.r.c.'s response to address protecting u.s. plants. the report goes on, i'm going to ask commissioners to comment on it. it said that u.s. reactors, says, remains vulnerable to fukushima like disasters. the n.r.c. does have a plan to reduce vulnerabilities, but plus proceed expeditiouslyly to implement the lessons learned from fukushima. there are critical report goes on to say, unless n.r.c. strengthens measures to mitigate beyond such design basis accidents, it may be only a matter of time before a similar disaster happens here. i know you are very thoughtful on this. the views have evolved. maybe start with commissioner

magwood and tell me what your thoughts are on this report that seems to be critical. >> let me overstate sort of the defensive reaction to that. it's easy to be defensive in these things. i think that the thought that u.c.s. is putting out which is we need to take action is an appropriate thought. the commission fully agrees with that. we have already agreed to take steps as a body and agency that will enhance the safety of u.s. plants to make sure that fukushima-type scenario doesn't unfold. that said, i think that our infrastructure, our regulatory approach, our practices at plants, our equipment, our configuration, our design basis would prevent fukushima from occurring under similar circumstances at a u.s. plant. i just don't think it would

happen. we can still improve and we are going to improve. >> thank you. commissioner svinicki. >> senator barrasso, i agree with my colleagues. i think the chairman has outlined the action that is we are taking in response to just that concern to learn the lessons to move forward. i would say on the timelines i think the commission to a person has urged the n.r.c. staff to come up with schedules that are implementable but yet have the appropriate sense of urgency about moving forward. i think they have done their best. i agree with my colleagues who say as we move forward we need to continue to look at those time frames. if things can be accelerated, we should do that. right now we are moving forward on a solid plan. as commissioner ostendorff mentioned, on a commission that has strong and occasionally divided views there was unanimous support for the actions we have issued. >> commissioner apostolakis. >> i disagree with the statements from u.c.s.

i don't what happened in fukushima would happen here. i repeat it was not unthinkable. they made terrible mistakes. >> you did comment actually over the course of a year i think your phrase was my views have evolved. so it is helpful to know that people aren't locked, decided, this is it. we can study more, learn more, and views can evolve. >> yes. they have evolved, yes. >> commissioner ostendorff. >> thank you, senator. i agree with my colleagues. i also disagree with the u.c.s. report. i'd like to make two comments. i agree with the chairman and commissioner apostolakis' comments on the seismic piece. i think we are concerned with the overall time period to look at seismic hazards. and i think our staff requirement memorandum was issued a few days ago does

request that our staff and industry look at ways that might be alternatives to speed up this process. i think we are all -- want to move forward as quickly as we can. that said, i think we are doing it very responsibly. the second piece i could comment very briefly, senator, is the chairman i agree his comments on the station blackout, i agree. one of the things to throw into the mix here is the fact that many of the nuclear power plants in this country licensees have already ordered additional portable diesel generators, point of order a quorum is not presentable battery charging equipment, and other steps that they are taking to enhance the deal with the loss of power. that's happening now. >> i noted that a member of congress, neat why lowery, recently wrote -- nita lowery, recently wrote a letter to expand the zone around nuclear power plants to 50 miles. 50 miles is something that the chairman just mentioned in terms

of some of the specific plants in california. the n.r.c. has had a report on the n.r.c. clarifies misconceptions about emergency preparedness in states. it's important to note that the exact size and shape of a specific condition at each site is unique and is developed through a detailed planning that looks at the specific conditions at each site and demographic information. in addition, it says these zones are not limits and are meant to be expanded as necessary. you are shaking your head, mr. magwood. can you comment on that and your specific thoughts? >> i think that statement is accurate. the emergency planning zones are just that. they are planning zones. they don't represent necessarily what would happen in the case of a national emergency. in the case of a national emergency we would respond appropriately depending on what was going on. i'm comfortable with the regime that we have in place, but i should say that as part of our

post-fukushima review, the staff does anticipate a look the question about whether it should be expanded. so we'll be analyzing that in the coming months and years. >> final question to all commissioners. we talked about the chairman's statements february 9 about the two potential paths and the futures. 20 years from now, new nuclear plans licensed and the life of extending plants be being extended. which is in my opinion the right path. the other future was for nuclear plants in a downward spiral of decommissioning. which path is the right one for us to be on now? commissioner magwood, we can run down -- >> i don't think that that -- i don't think those paths are really -- will be decided by regulators. i think those paths will probably be decided by economic consideration that are beyond the scope of our agency. and i don't have much more to

say. >> thank you. my time has expired. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. i want to ask unanimous consent to place in the record the biography of the author of the union of concerned scientists report. his name is dave lakhbami. he's one of the nation's top nuclear power experts. and he has been yoted in the "wall street journal," all of our -- quoted in the "wall street journal," all of our major newspapers and he is -- he has studied the crisis at fukushima and issued this report. since you are bashing it i just thought we would put his credentials. i would match those against anybody sitting across from me. and i just want to say when we bash a report, maybe we'll just have to have him come up here. i think we'll do that in the near future. i'm turning it over to senator carper. >> earlier in your statements i think you indicated, two ofy --

of you traveled together to japan to personally visit the area where the incident or the disaster occurred. i think it's probably close to a disaster myself. just a sense for the views of the people of japan toward our intervention, toward the assistance we provided for them. i would be interested in hearing that. sometimes we help folks in distress. i was in pakistan a year or so ago after a big flood. we were providing enormous help for a million or so refugees. i didn't feel a lot of understanding or appreciation for that. i welcome what you thought when you were in japan in terms of their recognition of the work we have done to help them. commissioner ostendorff. >> that's a great question. i think all of us have had different interactions. you about i think we have heard nothing but gratitude and

tremendous thanks offered to the united states government, to the military, to the n.r.c., to the department of energy, other cabinet agencies. i know that when commissioner magwood and i were in japan middle of january, we received a lot of thanks. i know that a number of us were at a japanese embassy event last week where we also received thanks along were other sectors of the government in this country. and the chairman led a commemoration ceremony this past -- three days ago at the n.r.c. where the japanese ambassador of the united states also passed on his signature thanks to our country. i think it's been very positive. >> commissioner magwood. >> i echo that. i also -- i have had lots -- a lot of conversation was people from japan and it bears a great deal of appreciation for the contributions of n.r.c. in particular. i think a lot of people recognize the expertise n.r.c.

brought. the critical time was very important. really to the overall u.s. response i heard a lot of really positive things about our military and the -- particularly the navy and response of the navy provided to the incident and helping logistically and providing supplies. i think that -- we have made a lot of friends in japan in the last year. >> good. during the time that you were there, the time since, could you share with us how many lives were lost because of this disaster? >> because of the fukushima? >> yes. >> that we are aware of, none. i believe that there were two people who were killed at the plant when the tsunami swept in, they were drowned. other than that i am aware of no fatalities or expected fatalities resulted from the nuclear incidents. >> anything the commissioners

have different information on that? commissioner svinicki? >> senator carper, in addition to the two workers who i also understand were immediately drowned on site in the event, i am aware of two workers that have been engaged in the heroic recovery efforts under extremely uncomfortable and adverse conditions. i understand that two individuals who died of heart attacks. i don't know the direct relation, but some of the workers have to work in anti-contamination clothing, it's very hot, very uncourt fobble a, -- uncomfortable, they 345eu have had a stress reaction. i am aware two additional workers was not a radiological event but it was a heart attack from the extreme efforts they were making. >> all right. the -- before i move on to my other questions, in the united states since the first nuclear power plants were built, how many lives have been lost? does anybody know? recall off the top of your head?

>> senator, i believe the answer is none as far as any deaths due to radiation exposure at a nuclear power plant in this country or any of our nuclear powered warships. >> does anybody have different information? the reason -- >> at the risk of being contrary here, i think it's very important we not send a signal that fukushima was not a significant incident. >> i don't think anyone is suggesting that. >> certainly i have been in international meetings where people have asked similar questions and insinuated it's really an event we can ignore because of that, and i think it's very important -- >> let me interrupt you. you can stop. think of the lives people where they live, 1 miles around, fukushima, 50 miles, their lives have been badly disrupted. and will be so in many cases for years. no one is attempting to diminish that.

we have had any number of hearings here in recent years where we talk about the number of people not whose lives have been disrupted but killed in this country because of dirty air. because of the diry air that we breathe, put up by utilities, which in many cases blow from midwest to my part of the country where senator sanders and i happen to live and represent people. i just think beneed -- need to put this in a little bit perspective and i appreciate you helping us do that. anybody listening to this, in hearing is televised at least on c spap, anyone listening, what is -- c-span, anyone listening, what is an order, different tiers, can somebody take about a minute trying to explain so that a regular, american citizen watching this hearing would know what we are talking about, please. >> senator, perhaps in layperson

terms an order issued, it's a set of compulsory actions that the n.r.c. has authority to issue to private entities such as nuclear power plant operators. under our authorities to regulate nuclear safety we can issue a directive or order to compel actions and chairman jaczko has described what those actions were. so when we say orders it's separate from the long process of establishing a new regulation. we can through an order take action very quickly. >> how does an order differ from a letter, please? >> a letter, an order is a requirement that a power plant has to take. the letter is kind of the first step in gathering information. so it's something that they have to tell us. it's information that they are required to provide to us. in and of itself it doesn't necessarily direct any particular action. in many case it is will be the precursor to additional action

as we gather the information. >> i'll stop with this, but i understand in terms of the agreement among the commissioners is, a unanimous agreement on the orders that have been issued and that essentially a unanimous agreement in terms of the -- what is tier one, tier two, tier three and timeline. is there agreement, broad agreement on those points? that's good. that's the next encouragement, thank you. . >> i apologize for not being >> i want to pick up on a statement that commissioner

blackwood made a moment ago -- macwood made a moment ago. as i heard, he said that the decisions -- the future of nuclear power in america will not be primarily made by the commission but by "economic considerations." i strongly disagree with that. the future of nuclear power will 100% be determined by whether or not the taxpayers of this country continue to provide huge, huge financial support to the nuclear power industry for the indefinite future that -- future. that is the issue. i know is find it amusing that at this moment when we have a $15 trillion debt, a metal class -- middle-class shrinking,

poverty increasing and people on this committee saying we have to cut social security and medicaid because we cannot afford it, when it comes to nuclear power, there is no end in sight. billion after billion of taxpayer money. my understanding is that the nuclear power industry is unable to get support insurance from wall street and the private sector because it is too risky and that we have a price anderson piece of federal legislation which guarantees that if, god forbid, there were a major nuclear power disaster in this country, taxpayers would have to pay billions and billions and billions of dollars in liability. in my wrong about that? >> senator, there are really

two tears to the price-anderson system. the first tier is private insurance. >> absolutely. and after the first $15 billion, with the taxpayers have to pay? >> they would. >> many of my colleagues would also say get government off the backs of the business community. why doesn't the nuclear industry go and get private insurance? we believe in the genius of the private sector. why doesn't the nuclear industry get private insurance? >> as far as i am aware, nobody in the power industry has tried to do this. >> of the federal government has stepped in because nobody has thought about going to wall street and said we do not like the federal government. >> the price anderson structure has been in place for a very

long time. >> that's right. would you agree with me that because we are so concerned about our deficit, we may want to end price anderson? are you going to work with me on that? because we do not want the federal government involved, right? i have no comment on that. the new plan has $8 billion of loan guarantees. my question, once again, why are we getting the federal government involved in the genius of the private sector. why do we need loan guarantees? why are they not going to wall street? if we can make nuclear power so safe, why are they not going? last point that i want to make, if we are going to get rid of the waste that exists, nuclear waste in vermont and plants all

over the country, it is a very, very expensive proposition. do you think we think that the private sector to get involved in that rather than tens of billions of dollars of federal money? anyone think that is a good idea? i do not think i hear anything. despite all the talk from my friends about how the government should not be picking winners and losers, our government 60 years ago picked a winner. that winner is the nuclear power industry. tens of billions of direct subsidies are going to that industry. my last question in this regard is when does it end? i am a believer in sustainable energy. i believe it is absolutely appropriate that when you have new technologies it does receive federal support. nuclear power is now 60 years old. it is a mature industry.

when do we get it off the government welfare programs? when is it able to stand on its own? >> as i indicated earlier, the economic issues are really beyond our scope? >> do you think the federal government can bear another 60 years supporting these guys? >> i would prefer that to the department of energy. >> how many more years do you think the federal government can support the nuclear industry? >> i would go to the laws executed by the department of energy. >> one of the things we want to make sure is that they have the financial resources to support safe operation. it is very important that these facilities can finance the plans, can insure that they have an appropriate work force.

in the end, these finances do have an impact on safety. >> but why can the private sector make them safe? my friends over here tell me about the genius of the private sector. they do not want the government involved. why can the private sector not pay for that? >> we stay out of specific decisions and try to remain an objective determiner of safety. no more would we want to make safety decisions based on cost in a good way than in a bad way. >> how many years does the federal government have to subsidize -- >> i think these are decisions for the political leadership, not for the industry. >> federal government has picked winners and losers. the big winner is the nuclear power industry. and all of my conservative

friends who want the government not to be involved in energy are very silent on the decision to pump tens of billions of dollars into nuclear power. i yield the floor. >> let me start by saying a short response to senator sanders. i disagree with everything he is saying. [laughter] i made a request back in december. i asked a question for the record that you send me something talking about the allegation of harassment and intimidation that you are being accused of. i asked what actions you plan to take to address the allegations. the one to respond to that briefly? >> i appreciate your question.

as we talked about at the last hearing, anything i have done anything unintentionally to feel -- >> know, the accusations are there. how are you going to respond? >> as i said i think at the last hearing, i have never done anything intentionally to intimidate or do things i think were being talked about the last time. in the end, what i think i am interested in is making sure that we continue to do our job, that the staff is focused on the important safety mission, that the commission makes timely decisions in an effective way. >> ok, that is what you said last time. let me just get to this thing, the first time in 34 years we have issued a license to build 10 new reactors. we want to move forward with this. you said you split with the rest

of the commission and said i cannot support issuing this license as if fukushima had never happened. i would like to as the other four commissioners you would like to respond to this, number one, get into the record unless it happened before i came down here, the differences between the regulatory performance in japan and the united states. i'm talking about the fact that they did not have an nrc, which we put together back in 1974. what would you describe as the differences? and then, what japan is doing now, copying the progress we have made. let's start with you. >> thank you. i will does comment briefly. the commissioner and i were in tokyo in january and met with our counterparts in japan for

regulation of their nuclear industry. we had long discussions with leadership about their plans to reform their regulatory structure. i do think they are borrowing heavily from the united states model. i would also say that they're looking at enhancing independence to try to increase technical competence in their leadership. the japanese, through their own reports, the acknowledged that there are some -- have acknowledged that there are some safety improvements they need to make. their system in some areas came up short. >> any of the rest of you want to comment as to some of the basic differences they are facing over there? not you, mr. chairman, we are a heard from new, but the others in terms of what they might be

getting from us. the point i'm trying to make is this. what happened over there and what happened over here, we're talking about different systems, different geology, weather patterns and all of that. maybe you could address some of these differences. because we keep hearing this, and of course the chairman has said we do not want to move forward until we explore fukushima more. >> there are a couple of things that stand out if you looked at what happened in japan. the first point is what you just discussed. the regulatory authority there was very weak technically. they did not have the amount of independence that we have, for example. the second thing is technical. it has to do with the tsunami calculations. they were very poorly done. let's put it that way.

they ignored data from the past. there was a report by a u technical society in japan the pointed out that they had to update the tsunami calculations and that was not done. these two things, to me, stand out. there were both organizational issues and technical issues. >> the fact that they had never put together an independent commission like you guys, any comments on that? >> senator, this is something that the japanese government is wrestling with right now. there is a lot of effort to try to reform their system. they know that there are issues. i have discussed with japanese

officials the issues of independence in regulation, for example, the quality of expertise in regulation. i think they're right in the middle of wrestling with this and i do not think they are -- they reached any conclusions. i hesitate to make a statement about the state of things. i think the regulatory agency will be essential to rebuilding the trust they must have with the public. >> i agree with the comments of my colleagues. one item i would add is that i think the japanese acknowledge that their command-and-control structure in this crisis situation was severely challenged, and even in circumstances where decisionmaking is well established and well rehearsed,

in times of crisis it becomes very difficult. i think the japanese now understand that the lines of authority were not as clear as the need to be in this situation. >> i just want to continue to get on the record how important it is that we develop our nuclear energy. i sit back and i see that it is accepted now that we in the united states have the largest recoverable reserves of oil, gas and coal of any place in the world. our problem is a political problem that will not allow us to exploit our own resources. we're the only country in the world that does that. i see a similar thing here too. it was quite a number of years ago that i was chairman of this subcommittee when republicans were a majority. at that time, we had not had an oversight hearing in 12 months. we started moving forward, getting into the safety of all

of this, and i regretted when fukushima came along that people were assuming that that threat is here. what we want to keep hammering is that it is not. between the opportunities that we have out there with oil, gas, coal and nuclear, we can solve this problem. nuclear -- numerically, we have all given speeches about how long it would take and our dependence on the middle east. we do not have to depend on the middle east. we can exploit our own resources. a big part of that is nuclear energy. thank you. >> i was born in west virginia, a big coal state, and i take pride in the fact that the united states is recognized as the saudi arabia of coal. given what we are learning about our natural gas resources, we're

the saudi arabia of natural gas and i understand we're in a position to begin liquefying and exporting natural gas. like my colleagues here i believe, and have for a long time believed that nuclear energy has to be an important component of our portfolio of sources of energy in this country done right. we have worked hard over the years. it has not been perfect, but we know if it is not perfect, we try to make it better. one of the reasons why, and i'm sorry senator sanders had to leave, but one of the reasons why it is important to ensure we have a vibrant nuclear industry going forward is what i alluded to earlier. i'm not aware of anyone who has died in nuclear accidents, radiation accidents in the history of this country. nuclear power does emit sulfur

dioxide, mercury, ser two -- does not emit sulfur dioxide, mercury, carbon dioxide. it does not have the waste the comes out of the smokestacks of other utilities around the country. in terms of the money, i do not know if anyone has ever tried to sit down and figure out how much money we have saved from the 100 or so nuclear power plants that we do not have to pay for medicaid or medicare for folks to go to hospitals for treatment, for funerals, it would be interesting to run the taliban and and see how much we add up to in -- run the time of -- tab on that and see how much we add up to in savings. i just want to get that out

there. i will say this to our panel. it is my understanding that the commission has decided to move ahead with rulemaking to address what a facility should do if experience is a loss of all electric power, referred to as a station black out. however, the nrc will have up until 2016 to comply with this new rule once it is final. it is my understanding that losing electrical power for a long period of time was the underlying issue behind much of the failure of fukushima. my question would be, does the nrc require nuclear power plants in this country to address these issues in any way from now until when the rule would become final?

>> as was mentioned, we did issue an order which requires additional impact -- if additional equipment to help mitigate the impact of a loss of power. their portable generators, fuel and these kinds of things, and the ability to connect that power to the vital system. that is the short-term enhancement that would be there to get us through to the time when we have the permanent changes made. i would also add that plants do have a requirement to deal with a loss of power. right now, we do not think those requirements are sufficient. fukushima showed us that it is likely days, not ours that they will have to cope with this sort of situation. it is not that there is a lack

of requirements in this area. we just do not think it is where we will want it to be in a couple of years. >> anything to add to that? all right. my next question is, about three of four months ago, as the chairman if the day-to-day nrc work was being compromised by staff working on fukushima recommendations. i specifically asked about the licensing of new reactors and the read-licensing of current reactors. the chairman responded that there may be some delays in the real licensing of current reactors due to the constraint in resources. i followed up with a question for the record. i asked how many staff were working for re-licensing for fukushima and how many were working on re--- before

fukushima and how many were working on it today. he replied that 82 were working on it before, 72 now. that did not seem like a large amount of resources. i also asked about delays, and i did not get a clear answer from any view. let me just ask again, is the day today nrc staff work being compromised with the staff working on fukushima recommendations? do you expect delays in licensing and or re-licensing because of that, and if there are any extreme gaps that would reduce performance, what do you need, if anything, to fill those gaps? >> senator, i am not aware of any significant impacts that the

fukushima is having on licensing. there are some small impacts. our executive director for operations is doing a very good job of managing priorities for the staff work. i'm not aware of there being any significant impacts. >> i agree. >> there certainly are impacts. we have put a large number of people working on the fukushima effort so low priority activities will not be done. in the area of licensing, probably the most significant impact will be in the area of extended reviews. those will likely take longer than we had originally anticipated. but again, certainly nothing that would have an impact on safety. our safety efforts and oversights will continue.

it is simply staff expertise that we do not have an additional financial resources will not addition -- will not necessarily bring that. >> i have no additional information than the written response i provided on march says. i would just emphasize my agreement with the chairman. it is resources for critical skills sets, meaning some of these require nation expertise and we have a limited number -- niche expertise and we have a limited number of experts. >> i have asked this question multiple times within the agency to make sure i understand how our fukushima efforts have invented things like license renewal activities. it -- affected things like

license renewal activities. it seems that our staff has been able to manage this very effectively and if somebody had to be moved to fukushima, there was another person prepared to take on their work. we have managed without a major interruption to our important work. >> thank you for those responses. we have been joined by the senator from new mexico. welcome. you are recognized. >> thank you very much. thank you to the commission for being here. i first wanted to ask about several of the priority recommendations from the nrc task force may not be implemented until 2016, four years from now and five years from the fukushima disaster. the average american, it seems to me, expects the government to

keep them safe from disasters that nuclear power plants. why does it take five years to implement short-term safety recommendations following the worst nuclear disaster in a generation? >> one area right now where we know there will be some challenges is in analyzing seismic risk, earthquake risk. the simple answer to that is that the industry does not have the experts to do this. i think that is indicative of the fact that this is not an issue that we probably paid enough attention to in terms of updating our requirements, updating our standards, our skills and our knowledge base. that has clearly, i think, been exposed as a weakness and that is why it is going to take us time because there are limited people who can do these analyses, and they have to be shared among the various licensees that need this work. in an area in particular -- that

area in particular that is part of the reason. >> are there any other reasons? i can understand that. are there other reasons? >> there is a certain point at which is technically complex. it does take time to do the analyses. once, for instance, we understand what the problems are at the plant. proposals need to be made as to how to fix those. those things take time. we cannot do this overnight. i think it is reasonable to shoot for a target to get it all done in five years. that may mean getting all parts of the plan changed as well. i am not confident right now that we are on target to do that for everything we need to do. >> to any of the other commissioners have comments on that or question on what the chairman said?

>> i appreciate the question very much. i would like to comment that a foundational element to the commission's actions here have been the near term task force findings that there is no imminent risk to continued operation of our existing nuclear power plants. if there had been defined -- a finding of imminent risk, we would have shut them down. a more measured approach is appropriate given that the initial finding. >> i would like to add that may be the impression is that we are doing something about seismic now. this is an issue that has been a concern for decades. the plants have been found safe

by our staff. there has been new information by the u.s. geological survey that is now being evaluated. it is not like we're looking at the issue for the first time. they are safe, as far as i'm concerned. >> senator, i appreciate your question on this. i think it is one of the things that is very important to emphasize. as the agency goes through this process, we will be prioritizing based on the hazard risk presented by -- presented at each individual plant. i think you'll find that as we move forward, you will see as having greater activity on sites after we go through the national hazard assessment. we will deal with the plants that need to be dealt with first. >> thank you.

i understand there are dozens of nuclear power plants throughout the country whose operating licenses are about to expire. these plants are seeking to extend their licenses for another 20 years beyond the original projected life span of the plants. to all u.s. nuclear plants have to meet all of the new safety standards, or do older plants get exemptions from new standards? >> in general, as we get new requirements we will in some cases require plants to update to those requirements and in some cases we will not. it depends on the particular issue any particular way the plant was licensed. if you go back to the very first plants in this country, they were not licensed at a time when we had a generic set of basic safety requirements or basic

design requirements. some of those plants are licensed to a very different set of standards. there is variety in the way the plants are licensed and the requirements that have been applied to different plants. when it comes to the re- licensing itself, it is like when you get a driver's license every five years or 10 years, you send something in in the mail and you get a new license often. our license renewal is not a brand new licensing action. we do not require that for a license extension. we require that they have programs in place to ensure that the plant will deal with the aging components that are

important to safety. that is the decision we made and the basis for our decision about license extension. >> to any of the other commissioners have thoughts or comments on that question or what has been said? >> i think that the gentleman is right that we look at the subset for the license requirements. once the license is extended, they are subject to requirements like everyone else. >> the point here is that they have been given exemptions in the past. post-fukushima, are you going to see if those are safe, in light of what has gone on? and what you have learned from the process and the accident? >> i am not aware of any exemptions.

>> can i do one more question? >> i do not know, what do you think. >> of senator, i did not see you. >> go-ahead. >> mr. chairman, nuclear power makes up about 80% of the french power supply. the french nuclear industry is much different from ours, as you know, with a much more involved government role. i learned that officials there are going to require safety requirements -- safety equipment in preparation for disaster is even worse than what it could cause. when will the nrc take similar measures? >> i am reluctant to comment on

the french because we are focused on what we are doing in that takes up quite a bit of our time. we are focused on preventing severe accidents, making sure all the plants can handle the external hazards, earthquakes, flooding, other challenges like that. then we get into mitigation. if mother nature does something we cannot plan for, we minimize the damage. the last piece is to make sure we have a robust emergency preparedness system to respond in the event that all of those other things we planned for fail. that is really the approach we have taken is to bolster each of those three areas with new requirements in some regard. my limited understanding of what the french are attempting to do is to make everything a little

more robust, putting greater infrastructure to protect equipment from external factors. some of the things they are doing are things we have already required even before fukushima for some of our plants. sometimes it is a little bit hard to compare the changes they are making to the changes we are. i think in general in the international community there is a lot of consensus about red -- about what really needs to be done. there are differences because of the uniqueness of each country and its regulatory program. >> the thrust of my question was just to get to the issue of safety. are other countries pushing more

into safety? in hindsight, is it going to be found that they took actions that they had the safest plants? all of you have said over and over again that we have very safe nuclear plants. i hope you are looking at everything we do, from exemptions to additional policies that are going to be put in place, new licensing, to make sure we have the safest plants in the world. thank you for that and i very much appreciate your courtesy's. i'm going to slip out for a meeting here, but i may come back and ask an additional question. >> those are excellent questions. one of the things we're trying to do here is to learn from disaster. einstein used to say in adversity lies opportunity. terrible opportunity in japan for us to learn from the

mistakes that we have made -- that they have made. somebody somewhere around the world is going to figure this out. somebody's going to figure out not only how to drive additional energy from the fuel rods but also where they have to be s board. folks have been working on it for a number of years. i hope we do. i hope we are the first. but in the interim, we're going to need some repository's around the country to store the stuff. the idea of learning from others in the world, letting them learned from us, we can learn from them as well. >> i went to france and toward their nuclear plants. the big question i had, because

as you know, new mexico has the first waste isolation project. i was trying to find out from the french, because they are putting all their eggs in the nuclear basket, where are they moving in terms of the storage of waste. i kept asking the question place after place, group after group, they said they were waiting for america to find a permanent solution. >> when were you there? >> during the time i was state attorney general and had the opportunity to travel over on a program that was an exchange. i think that was 1995-1996. >> thank you. anything else? i will telegraph a pitch here. i sometimes like to invite the

witnesses to offer closing statements. is there anything you'd like to add as a benediction? while you're thinking about that, i'm going to ask one more question, and then we will do that. chairman, we know a lot about what happened in japan and have adopted lessons learned from the accident year in the u.s. we are still learning and will continue to do so for a long time, maybe for all time. based on the additional information coming from japan, how has the commission ensured that the nrc will continue to evaluate and analyze the information so that it is incorporated into the current process? >> we have an established japan lessons learned directorate. as new information comes in, they will evaluate the

information and determine if it needs to get added formally to the tasks we have in front of us. they will be reporting back to the commission on a periodic basis, every six months, i believe, if they have new information. we're well prepared to do with new information as it comes along. >> go ahead and give me your closing thoughts. chairman, why don't you go first? >> i would just say that today is thursday, the first day of the march madness basketball tournament, and we are in our lessons learned and enhancements in the first round of the tournament. we have a long way to go to get to the final four. the progress has been substantial, but we need to keep the focus and keep the effort in getting to the final four.

i think as time goes on, interest wanes rather than increases. i think it is important that we keep the focus because there will be additional challenges as time goes on. >> i strongly agree that we need to keep focus on these issues and that there is a long road ahead, but i will also say that i am very comfortable with where we are as an agency. i think the process we have followed today has stood us in good stead, the staff, the steering committee etc. have really put us in a very good position. along with other colleagues we have had a chance in the last two days to meet with a number of international counterparts. i have met with 12 in the last couple of days. comfortable with where we are. >> i do agree with my colleagues

regarding fukushima, but i would like to say something else. senator grosso earlier quoted from the union of concerned scientists and i said i disagreed with the statement contained in the report and chairman boxer implied that we were bashing the author david lough bomb. i would like to correct that impression. i have great respect for david. i do not agree with him all the time, and in this particular case i do disagree. i do disagree, but i have great respect for him. in fact, yesterday i invited him and met with him for 50 minutes to see what he thinks about the current state of affairs. that is the respect i have for him. >> i'm glad you made that clear vacation. thank you for saying that. >> -- that clarification.

thank you for saying that. >> my comment was going to be the same as the chairman's that i have tremendous confidence in the process the nrc has followed to get us to the point where we have prioritized appropriately. we're moving forward on high priority items and i think we have done a very searching review of lessons learned and i think we are focused on the right things. not everything can be pursued at the same pace. i think we put the emphasis, appropriately, on the highest priority items. i think we follow it tremendously rigorous process and getting where we are today. >> a couple of thoughts. first, i think it is always easy, since we are at the center of this as the regulatory agency of the united states, to think that what we do is very important, and it is, but there

are so many other people who have taken a role in thinking about these issues including the union of concerned scientists, the american nuclear society. there are a lot of people in this country thinking about this including the nuclear industry. i think it is really important that the american people understand that the nuclear industry has not resisted what we have been doing. they have offered very good ideas on their own. i think they should be recognized for the good work they have done. i also wanted to close just to let you know that when we visited the fukushima site, the most lasting impression was not what we saw at the site, but what we saw on the way to the

site. going through neighborhood after neighborhood, past business after business, and realizing there are no people on their -- realizing there are no people there. it leaves a lasting impression. the last thing people seemed to do when they left their homes was draw the drapes to a close. i'm not sure what reflection that is in the human psyche, but that is what i saw time after time. we have to make sure nothing like that ever happens in this country. >> that is a very poignant comment. we are vigilant. hopefully we will not have to close the drapes as they did over there, here. in the meantime, hopefully they can open their drapes again. that is what we're trying to do. i read in the newspaper the the federalat

reserve has been conducting yet another stress test on the major banks. 15 of 19 passed with flying colors and four others have some work to do. i think the nrc has been going through a stress test of its own. in terms of how to grapple with fukushima, how to be supportive and helpful to the people there, at the same time to make sure we learn whatever lessons are to be garnered from their tragedy and to ensure the we infuse those lessons and deploy them an inappropriate way here with our nuclear power plants. in terms of what you have shared with us today, we're doing pretty well with that stress test. we have a couple of nuclear power plants that have been licensed for the first time in some 30 years.

their construction has begun, i think with appropriate federal support, director indirect. -- direct indirect. i am not one who supports tens of billions of dollars of federal funding of the nuclear industry, but at the same time, i support federal funds for nuclear and i think it is appropriate for us to support wind, biofuels, clean coal, really clean coal. the other thing i did not mention, and i do not know if it was mentioned here today, the desire to open a new 81,000. i think that is something you can feel good about. -- ap 1000.

getting that is something you can feel good about. i think we are at a better place today. i mention that i was on the border of pakistan right up against afghanistan a year or two ago when some many pakastani were evaluating because of the terrible flooding there. i had a chance to visit a refugee camp where about 150,000 refugees were still in camp. the united states red cross had provided most of the resources. most people were not aware that we had done that. before we left, the folks around the camp said, would you like to address the people?

i talk to them through the translator about the golden rule. when your children have no food, our children have no food. when your children have no medical care, our children and a medical care. when your children have no place to live, our families have no mediplace to live. i talk to them about the golden rule, and i think they got it. i would ask you to keep in mind the golden rule and to treat the commissioners -- keep that in mind. i would say that again today. this is something a share with my colleagues a whole lot as well as a lesson we need to learn and relearn every day. i'm pleased with today's hearing, pleased with the work that has been done.

thank you for being here today. i would note for the record that some of our colleagues were unable to join us. they will have two weeks to submit questions and materials for the record and i would ask our witnesses to respond promptly to those questions so they can become part of the hearing record. again, each of you, we appreciate the work you're doing, your time today, and we will continue to work with you to make sure that everything we do, including nuclear power, we do better. with that, this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> if there is anything that concerns the american family today, it is best, that the government has not kept up with the new facts of american family life. nearly 65% of all mothers are working, part-time, full-time, all of the time, keeping the family together, making ends meet, making america more prosperous. working mothers need affordable

day care and the pay they deserve. too often, they cannot get either. >> this saturday, maryland senator barbara mikulski will become the longest serving female senator in congressional history. she will surpass the record set by edith rogers, who served from 1925-1960. watch the senator's speech as and other c-span appearances searchable and online at the c- span library. the centers for disease control and prevention holds a hearing today regarding a new anti- tobacco campaign. health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius will kick off the event. you can see live coverage at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span-3. here on c-span, we will be live at 1:00 p.m. eastern with a

discussion on national security issues in the presidential campaign. we will discuss the role of syrian and unrest, nuclear iran, and withdrawal from afghanistan. that is at 1:00 p.m. eastern. >> homespun cloth would be much more rough textured, much less time than the kinds of goods they could import, but by wearing it, women were visibly and physically displaying their political sentiment. >> sunday night at 9:00, the role of women during the revolutionary war, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span-3. >> british prime minister david cameron continues his visit to the u.s. today in the new york city area. he was in new jersey this

morning to meet with mayor cory booker about programs his city is trying. this afternoon, he goes to new york university to answer questions from students. last night, president obama welcomed the prime minister to a state dinner. there were tense on the cell -- there were toasts on the south lawn of the white house. this is about 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and mrs. obama accompanied by the prime minister of great britain, northern england and ireland as well as mrs. cameron.

♪ >> good evening, everyone. please have a seat. welcome to the white house. i was just telling the prime minister that so far, the evening has been successful because i have not stepped on michelle's train. my main goal this evening. michelle and i could not be

more honored that you could join us as we host our great friends, the prime minister of the united kingdom, david cameron, and his remarkable wife, samantha. give them a round of applause. why not? [applause] as i said this morning, this visit gives us an opportunity to return the gracious hospitality that her majesty, queen elizabeth, as well as david and samantha and all of the british people showed us during our visit to london last year. i know michelle looks forward to returning because, as she announced yesterday, she will be leading the u.s. delegation for the opening ceremonies of the summer olympics in london. [applause] i am jealous.

now, i am so grateful for all of the time that david and i have had together. as we have learned, you can never tell how things will get reported as a consequence of our interactions. when we met two years ago, we exchanged beers of our hometowns. one news story said david cameron and barack obama cemented their special relationship by hitting the bottle. [laughter] when we had a barbecue for some of our service members, we decided to roll up our sleeves and flip some burgers ourselves. one reporter called it a brave and foolish move. another expressed surprise at our confidence. michelle remarked the same way. when david and i got beat badly in table tennis by some london

kids, one newspaper asked the head coach of the british olympic women's team to critique our performance. he said obama talked a lot and david overhits the ball. both of them looked a little confused. [laughter] but in moments like that and in all of our interactions, i have learned this -- in good times and in bed, he is the kind of partner you want at your side. i trusted. he says woody does and he does woody says. -- he says what he does and he does what he says. i will say something else today.

all of us have seen how they have shown a measure of strength that few of us will ever know. tonight, i think you for bringing that same strength and solidarity to our partnership, even if you do overlook the ball. is by no means the first prime minister to celebrate the deep relationship between our people. i was humbled to offer my own last year when i had the opportunity to address parliament in westminster hall. i would like to leave you tonight with two simple images. from different times and places, decades apart, these are moments that expressed the spirit of our alliance and the character of our countries. the first is from the bullets,

when months after months -- from the blitz, when month after month, they endured bombs from the sky, covered in smoke, with one thing shining through, the dome of st. paul's cathedral, tall and proud and strong. the other image we know from our lives on that awful september day with that unforgettable picture of the manhattan skyline covered in smoke and dust and one thing shining through, our statue of liberty, tall and proud and strong. in those two moments, you can see all you need to know about who we are and what we said together tonight. in war and in peace, in times of plenty and in times of hardship, we stand tall and proud and strong together.

and as free peoples dedicated to the freedom of all human beings, we will never apologize for our way of life. that is what david's grandfather fought along with us yanks after d-day, why my grandfather marched across europe in patton's army. that is why tonight, both american and british soldiers are getting ready to go on patrol shoulder to shoulder in afghanistan. that is why our to build -- why our diplomats and development workers stand side-by-side to save a child from drowning or famine. that is when leaders of our two countries can embrace the same shared heritage and the promise of our alliance even if we come from different political traditions, even if the prime minister is younger than nearly

two hundred years of his predecessors, even if the president looks a little different than his predecessors. and, david, it is why our young children and children across our countries can sleep well knowing that we're doing everything in our power to build a future that is worthy of their dreams. in closing, let me just say that in intending to make history to that, thought it would be the first american president to make it through a visit without quoting winston churchill. but then i saw this and i thought,,, this is churchill. i could not resist. [laughter] it was december 1941. these were the words that sir winston spoke -- "i will say

that he must have a blind soul who cannot see that a great purpose and design is being worked at here below of which we have the honor to be faithful servants." so i would like to propose a toast. to her majesty, the queen, on her diamond jubilee, to our dear friends david and samantha, too great purpose and design of our lives. the we remain now and always its faithful servants. cheers, everyone. david. [applause]

>> president obama, first lady, ladies and gentlemen. it is a tremendous honor to be your this evening. i want to thank you for putting on such a great dinner and for making our visit so special over the last two days. and thank you also for those strong and beautiful words you have just spoken. michele, i am sure that, like sam, you often wonder what happens when your husband goes out for a night out with the guys. [laughter] so maybe i should come clean about last night. we went to basketball and we had a real man-to-man chat. barack tried to confuse me about stopping -- confuse me by talking about bracketology, but i did likewise telling him about the rules of cricket. [laughter]

and we also talked about our beautiful wives. [applause] she is not too impressed by these things. she said, everything you did was on television. you were surrounded by the presidential bodyguards. presumably, you did not get up to anything. [laughter] both barack and i have said a lot today about the importance of the relationship between our two countries and our people. like my predecessors, i am proud of our essential relationship and of britain's strong national bond with the united states of america. i feel it in my bones. there is of course a great history of close relationships between u.s. presidents and british prime ministers. importantly, these seven regardless of the political

parties they happen to represent. her majesty, the queen, is a great authority on the matter. she has seen -- and she likes to tell me this -- no fewer than 12 british prime ministers and 11 american presidents during her time on the throne and i am sure that everyone here would like to pay tribute to her incredible service and selfless duty in this her diamond jubilee year. [applause] her majesty's first prime minister was, of course, winston churchill, a regular guest here at the white house. i will not quote from george show, but about churchill. as roosevelt's secretary wrote, "churchill is a trying guess. he drinks like a fish. he smokes like a chimney. he has regular teen spirit works

nights, six days, and turns the clock upside-down." and for those of you who wonder why the british prime minister now stays at blair house rather than the white house, simply observe this. [laughter] there is the famous story of winston churchill famously found naked in the white house afte bathtub. this happened in 1941. and the white house bought blair house in 1942. [laughter] there have been some total disconnects. edward heath and richard nixon took personal orders with each other to new and extra shooting levels. despite this, richard nixon arranged for someone to pay pour the swimming pool at the prime minister's country residence. incidentally, this swimming pool now has a serious and possibly

terminal leak. i hope you will not find it amiss, as they say here in the white house for the first time in 40 years these words, it is time to call in the plumbers. [laughter] turning to obama -- barack and michele have been perfectly fine to michelsam and me. we have a pretty good pressure. it is frank and honest. we talk about issues rationally. we do not have to remind each other of the basic threats that we face. we know them. but there are three things about barack that really stand up for me -- strength, moral authority, and wisdom strength because barack has been strong when required to defend his national interest. under president obama's leadership, america got osama

bin laden. [applause] and together with british and coalition forces, america has fundamentally weakened al qaeda. the president says what he will do and he sticks with it. i will never forget that the uncle on libya when he told me exactly what role -- the phone call on libya when he told me exactly what role america would play. he kept his end of the bargain to the letter. we kept our part of the bargain, too. the world is better off without osama bin laden and the world is better off without gaddafi, too. [applause] moral authority because barack understands that the means meanness every much as the ends. america must do everything, but to provide moral leadership, that america must do in the

right way, too. the first president i stayed in school was theodore roosevelt. he talked about speaking softly and carrying a big stick. that is barack's approach. in following it, he has pressed the reset button on the moral authority of the entire free world. wisdom because barack has not rushed in to picking fights, but has stirred america's resources of hard and soft power. he has taken time to make difficult decisions -- drawing down troops in iraq and surging in afghanistan. he has found a new voice for america among the arab people. in america, as in britain, the future depends on making the best of every citizen. both our nations have a starkly been held back by inequality -- have historically been held back by inequality. education reform ensures that

equality is available for all. the amazing courage of rosa parks, the leadership of martin luther king, and the insert -- the as personal actions of the civil rights movement led politicians to write equality into the law and made real the promise of america for all her citizens. but in the fight for justice and the struggle for freedom, there is no and because there is so much more to do to ensure that every human being can fulfill their potential. that is why our generation faces a new civil rights struggle, to seek the prize of the future that is open to every child as never before. barack has made this one of the goals of his presidency, the goal he is pursuing with enormous courage. and it is fitting that a man whose own personal journey defines the promise and potential of this unique nation should be working to fulfill the hopes of his country in this way. barack, it is an honor to call you and allied, a partner, and a

friend. you denied get to choose the circumstances you have to deal with as a president or a prime minister. and you do not get to choose the leaders that you have to work with. but all i can say is that it is a pleasure to work with someone with moral strength, with clear reason, and with fundamental decency in this task of renewing our great national alliance for today and for the generations to follow. with that, i propose a toast to the president, to the first lady, and to the people of the united states of america. cheers. [applause]

♪ >> during the course of their meetings, they talked about operations in afghanistan as well as the violence in syria and iran's nuclear program. president obama will welcome the g8 countries this month. the summit is set for may in chicago. you can get all of our coverage of prime minister cameron's entire visit at c- span.org. the vice-president just finished up a speech in toledo, ohio, his first of the 2012 campaign, telling the union audience, the union on a rescue

saved more than 1 million jobs. this just wrapped up in toledo. he was introduced by marcy captor. it is about 30 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> please welcome congresswoman marcy captor. [applause]

>> good morning. what a pleasure it is to welcome back president -- oh, excuse me -- almost -- vice-president joseph biden to the united autoworkers. [applause] i know that president barack obama knows exactly where joe biden is today. to we are really so thrilled at least start spring, right before st. patrick's day, which i know has a fondness in this vise president's heart, to thank him for his incredible leadership. you know, his dad had an automotive dealerships when he was growing up. for the believing in us and believing that the american automobile industry could be reborn and could reignite the

american dream again for all of us and for america. [applause] president barack obama took a chance because all of us can remember back about three years ago when, literally, general motors, chrysler jeep, and ford hung on a string. and we did not know. we had a huge fight to try to support president obama and vice president biden in their effort to refinance and save this lone star american industrial platform. and in the congress, i was thinking that, i think we only got two hundred 37 votes out of 435 in the house to refinance this industry.

you think about who were those other folks who simply could not understand why this was america's most important industry. because without it, we do not have the defense of the nation neither. we do not have the defense of the nation. [applause] so a million jobs hung in the balance. over 120,000 right here in the state of ohio. thousands here in our own community. today, as we stand here and welcome vice-president back to toledo, we know that this industry is reborn. our plants are open again. you are working. and there are people being hired. [cheers and applause] the truth is one out of eight jobs in our state are tied to this industry.

and if you think about some things like the textile company's of our country, half of what they sell goes into the automotive industry. semiconductor industry -- half of all those products go in to the automotive industry. this is a big american industry. and who would have but three years ago that general motors would have been at the top of the stack again? [applause] to president obama and vice president biden, american ingenuity and hard work are no better represented than by the people here today who are celebrating with us. and i have someone who spent 29 years in the automotive industry of our community and country --

shelley winston, as many of you know, a united auto worker with has worked at ge for decades. she will tell our story and we will send a big thank you out of toledo to vice-president joseph biden and president barack obama. [cheers and applause] >> good morning. it is an honor to meet with you here. my name is shirley winston and i am a proud native ohio and, born and raised right here in toledo. i have done only two things in my career. i serve my country and i built jeeps. [applause] for four years, i was a communications specialist in the air force. for the next 29 years, i work right here in toledo, first in a plant we called the cove and then in the toledo complex.

i still remember my first day at jeep. i walked in there knowing that would be there for the rest of my working life. i would be with jeep until i walked out with a pension. that is how my father did it. that is how my grandfather did it could and that is how workers all over america have always done it. i can even tell you how many jobs i have done at the jeep. i work in the paint job, in the body shop, but mud flaps on cars, and top of antifreeze in the radiators. i sealed the doors and driven cars off at the end of the line. for six years, i was the only woman working in the tire room. [applause] i will never forget when it was almost ended forever. everyone here knows what happened. we all know how close we came to having our whole world come

crashing down around us. i remember waiting by the phone during the bankruptcy after we got laid off, waiting and waiting for some good news while fearing the worst. more than a million of us across the state, across the midwest, and across the country would be out of a job. those of us who helped take care of our parents and siblings, like i do, simply would not be able to. people with mortgage payments and medical bills and tuition to pay would have no where to turn. our community and shops and restaurants and local companies that we support would not have had our business. we would not have pensions that we have worked hard for decade after decade. and america would not have an automobile industry. we have not done anything wrong. we just came to work every day and made great cars.

[cheers and applause] that is true. i cannot describe what it felt like to face their very real possibility that everything i knew would be taken away from me after 29 years on the job. it is the most horrible, frightening feeling. and i cannot describe what it felt like to hear some people say the american auto industry should be left for dead. it is the most shocking and infuriating thing you can hear. but i do not have to describe it. all of you out there know what it is like. if someone else knew what you're going through -- someone else do what we're going through, too. president obama knew what we were feeling and what we were fearing. then president obama made that courageous call. it was not popular. everyone said it would be the wrong political move. but it was the right thing to do. [cheers and applause]

yes, it was the right thing to do. and because he did step up, we're still here. i am still working at the jeep and i am so proud that i am. toledo was a tight knit community and jeep is a family. and thanks to president obama, both jeep and toledo are doing very well. we cannot keep wranglers on a lot. [cheers and applause] i am grateful for the president every day and always will be. [applause] and i am so honored to be able to introduce someone who has been by his side and by our side the whole time. someone who always sticks up for hardworking people, the blue- collar people, the union people. [cheers and applause] please join me in welcoming the vice president of the united

states, joe biden. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. >> you're very welcome. >> thank you. hey, folks, how are you? hello, toledo! >> joe! joe! joe! >> please excuse my back. i apologize. >> for more years! four more years! four more years! four more years! >> thank you. i want to start out by congratulating marcy chapter on two more years. [cheers and applause] and shelley, when the secret service lets me drive -- they do not let us try -- i used to drive those jeeps used to build.

my daughter still drives a jeep. and marcy, i wish my dad had owned a dealership. he did not. he managed it. if he did, i would have been able to have known those new cars that i took my girlfriends to the prom with. i had to borrow them. but i still got them. it is good having a dad in the automobile business, man. [laughter] i am back. your back. and the industry is back. [applause] the president and i made a bet, a simple bet. we bet on you. we bet on american ingenuity. we bet on you and we won. [cheers and applause] chrysler, fastest-growing car company in america. general motors has seen the largest profit in its history. 200 hound -- 200,000 auto jobs lost a four and 400,000 jobs

lost -- two hundred thousand people who had their dignity returned to them, reinstated with a paycheck dathat they can raise a family on. my dad knew something and taught us that all of you know. the job is about a lot more than a paycheck. it is about your dignity. it is about respect. it is a better place in the community. it is about being able to turn to your kids and say it will be ok. that is what the job is about. i do not know if these other guys understand that. and, folks, that is how barack and i measured economic success. whether the middle class is growing or not, that is the measure of success. [cheers and applause] a growing and vibrant middle class with moms and dads, mothers and fathers look the other kids and say, honey, it's

going to be ok. that is what i want to talk to you about today. this is the first of four states that i will be meeting with on behalf of the president. we will be making clear and stark differences between us and our opponents and what is at stake for the middle-class. because it is the middle-class that is at stake in the selection. mitt romney, rick santorum, newt gingrich, these guys have a fundamentally different economic philosophy than we do. our philosophy is one that values the workers and the success of a business. it values the middle-class for the success of our economy. simply stated, we are about promoting the private sector. they are about protecting the privileged sector. [applause] we are for a fair shot and a fair shake.

they are about no rules, no risks, and no accountability. look, there is no clear example -- no clearer example of these two different views of the economy than how we reacted to the crisis of the automobile industry. it is sort of a cautionary tale of how they would run the government again and the economy again if given the chance. remember -- and you do remember -- and shelley, you captured it all -- remember what the headlines were saying when you woke up a couple of years ago. "it is bankruptcy time for gm." and other headliner "crunch times for chrysler." the government must act quickly to prevent the collapse of suppliers. for everyone of you , there are four people in the jobs to find those parts.

a million jobs its stake, a million good jobs were its stake on the assembly line, at the parts factory, at the automobile dealerships. right down to the diners outside of each of those facilities. our friends on the other side, our republican friends, had started a mantra. it said we would make auto companies "words of the state" was there phrase. governor romney was more direct. "led detroit go bankrupt." ing]-hooin he said that what we propose "worse than bankruptcy." he said it would make gm the living dead. newt gingrich said "a mistake." but the guy i work with every day, the president, he did not flinch.

this is a man with steel in his spine. he knew that resurrecting the industry would not be popular. it was absolutely clear in every bit of polling data. and he knew he was taking a chance. but he believed. he would not give up on 1 million jobs and the iconic industry that america invented. at least he would not give it up with a out -- without a real fight. that is the kind of president we all want. the man with courage and conviction. a president willing to take risks on behalf of american workers and the american people. and, folks, that is exactly what we have, president with the courage of his convictions. he made the tough calls and the verdict is in. president obama was right and they were dead wrong! [cheers and applause]

and i say to governor romney, his prediction of the living dead, we have now living proof. a live -- a million jobs saved, 200,000 new jobs created, the toledo powertrain plant with two hundred 50 good paying jobs over the next two years. gm investing two hundred million dollars to build an efficient state speed transmission that the world will say. toledo chrysler assembly complex, preparing to bring non 101,000 new jobs, building the best cars in the world. [applause] building jeeps not only to sell to the united states, but to export abroad. [applause]

all sold right here in ohio. 15,000 good paying union autoworkers' jobs, jobs you can raise a family on, live in a decent neighborhood gonon. american made cars that are once again cars we want to drive and the world wants to buy. and one more thing. the president's historic phil kearny -- fuel efficiency economy cars saving $1.70 trillion at the pump, sitting as from foreign oil dependence. they are against that, too. [applause] but you know, even though the verdict is in, marcy, our republican opponents, they just will not give up. they cannot deny the automobile

industry is back. they cannot deny we are creating good jobs, good paying jobs again. so now they are touting of a new argument that is kind of old and new. they say not only should we not have done it, but had we not done it, the private sector would have done it. they say the private market would have stepped in to save industry. governor romney said the market, wall street "would help lift them out." wrong. any honest expert will tell you that in 2009, no one was lining up to lend general motors or chrysler any money or, for that matter, to lend money to anybody. that includes bain capital. they were not lining up to lend

money to anybody there. [applause] now that that argument doesn't have legs, they have gone to another one, a new argument. they argue that our plan to save the industry was just a giveaway to union bosses and the unions. senator santorum said it was "a payoff to special interests." it is kind of amazing. gingrich and romney and santorum, they do not let the facts get in their way. [laughter] nobody knows better than you and your families the real price we paid to allow this reorganization to take place -- plant closures, wage freezes, lower wages. they know, everybody knows,

these companies would not be in existence today without the sacrifices of all of you and the uaw made. [applause] and then they tell out another argument. they argue that, and if gm and chrysler had gone under, that is ok because ford and other auto companies would have stepped in and filled the void. absolutely 0 evidence for that. and fact, alan mulally said, of ford motor co., the ceo, said that, it gm and chrysler went down, "they would have taken the industry down plus maybe turned the u.s. recession into a depression." fort would have taken up the slack? ford says, hey, now, if you had not been what you did -- if you

had not done what you did, the whole thing would have gone down. economic theories of gingrich, santorum, and romney are bankrupt. [applause] if you give any one of these guys the key to the white house, they will bankrupt the middle class again. [applause] the present and i have a fundamental commitment to dealing the middle class back into the american economy that they have been dealt out of for so long. and ultimately, that is what this election is all about. it is a choice, a clear choice, a choice between a system that is rid and a system that is and a- that is read thrigged system that is fair. a system this is everyone is accountable, not just the middle-class. a system that says that everyone

has a voice, including the people all , much as the people up in the box. a lot of you and your friends and family understand what i'm understand. as a kid, i saw my dad trapped in a city where all the good jobs were gone after world war ii in the early-fifties. i remember walking into my bedroom and he said, joey, dad will have to move away for a year. i will move to wilmington, delaware. and uncle frank is there. it is only 126 miles away. i will try to come back every weekend. there are good job down there. when i get one and i am settled, i will come and get you and mom and foul and jimmy and it will be good. a lot of you and a lot of your friends made that long walk to your kid's bedroom. but because of the actions of the president, things are changing.

today, hundreds of thousands of workers are replacing the longest walks with a different journey. it is a journey that ends with workers were able to go home and say i have a job. i am building cars again. these are amazing cars that people in america and all of the world will want to buy. it is not just the automobile industry coming back. manufacturing is coming back. the middle-class is coming back. america is coming back! workers! worker-by worker, home-by home, community-by-community -- this country is coming back because of you! god bless you all and may god protect our troops. bill build those cars! [cheers and applause]

♪ ♪ ♪ how come all the pretty girls like you are taken, baby?

♪ i have been looking somewhat like you to save ♪ not to be so damn complicated ♪ keep me in mind ♪ somewhere down the road ♪ keep me in mind the data you will love me only think about this some day ♪ and the way i will raise the day after day away with you ♪ we always go our separate ways ♪ but no one can love you, baby ♪ the way i do ♪ keep me in mind ♪ somewhere down the road you might get lonely

♪ keep me in mind ♪ and i praise the day that you will love me only ♪ toughworld can be very ♪ if there is no one else to love ♪ keep me in mind ♪ if ever you wanted me ♪ i will be your man i would be a fool to let you go ♪ with someone else mehatever you want from ♪ i'll be your man all just to have

you for myself ♪ keep me in mind ♪ somewhere down the road you might get lonely ♪ keep me in mind day you wille the love me only the world can be very tough ♪ just hold on to me ♪ when there's no one else to love ♪ keep me in mind mindep me in ♪ of be your man ♪ keep in mind ♪ i'll hold you, darling ♪ keep me in mind ♪

>> vice president biden this morning speaking at the united owneworkers union. this is the first in a series of campaign speeches the vice president is said to do. if you want to watch that and again, it is in our video library at c-span.org. on the republican campaign trail, rick santorum is in pr which holds its primary on sunday. gingrich is illinois at a town hall meeting. ron paul is hosting a rally at the university of missouri in columbia. it holds its caucuses on saturday. mitt romney does not have any campaign events. he is doing something -- some fundraising. we are following the road to the white house, campaign 2012, and

all the caucuses results as well on the c-span networks. you can check out c-span.org /campaign2012 for the delegate counts. >> the strong support we have in our region of the country from where this movement originated gives us an excellent base to go to november the fifth with. in the beginning, there were at least 107 electoral votes that comprised the south and border. you couple that with a few other states of the union and you have two hundred 70 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency. >> as kennedy's campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website to see video of the contenders who had a

lasting impact on american politics. >> there has been spirited disagreement and i believe the considerable hot arguments. misled't let anybody be by that. you have given here in this hall a moving and dramatic push of how americans to honestly defer poll ranks and move forward for the american well- being, shoulder to shoulder. >> the centers for disease control and prevention is holding a briefing at this hour to explain new national anti- tobacco campaign. they're showing part of a campaign now. they're hearing from secretary kathleen sebelius and u.s. surgeon general regina benjamin. that is on right now on c-span 3. we will be live with a

discussion on national-security issues on the presidential campaign. the american enterprise institute scholars will discuss the role of the syrian unrest, nuclear ambitions in iran, and u.s. troop withdrawal from afghanistan. that is coming up at 1:00 p.m. eastern. until then, we will hear from this morning's "washington journal" on veterans mental- health. host: dr. cameron is here to talk with us about mental health and the military and the armed forces. dr. richard, how would you describe the mental health aspects of the armed services health benefits at this time? guest: the army and the other

services have been at war for several years. they are basically tired. there is a lot of ptsd, posttraumatic stress disorder. there are some traumatic brain concussions. and there are psychological effects, depression, anxiety, and simply being tired. host: are we seeing an increase in ptsd and tbi from these two wars worst and we have in the past? guest: we have much better data than we have had in the past. to remind you and our viewers, ptsd, posttraumatic stress disorder, was unrecognized as a diagnosis until well after the end of the vietnam war. we know it happened before. we called it other names, such as shellshocked or battle fatigue. but these words, we have really been measuring it. we have had a series of surveys

in the theater. we refer to them as mcats. we have gone into the theater and measure the psychological well-being of the troops. and what we're seeing, and surprisingly overtime, are the symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder gradually rising. it is between 15% to 25% of the troops that have anxiety, ptsd, and oppression. but it does show that the effects of long years of war have taken its toll. host: what is the treatment? what do the armed services offer? guest: there is a wide range of treatments available. for chile, the thing about ptsd, if you catch it early and -- fortunately, the thing about

ptsd, if you catch it early, you can treated better. some people get symptoms. in many cases, it goes away. in many cases, you need treatment. there are two main types of treatment to be affected. one is talking therapy and there are types of talking therapy -- cognitive therapy. and then there's medication. there are a number of medications that are helpful. there are also treatments that we do not have a good scientific basis for yet, but i think they're very promising. and they are complementary alternative treatments or medicine. for example, acupuncture and acute pressure -- there are some preliminary trust fund that effective. one of my pet interest is the use of their dogs. among soldiers will relate to dogs or relate to trainers and psychiatrists and therapist who have dogs in a way that they

don't if they are just ask to go see a shrink. so there are other alternative treatments that are emerging. and there's a lot of research on the conventional treatment and alternative treatments. >host: yo host: you retired from the army. you think they're doing enough to prevent mental health issues in the armed services? guest: i think they're doing everything they can. but we have two 0.4 million veterans of iraq and afghanistan. that is a lot of people. many service members and veterans do not want to seek help. so even if the army and the other services are offering it, it takes a lot for someone to get the courage to go see a psychiatrist or other therapist. host: we will put the numbers up on the screen a few of like to talk with dr. elstep cameron

ritchie. we set aside our fourth line for active duty and for veterans. we will also flash up there are electronic addresses. do you see an increase in issues in mental health issues with some of the repeated deployments that we have seen in these last two wars? guest: of course. we see an increase in mental- health issues and in general issues about life and coping. one of the big problems for soldiers is actually coming back, reintegrating. what is it like to be in civilian society again, especially if nobody around you has been there and done that?

we see that especially with the reserve and guard. we do not have other military around them. had you get used to normal everyday life washing dishes, mullen the lawn when you have been the mayor of a small town in iraq? or how do you relax when for a year or 15 months, every time you went outside the base, you might have a sniper and on the basis might have a mortar attack? it can be very hard to come back home. and then when your home, your thinking about the next time you go again. some people do not bother to reintegrate because they think they will just turn around and they do not want to be reconnected. that is especially hard on family members. by family members, and it does mean the wife and kids. but parents and siblings and other people who expect a person to come back and embrace someone open arms and do not understand why the service member may be kind of aloof and cold and distant. host: dr. richie got her

undergraduate degree at harvard. she got her medical degree at george washington. she did a psychiatric internships, fellowships, and residency at walter reed. and several masters and follow- fellowships at the uniforms services university. guest: the army paid for medical school. it was a great deal. after a finished my payback, they kept offering me further assignments and further education. as you mentioned, i did to fellowships while those in the army. the other services have similar programs called health profession scholarships or military medical schools where i got my mpa. for me, it was a great deal and i have had a great career with it. host: what do you look for when