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 pros go after the 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 how 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 ahead restarting the nuclear industry, ahead but the record indicates 0 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 jaczko, 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 commissioner svinicki 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 dealing with nuclear issues for invictus senator john warner 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 -- commissioner 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 leader.

it would be a travesty, i think, if we reached a situation where commissioner svinicki'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 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 now issued 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, mach 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 mach 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 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 reactors 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 submittal or december 31, 2016, which ever comes first. licensees 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 regions 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 century. in his testimony on behalf of the commission, chairman 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 basis 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 conduct system lockdowns by teams of relevant experts and undertake substantial re- evaluation of seismic and flooding 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 benefited from the insight 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 indicated that the accident 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 carnegie 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 decision-making 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 while we have moved quickly, deals with confident of the decisions we have made to date. they will address any risks we reveal. this week, we met with our

international colleagues. from my conversations with our colleagues, it is clear that many of the world's regulators have reviewed these issues the same way. the response -- have viewed these issues the same way. they have worked tirelessly to review these issues, working with our main stakeholders. i would like to recognize the invaluable contributions from the leadership. i want to conclude by extending my thoughts and encouragement to the citizens of japan as they continue to recover from the earthquake and some not -- tsunami. we saw firsthand how hard our

friends in japan are working to deal with the aftermath. i wish our japanese colleagues the dairy best. -- very best. thank you for your attention. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, commissioner. mr. ostendorff. >> the fukushima task force concluded that the sequence of events in the united states similar to that in japan is unlikely. there is no imminent risk to continue operations of u.s. nuclear power plants. i continue to support the nrc's actions to make our nuclear

power plants even safer. i join my colleagues at this table in commending the men and women of the nrc for their hard work. since i last appeared before this committee, i vote to approve the three orders submitted to the commission in february. orders were issued earlier this week. it is important for this committee to note that we have slightly different views, but we all approve all three orders. that is a significant statement. these orders represent sound policy decisions for nuclear safety. we saw in our visit to fukushima the importance of us taking strong actions as regulators. i am confident of the past -- the path the nrc is on today.

i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. mr. magwood, he said nuclear power plants are safe. we need to be cautious. you need to say, we are doing everything in our power to make sure they are safe. that is crucial. i have some questions. mr. jaczko, the nrc staff has imposed two rule-makings. i am happy learned everybody is in support of these. it is heartening to me. a nuclear plants have the right to operate when they have lost all power. another rule would require the

guidelines to address severe accidents. when will these rules be finalized? >> the first proposal, what we called the advanced noticed rule-making, is due next week and will be released to the public. the emergency operating procedure, the second rule, and best notice is upcoming next month. the station -- advance notice is coming next month. the station blackout rule will be in the 2014 timeframe. the second rule is on a much later scheduled to be finalized closer to 2016. i'd feel comfortable that we are on a good track with the station blackout rule. -- i feel comfortable that we are on a good track with the

station blackout rule. the second rule will be a challenge for us to complete the rule and the implementation within the five years that the commission has laid out. in the next couple of years, we will figure out ways to get this work done in a more timely fashion. >> it was recommended that these be done in five years. >> we were in part is to get these things done within five years. some of the rule-makings were encouraged to be accelerated. it is an important part of the fukushima response. >> do you feel confident speaking for everyone when you say you are striving to meet the 2014 date? let me not put you on the spot. does anyone disagree that those two rules -- you should do everything in your power to implement these first one in

2014 and the second one in 2016? is there any dissent from that? ok. nrc has stated that high priority safety standards should be imposed without delay. i want to make sure that you will keep our committee up to date on the progress being made so that if there is let this, we will know about it. will you do that? we will assume it is on track unless you tell us. i do not want to be surprised when you tell us it will take 12 years or 14 years. that is what happens. after 9/11, the recommendations took 10 years or more. >> one of the areas where i do have some concern is the effort to reexamine the seismic hazards

at the nuclear power plant. this is an effort that would push out around 2017. delay this completion date for some -- the latest completion dates for some of the lower risk plans are 2019. this is an area in which we recognize that there is new information that tells us the plans may not be designed to be right seismic standards. for this one to take so long is concerned and to me. -- is of concern to me. >> this is very concern ing. in california, we have updated reports. would you like to say something? >> i agree with the chairman's

statement. there would be a lot of activities related to seismic activities. right now, the focus is on the plants east of the rocky mountains where the u.s. geological survey has issued new seismic data. they have been prioritized in terms of risk. a lot of its will have been accomplished before these dates after the 15 years. according to the staff and my understanding, it is the plants with low risk that will have to do some upgrades that will take longer. the california plants will complete their upgrades before the five years. >> good. one last question.

when the took shima reactors leaked radiation, many were evacuated -- wendy beshear reactors leaked radiation -- when the fukushima reactors leaked radiation, the costs and the benefit ratios would change if the nrc considered what it would take. look at my southern california plant. 9 million people living within 50 miles. bill solely interested if you consider harmful impact beyond the radiation when you consider the cost benefit of the improvements -- i am interested if you consider harmful impact beyond the radiation when you consider the cost-benefit of the

improvements. >> this is something we look at and something we need to examine. if you look at the fukushima events, that is the long-term impact and it is significant. >> i will give everybody an extra two minutes because i have moved -- i have gone over. what i asked the sheriff was she thought, she said, if an earthquake were to happen during rush-hour, this is the road. you cannot move on that road. there needs to be more work done. radiation is the worst of the things that could happen. being homeless is another situation. not being able to evacuate. i would like to work with all of you on that. would you be open to looking at that as far as cost benefits?

i see everybody nottingham -- nodding. >> we have heard good news. we hear u.s. plants are safe. there are steps to make them safer and we are on the right path. views have devolved and there have been lessons learned. i have a couple of questions. there was a critical report that came out that was critical of in protectingonse u.s. plants. i will ask the commissioners to comment on it. nrc does have a plan to reduce the vulnerabilities, but must proceed expeditiously to implement the lessons learned from fukushima. unless the ncr skin tents measures-- nrc -- nrc strength

tends measures, there is only a matter of time before-- -- strengthens measures, it is only a matter of time before any event similar to fukushima happens. what is your response to that criticism? >> the thought that we need to take action is an appropriate spot. the commission fully agrees with that. we have agreed to take steps as a body and as an agency that will enhance the safety of u.s. plants to make sure a fukushima type scenario does not unfold. our infrastructure, our regulatory approach, our equipment, our configuration,

our design basis would prevent fukushima from occurring under similar circumstances at a u.s. plant. i do not think it would happen. we can still improve and we are going to improve. >> ms. svinicki? >> the chairman have outlined the concerns we have. the commission has urged the nrc staff to come up with schedules that are in a lamentable -- implementable. if things can be accelerated, we should do that. we are moving forward on a solid plan. on a commission that has strong and divided views, there was

strong and unanimous support for the actions we have issued. >> i disagree with the statements from ucs. i do not think what happened in fukushima can happen here. i repeat, it was not unthinkable. they made terrible mistakes. >> you did comment that over the course of a year, my views have evolves. it is helpful that people have not decided this is it. >> yes. they have devolved. >> i agree with the comments of my colleagues. i also disagree with the usc report. i agree with the chairman on the seismic peace. we are concerned with the

overall time. bank to look at seismic hazards. -- time period to look at seismic hazards. there might be alternatives to speed up this process. we want to move forward as quickly as we can. we are doing it to irresponsibly. on station blackouts, one of the thinks to throw into the mix is the fact that many of the nuclear power plants in this country have already ordered additional portable diesel generators, portable battery charging equipment and other steps they are taking to enhance their ability to deal with the loss of all ac power. >> a member of congress wrote a

letter to the nrc asking that the commission expand the evacuation zone to 50 miles. it was the number of miles the chairman mentioned for specific plants in california. nrc clarifies misconception on the emergency preparedness. each site is unique and looks at the specific conditions at each site and demographic information. it says, these zones are not limited and are meant to be expanded as necessary. you are shaking your head. can you comment on that in your specific thoughts? >> that statement is accurate. emergency planning zones are planning zones. they do not represent what would happen in the case of a national

emergency. we would respond depending on what was actually going on. i am comfortable with the regime we have in place. as part of our post-fukushima review, the staff anticipates a look at the question about whether it should be expanded. we will be analyzing that in the coming months and years. >> we talked about the chairman's statement about the two potential paths in the future 20 years from now, the life of existing plants being extended, which is the right path. the other future was four nuclear plants decommissioning. which path is the right one for us now? >> i do not think those paths

will be decided by regulators. they will be decided by economic considerations beyond the scope of our agency. i do not have much more to say. >> my time has expired. >> i want to ask unanimous consent to place in the record the biography of one of the nation's top independent nuclear power experts. he has been quoted in the wall street journal and all of our major newspapers. he has studied the crisis at fukushima. since you are bashing it, i thought we would put in his credentials and i would match those with anybody sitting

across from me. when we bash someone, we should have him up here. >> earlier in your statement, you indicated two of you traveled to japan to personally the area where the incident or the disaster occurred. it is closer to a disaster. give us a sense of the views of the people of japan toward our intervention. i would be interested in hearing that. sometimes we help folks in distress. i was in pakistan and we were providing enormous help to 1 million refugees. i did not feel a lot of understanding or appreciation for that. what did you feel in japan in terms of the recognition of the work we had done to help them?

go ahead, commissioner. >> all of us have had different interactions. we have heard nothing but gratitude and tremendous banks -- thanks to the united states government and other cabinet agencies. in the middle of january, we received a lot of banks. -- of banks -- thanks. the chairman led a commemoration ceremony three days ago at the nrc where the japanese ambassador passed on his significant banks -- thanks to our country. >> i at kodak. i have had lots of conversations with people from japan.

there is a great deal of appreciation for the contributions of nrc. a lot of people recognize the expertise that nrc brought. i heard a lot of positive things about our military, particularly the navy and the help the navy brought to the incident in helping the justice and providing supplies. i think we have made a lot of friends in japan over the last year. >> good. during the time you were there or the time sense, could you share with us how many lives were lost because of this disaster? >> because of fukushima? >> yes. >> we are aware of none. i believe there were two people killed at the plant when the

tsunami slept in. they were drowned. beyond that, there were no fatalities resulting from the nuclear incident. >> to any commissioners have different information on that? >> in addition to the two workers, who i understand were immediately drowned on site, i am aware of two workers engaged in a row with recovery efforts under extremely uncomfortable and adverse conditions. two individuals have died from heart attacks. i do not know the direct relation. some workers have to work in anti-contamination clothing that is hot. it may have had a stress related events. two additional workers. it was not a radiological events, but heart attacks. >> before i move on to my other

question -- in the united states, how many lives have been lost? does anyone know of of the top of your hands? >> i believe -- does anyone know of the top of your heads? >> i believe the answer is none. >> does anyone have different information? >> at the risk of being contrary, i think it is important that we not send a signal that fukushima was not a significant incident. >> i do not think anyone is suggesting that. >> i have been in meetings where people have asked similar questions. >> let me interrupt you.

50 miles around fukushima, their lives have been badly disrupted. no one is attempting to diminish that. i chaired the subcommittee on clean air. we have had any number of hearings here in recent years. we talk about the number of people whose lives have been disrupted, but have been killed. debris has been put out by utilities and has been blown. i think we need to put this in a little bit of perspective. i appreciate you helping us to do that. this hearing is televised on c- span. anyone listening -- the letters, we are trying to make some sense of it. could someone tried to explain so that a regular american

citizen watching this hearing could know what we are talking about? please. ms. svinicki? >> and order is issued. is a set of compulsory actions issued to private entities such as nuclear power plant operators. we can issue a directive or order. those actions were described. in order is separate from the process of establishing a new regulation. we can take action quickly. >> how does an order differ from a letter? >> and order is a requirement that a power plant has to take. the letter is the first step in gathering information.

it is something they have to tell us. it is information they are required to provide to us. it does not necessarily direct any particular action. it is the precursor to additional action. >> in terms of the agreement among the commissioners, has there been unanimous agreement on the orders that have been issued? a unanimous agreement in terms of what is tier one and tier two and three. has there been agreement on those points? that is good. thank you. >> madam chairman and members here, i apologize for not being here. we are doing our armed services committee right now. i would like to pass for a moment to reprogram my mind.

>> absolutely. >> 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 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. the orders be issued this week apply to everybody. >> can i do one question? senator barrasso is here. i will wait. nuclear power makes up about 80% of the french nuclear supply. the french industry is more different from ours with a more involved government role. i was interested to learn that regulators will require safety equipment designed to survive disasters even worse than what the plans are designed for. in the u.s., the nuclear industry is taking the lead in upgrading emergency equipment prior to the nrc action. when is the nrc going to implement a similar requirement?

what are the differences in a similar approach is? >> i am reluctant to characterize what the french are doing. we focus more on what we are doing. that has occupied a bit of our time. the basic idea is to get at preventing the spirit -- these severe actions, making sure plants can handle extra houses, of >>, flooding, other challenges. if you get into a situation where mother nature does something we did not plan for, you can minimize the likelihood of severe action like new equipment, new procedures, and other enhancements to the system to deal with that. the last piece is to make sure we have a robust emergency preparedness system to respond in the event that all the other things we planned for fail. that is the approach we have taken to try to bolster those

three areas with new requirements in some regards. my limited understanding of what the french are attempting to do is to harden everything and make it more robust with greater physical infrastructure to protect equipment from extra hazards, to ensure you have an additional way to create -- controlled the reactor in a hardened facility. some of those things we have already acquired even before fukushima for some of our plants. sometimes it is 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 what needs to be done. in general, we are moving forward relatively consistently. there are differences just because of the uniqueness of each country and its regulatory program. >> thank you.

the thrust of my question was to get to the issue of safety and whether other countries are pushing more and to safety. none of us want future disasters. is it going to be found that they took actions and that they have the safest place? all of you have said we have very safe nuclear plants. i hope you are looking at everything we do from exemptions traditional policies that are going to be put in place to make sure we have the safest nuclear plants in the world. thank you for that. i very much appreciate your courtesies. i am going to slip out for a meeting. i may come back and ask an additional question. >> those were excellent questions. one of the things we're trying to do is learn from disaster. einstein used to say that in

adversity lies opportunity. the terrible adversity in japan is an opportunity for us to learn so that we can avoid problems and mistakes they made. i had the opportunity to go take a look at what they're trying to do in terms of reprocessing fuel lines and that thing. somebody somewhere in the world will figure this out. they will figure out how to derive additional energy from the spent fuel lines and reduce the amount of time they have to be stored. folks at mit have been working on this and a lot of other places at what -- as well. the french have been working on it as well. i hope we are the first. we will need repositories to store this stuff. we do not need them immediately. the idea of learning from others in the world, they can learn from us, we will learn from them

as well. >> i did like you. i went to sprint's -- i went to france and spent two weeks. i tore the nuclear plants. new mexico has the first waste isolation pilot project. i was trying to find out from the french because they are putting all their eggs in the nuclear basket where they are moving in terms of permanent storage of waste. i kept asking the question. group after group said they were waiting for america to find a permanent solution. i was there when i was state attorney general and have the opportunity to travel on a program that was an exchange. i think there is there in about 1995 or 1996. -- i think i was there in about 1995 or 1996. >> i want to invite the

witnesses to offer a closing statement, something that has come to your mind that you would like to add as a sort of benediction. i will ask one last question of german -- chairman jaczko. we have lessons learned from japan. we're continuing to learn and may continue for a long time. based on the continual information coming from japan, how has the commission insured the nrc will continue to evaluate and analyze the information so it is incorporated into the current process? >> we have established an organization it is our japan's

lessons learned directorate. it will be working on the identified issues. part of their task is as new information comes in to evaluate that and determine if it needs to be added formally to the tasks in front of this. they will be reporting back to the commission every six months to update us if they have new information. i think we're well prepared to deal with new information as it comes along. >> ok. go ahead and give me a closing thought. use maybe a minute or so if you will. >> i think today is thursday, the first day of the march madness basketball tournament. in our lessons learned, we're in the first round of the tournament. we have a long way to go to get to the final four. the progress we've made has been substantial. we need to keep the focus and

effort on making progress. as time goes on and like the final four, interest wanes instead of increases. we should not lose sight of the need to complete these actions and move on. there will be other challenges to deal with. >> i agreed with his comment. i strongly agree we need to keep focus on these issues. there is a long road ahead. i will also say i am comfortable with where we are as an agency. i think the processes we have followed have stood us in good stead. the approach with the staff and steering committee and put us in a position -- in a good position. with the annual conference, we have had the chance to meet with a number of international counterparts. i have met with 12 in the last

couple of days. the situational awareness of what is happening in the world, i am very comfortable with where we are. >> i do agree with my colleagues about fukushima. i would like to say something else. senator barrasso quoted from the union of concerned scientists report. i disagree with a statement in that report. chairman boxer implied we were bashing the author. i would like to correct that impression. i have great respect for david. i always look forward to reports he authors. usually there is something good there. i do not agree with him on the time. in this particular case, i do disagree. but i have great respect for him. yesterday and met with him for 50 minutes to see what he thinks about the current state of

affairs critic for 15 minutes to see what he thinks about the current state of affairs. that is the respect i have for him. >> thank you for the clarification. >> my comment was going to be the same. i have tremendous confidence in the process the nrc staff have followed to get us to the point where we have prioritized appropriately. we're moving forward on high priority items. i think we have done a searching review of lessons learned. i think we're focused on the right things. not everything can be pursued at the same pace. i think we have put the emphasis. appropriately on the high priority items. we have followed a rigorous process in getting to where we are today. thank you. >> commissioner magwood. >> it is always easy since we

are at the center of this as the regulatory agency of the united states to think the we do is very important. it is, but so many other people have taken a role in thinking about these issues, including the american nuclear society, the society of professional engineers presented bought yesterday that were intriguing. there are a lot of people in the country thinking about this, including the nuclear industry. i think it is important the american people understand nuclear energy has been forward- leaning in this. they have not resisted what we have been doing. they have offered good ideas on their own. i think they should be recognized for the good work they have done. i want to let you know that we visited the fukushima site. the lasting impression for me was not what i saw at the site.

it is what i saw on the way to the site through the 12-mile evacuation zone. as you went through a neighborhood after neighborhood past business after business, he realized there were no people there. its leaves a strong impression on you. image that stays in my mind is when i looked at the house is going by -- houses going by, i noticed the thing the people did before they left was to draw the drapes closed. i am not sure what element of human psyche brings that out, but that is what i saw time after time. to me, it is clear we have to do everything in our power to make sure nothing like that happens in our country. >> that was a very poignant comment. if we are vigilant, we will not have to close those drapes as they did over there.

at the same time, maybe we can help them to open their drapes again. i read in the newspaper the other day we have been conducting another stress test for some of our major banks. they looked at 19. 15 passed with flying colors. four others have work to do. i think the nrc has gone three stress test of its own in recent months -- gone through a stress test of its own in recent months. in terms of how to grapple with fukushima, be supportive and helpful to the folks over there, and make sure we learn whatever lessons can be garnered from their tragedy to ensure that we end use those lessons and deploy them appropriately with our nuclear power plants. i am encouraged by what you have shared with us today that we're

doing pretty well with respect to that stress test. we have a couple of new nuclear power plants that have been licensed for the first time in 30 years. construction has begun. i think with appropriate federal support. i am one who supports some support as appropriate particularly through loan guarantees and making sure the nrc has what it needs to do your jobs. at the same time, i support federal funds for nuclear. i also think it is important to support federal investments for renewable energies like offshore wind, biofuels, and clean coal. i do not know if this has been mentioned today.

the design and approval for the new ap 1000 is something you can feel good about. i am pleased to have been able to meet that agreement. i think we are at a better place today than we may have been in the past. a go back to the visit paid to japan. i had been on the border pakistan against afghanistan a year or two ago when many pakistani is for evaluating because of terrible flooding. i had a chance to visit a refugee camp. through the u.n. and red cross, we have provided resources. most people had no idea we had done that. the tribes and elders were there. before we left, the folks

running the camp said, would you like to address them? i talked to them through a translator about the golden rule. i said, when your children have no food, our children have no food. when you have no place to live, our families have no places to live. i told them about the golden rule. i think they got it because the golden rule is part of their faith as well. i into or all of you -- i implore all of you to keep in mind the golden rule and treat each other with that in mind. i would say that again today. this is something i share with my colleagues a lot as well.

it is a lesson we need to learn and relearn every day. i urge you to continue to do that. i am very pleased with today's hearing. i am very pleased with the work being done. thank you for joining us today. i will know 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. i will ask that the witnesses respond promptly to the questions so that they can become part of the hearing record. we appreciate the work you are doing and your attendance today. we look forward to continuing to work with you to make sure everything we do, including nuclear power, we do better. with a bat, the hearing is adjourned. -- with that, the hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the house held a brief session. members have been away from capitol hill in their home districts all week. they will be back monday for legislative work. 1st roll call boats of the week will be after 6:30. chairman paul ryan will likely release his budget plan next week. you can see the house live when it travels -- gavels back in on c-span. the senate will look at a bill aimed at loosening security regulations on small to medium- sized businesses. you can see that live on c-span 2. a new analysis of president obama's budget says the deficit is not as rosy as the white house painted it. the budget office report says the president's budget approves $75 billion more in the budget deficit. it would generate lower deficits

over the coming decade than the white house predicts. much of that is due to lower interest costs and less generous cost-of-living adjustments in social security benefits. also in washington today, the supreme court rejected requests from news organizations for live, televised coverage of this month's arguments on the health care overhaul. c-span was part of the effort. the court did agree to release audio recordings on the same day. the court will post those and transcripts on its cwebsite within two hours on each of the days set aside for arguments. we will be airing those audio recordings on c-span3 and c-span radio as soon as they are released. next, a debate on the constitutionality of the health care law from an event recently held at stanford university law school. two constitutional experts discuss and debate the merits of the individual mandate in the

health care plan. this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> good afternoon, i see people are still trickling in and that's fine but i think we'll now proceed on to the debate for this symposium. before introducing the moderator, though, i would like to make a quick announcement please fill out the surveys as much as you can beforehand and wrap them up at the end. then you can turn them in to people that will be waiting outside after the debate. the title of the debate is the constitutionality of the

affordable care act. when we first conceived of the title, we were considering maybe using vice president biden's description of the health care act. it is my pleasure to introduce our moderator for the debate, judge sandra ikuta. she is a judge of the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit and has been since 2006. before becoming a u.s. circuit judge, california governor arnold schwarzenegger appointed her to be deputy secretary and general council of the california resources agency. prior to her political appointment, the judge was a partner at the los angeles office of omelveny and myers. she previously served as a law clerk to u.s. supreme court justice sandra day o'connor and judge alex kacynszy court of appeals from the ninth circuit.

she received j.d. from the university of california school of law and master of science from the columbia university school of journalism. she earned her undergraduate degree from the university of california at berkeley. nobody's perfect. [laughter] in addition to her duties as an active u.s. circuit judge, the judge is currently an appointed member of the judicial conference of the u.s. advisory committee on bankruptcy rules. most interestingly, and this is something the panelist debater should keep in mind if case they run over, prior to her career, judge ikuta took an unorthodoxed career path which served as editor and chief of a martial arts magazine. the first female editor in chief of a martial arts magazine. judge ikuta. >> thank you. [applause]

>> i love seeing in the bio they wrote up i had taken an unorthodoxed career path. i don't know being the editor and chief of "kung fu" counts as a career path but i would say it's an honor to have had that role. i'm very happy to be back here at stanford. i love being here. first, as i already suggested -- they say there is nothing so frustrating as arguing with someone who knows what they're talking about. i think we have room for a lot of frustration on the panel today. although neither of our panelists need an introduction, i have been asked to make one. i will be brief. first on my list is randy barnett, professor of legal theory at the georgetown university law center.

in his riding is widely published and read. he has written over 100 articles and reviews, nine books, opinion pieces in publications like the wall street journal, and is a frequent contributor. he was awarded a guggenheim fellowship in constitutional studies in 2008. that was not his greatest accomplishment in 2008. in that year, he also portrayed an assistant prosecutor in the film "inalienable." according to imdb, it is a legal science-fiction thriller. he is an act of constitutional advocate on the issues we will be debating today. in 2004, he argued the medical marijuana case before the supreme court. he is now one of the lawyers

representing the national federation of independent business in their challenge to the affordable care act. our other debater is equally renowned. pamela karlan is a professor of public interest law at stanford law school. she also code directs the supreme court litigation clinic. she has published numerous articles, books, and textbooks including a leading constitutional law textbook. she writes a bimonthly column on legal issues. she is also an accomplished supreme court advocate having worked on more than 70 cases, including arguing seven before the court. she has also won numerous

teaching awards and has been selected twice as commencement speaker by the graduating class es at stanford. she is an elected member of the american law institute, the american academy of arts and sciences, and the american academy of appellate lawyers. unlike prof. barnett, she has not been elected to the movie database yet. let me briefly set the stage before turning it over to them. congress passed the affordable care act in march of 2010. it is a 2700 page legislation that was controversial, leading to 30 lawsuits challenging the act, starring an ongoing national conversation on role of government.

if fully stocked the calendar for three years. today it is our turn to add to that growing list of titles. our debate today is especially timely. 10 days from now the last briefs in the case will be filed. for six hours, the court will hold its own debate on the constitutionality of the affordable care act. that day will not be followed by a cocktail party. [laughter] the court will consider the constitutionality of two major provisions, the individual mandate and the expansion of medicaid. we will be focusing today on the individual mandate which requires most americans to buy a minimum level of health insurance. if they do not, they pay a monetary penalty instead. our discussions will begin with

two 10-minute opening statements. that will be followed by five- minute rebuttals. after which we will have a question and answer session. i will lead off with a softball question. while i am asking that, you can line up at the microphones and outscored ones. -- ask hard ones. let's get started. >> thank you. i asked the judge and pam to allow me for a point of personal privilege that would not count against my 10 minutes. that is to personally thank the stanford federalist society for the role it played in my becoming a constitutional law professor today. 25 years ago, the president invited me to speak at the fifth national student symposium here

at stanford on the first amendment and on the panel of freedom of association. i was a full-time dedicated contracts professor in those days with no interest in ever becoming a constitutional law professor. i was reluctant to accept it but i was prevailed upon by a student who i knew. i really wanted to go to the federal society event. i had never been before. i went and spoke. i was on a panel of freedom of association. that is not mentioned in the constitution. the punch line of my talk was about the ninth amendment. it got a much more favorable review from the society than i thought it would. as a result, i decided maybe i should find out something about the ninth amendment because i did not know much. that led to other amendments and provisions. eventually, i became a constitutional law professor. had it not been for the stanford federal society, i think there's a good chance of not have become a law professor.

they got me into that world. i say this out of the sense of appreciation but also so you realize the power you can have on another person's life, even as a law student. you just never know when something you do is going to change someone else's life. the stamford federalist society changed mind. we can now start the clock. on march 26, the supreme court will begin hearing arguments in the constitutional challenge to the affordable care act brought by the attorneys general of 26 states and my client, the nfib. spread over three days, this will be the largest supreme court argument in nearly 50 years. the unprecedented length of time allocated undermines the confident predictions of a multitude of law professors that the challenges to the affordable care act were frivolous and this

would be an easy case for the court if it were to ever to get to the court. the extended arguments to six hours. that is a lot of time to devote to an easy case. that is a lot of time to devote to an easy case involving a frivolous claim. regardless of how the case comes out, i think it is fair to say this assessment by experts on constitutional law and the supreme court has been refuted -- it is not an easy case. i will state why the mandate is unconstitutional. i will not be discussing a separate issues of jurisdiction or the several ability of the mandate from the rest of the act. i will be happy to talk about those in the q&a. rather than get into the weeds of particular cases and doctrines in my opening remarks, i want to focus on the fundamentals driving the case. over the past 80 years, i have

attended oral arguments in all challenges. it over the past two years, i have attended were arguments in all the challenges. last september, i was there for the oral argument in the d.c. circuit court of appeals. in that case, the d.c. circuit upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate. the judge contended the anti- injunction act deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear the case. during the argument, judge cavanaugh outlined an analysis that neatly summarized the constitutional problems with the individual mandate. i wrote these comments out not knowing he was going to be here today. i am somewhat relieved but what i said about his opinion in the case is favorable. [laughter] here is the structure he laid out in about 90 seconds from the bench. i was so moved by this i reached

for a piece of paper from the person next to me and jotted these things down. double talk is organized around these points. imposing an economic -- the whole talk is organized around these points. imposing an economic mandate for the rest of their lives is unprecedented. as middle pennsylvania district court judge wrote in his opinion, the sixth and 11th circuit decisions concur on one significant point. the health care act has no equivalent in jurisprudence. there is no similar president addressing the use of congressional power to enact an economic mandate of this magnitude. both decisions spotlight the individual mandate's voyage into uncharted territory of constitutional law. whether the extension of what is appropriate, the fact is that commerce clause jurisprudence is bereft of authority permitting

the extension. that is judge conner. the fact that something has never been done before does not automatically mean it is unconstitutional. judge cavanagh observed the unprecedented nature of the mandate does raise an inference about constitutionality. although judges should approach all acts of congress with constitutionality, in 220 years, congress has never claimed the power to mandate that private citizens send their money directly to private companies. judges should be hesitant before endorsing such a power. this interpreted principle was invoked by justice scalia when he was evaluating the constitutionality of the power to commandeer state governments as a necessary and proper means of executing commerce power. he wrote that if earlier congresses avoided use of the

highly attractive power, we would have reason to believe the power was bought -- thought not to exist. the novelty of this attractive power suggests it does not exist. during world war ii, rather than selling war bonds, congress could have mandated their perches purchase -- could have mandated their purchase. congress could have mandated that all farmers buy wheat. prince tells us the power this novel and attractive probably does not exist. justice scalia characterized a state, during power as improper -- a state commandeering power

as improper. however necessary it may have been to its regulation of insurance companies, the power to commandeer individuals to buy insurance policies is also improper. the second point judge cavanaugh made was an observation that this claim of power was [unintelligible] during the argument in the sky 7 case, the judges unsuccessfully pressed the government attorney for 10 minutes to identify any economic mandates that would be outside the power of congress to enact if the mandate is constitutional. 's the ' only real response we did the government -- the government's only real response to date is that health care is different.

even if it is true that on some factual basis health care is different, this does not provide a limit on the power of congress. this was a major concern expressed by other judges it in their jointly authored 11th circuit opinion when they wrote , "we are at a loss as to how such criteria conserve as the judicially enforceable limitations on the power of the supreme court has emphasized as necessary to that enumerated powers. were we to adopt the limiting principles proffered by the government, courts would sit in judgment over every economic mandate issued by congress determining whether the level of participation in the markets, the unpredictability of need, or the strength of the moral imperative were enough to justify the mandate. ultimately, the government struggled to articulate limiting

principles only reiterates the conclusion we reached today. there are none." whenever defenders of the insurance mandate say some variation of "health care is different," you need to ask them what constitutional limit they are proposing for the power. in a recent debate on c-span, a law professor said we do not need to put principles out of character limit the ability of congress to pass silly laws. the limiting principal is to vote the bonds out. -- bums out. all the respect, this answer will not work in front of the supreme court. but it is highly revealing that this is the answer that a smart guy that this is the best answer that a smart guy can come up with.

in my view, is a huge problem for the government. judge cavanagh noted congress could have accomplished all or most of what it wanted to accomplish by exercising its tax power in various ways, but it chose not to. we all know why. any tax would have violated a highly visible pledged during the campaign not to raise any taxes on persons making less than $200,000 a year. there just were not 60 democratic votes in the senate for anything that amounted to a tax increase or medicare for everyone scheme, or even a voluntary medicare program for anyone who wanted the public option. the votes were not there. i do not believe it was ever intended to become law. it was merely intended to get the 60 democratic senators on board to send the matter to a conference committee with the house that would write the real

bill. when scott brown got elected in massachusetts on the issue, the democrats were forced to adopt the senate bill or get nothing at all. over the objection of many democrats in the house, they enacted the bill and we're stuck with the constitutionality of the dubious mandate. even a couple of weeks ago testified before congress, the acting omb director denied it was a tax. the fact that congress has other powers that it failed to exercise for political reasons undermines the imperative to uphold this power as a means of addressing the perceived problems with the health care system. fourth and finally, given that congress has ample powers to address fundamental health reform without a mandate, judge y now open aked whit new chapter in extending congressional power in such a

dangerous way. i have been involved in this issue for over a year-and-a- half. any new argument was interesting to hear. unlike the tax and spending power, sustained economic mandates would empower congress to impose any penalty up to and including prison terms for violating the economic mandates it may impose in the future. with this law, congress limited itself to a monetary penalty or fine. in the future, if this is upheld, full legal sanctions would be available to enforce future mandates. judge cavanagh seemed sincerely troubled by the dangerous nature of this new and unprecedented expansion of federal power. does the commerce clause gives congress the power to imprison

and the american that does not buy a product or service it might mandate? we need to this english three different senses of the word. -- we need to distinguish three different senses of the word. to my mind, the power to mandate that is not enacted by the original meaning of the text. we could mean whether it is unconstitutional according to what the supreme court has said in the past. the power is unprecedented. the supreme court has never will to oppose it. we could mean as a predictive matter whether you can count on five justices to uphold the statute. are there five justices on the supreme court to extend our? -- power? we know the judge's been over backwards to uphold popular extensions of power.

we asked whether the federal government should have the power to require health insurance or not. 82% of respondents answered no. only 16% answered yes. a new poll shows by a margin of 13 percentage points, americans support the repeal of president obama's legislation. earlier this week, a new usa today poll showed 72% of americans believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional, including 56% of democrats, and 44% of those who think the health care law is a good thing. only 20% of americans believe it is constitutional. this degree of bipartisan opposition means the court will not be facing a popular backlash should it decide to invalidate the mandate. this is my conclusion. i want to emphasize i do not believe the court would

invalidate the mandate simply because it is unpopular. i do think the unpopularity of the mandate might make the court more open to a compelling constitutional objection to the individual mandate that they might otherwise find ways to avoid. this is especially true that they can strike down the measure without exercising any other commerce power on the books. this has never been done before. when in validating the mandate, the court need strike down no other law ever enacted in the history of the nine states. all it needs say is that congress can go as far as it has gone in 2010 and no further. it would be -- nothing else congress has ever done will be called into question in constitutional law will remain where it has been. if we lose, congress will have a new and dangerous power. the court will have abdicated responsibility to preserve the

enumeration of powers. all this explains why the challenges have the momentum they do, why the justices granted three days to hear the case, and why i am hopeful the supreme court will hold the individual insurance mandate is unconstitutional. thank you. [applause] >> prof. karlan, we will give you some extra time. >> it is a pleasure to be here. 30 years ago, i sat roughly where many of you are sitting today. and like everyone else in the audience, -- unlike everyone else in the audience, i was the only person to attend the first image and of the federalist society at yale. -- the first meeting of the

federalist society at yale. it is a pleasure to welcome all of you to my backyard and continue a conversation where i am not sure convince each other of much other than the left -- other than that we all care about the constitution. this mandate assumes there is an implicit contract between households and society based on the notion of health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. if a young man wrecks his car and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. health care is different. if a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, americans will care for him whether he has insurance for not. if we find he spent his money on things other than insurance, we may be angry. but we will not deny him services even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tax. that is not part of the government offensive the

affordable care act. it is a quotation from a report in 1989 on ensuring health care for all americans. that report formed the intellectual underpinnings for what was called the consumer choice health security act of 1994, sponsored by 24 republican senators. that act contained an individual mandate that looks very much like the mandate we're here to talk about today. a similar set of ideas about individual mandates in for a comprehensive reforms in massachusetts that we might call romney-care. whatever one might think about the general question of limited government that serves as the theme for the symposium, it would be a mistake to think of the affordable care act as a radical redefinition of the government role or a freedom generally. ironically, a more expansive program funded from general tax

revenues that would look like medicaid and medicare would have garnered fewer constitutional objectives. objections. -- fewer constitutional objections. the argue arrests on rejection of the new deal settlement. if you think of the act as unconstitutional because congress is a subset of economic activity in that health care or insurance is not commerce, i do not have much to say to you beyond quoting what justice jackson said that the powers of congress are not to be decided by any formula that would give prevailing force to nomenclature. and what justice scalia said about bush vs. gore -- get over

it. congress has authority to require a guaranteed issue, prohibit various restrictions based on pre-existing conditions and the like. article one gives congress the power to regulate commerce. we have known since 1903 the prohibition can be a form of regulation. if proscription can constitute regulation, it is not clear why prescription cannot as well. as judge silberman wrote quoting samuel johnson, at the time the constitution was fashioned to regulate man to adjust by rote

and method as well as to direct. to direct interne included to prescribe certain measures to mark out a certain course in order or command. to regulate can require action. nothing in the definition appears to limit that power only to those already active in relationship to an interstate market. as a matter of constitutional values as well, it can. one theme of the constitution was to create a more vibrant economy. the congress cause is part of the broader commitment. congress can encourage individuals to enter into transactions that might otherwise not have chosen. when it comes to health care, most americans are like the marijuana justice scalia wrote about. think of yourself as one big joint. you are never more than an instant from the interstate market. most americans will need health

care at some point in their lives. unfortunately, many of us and never more than one unplanned incident away from that market. it is possible if we do not carry insurance we cannot pay the cost of the care. the mandate flows directly. the affordable care act is a comprehensive reform of health care. congress concluded parts of the act could be undercut if individuals to refuse to purchase insurance until they needed care. thus the mandate. congress concluded broadening the pool to include a healthy individuals with lower cost. maybe congress was wrong about the empirical judgment. i do not know. i am just a law professor. the constitutional question is not whether congress'judgment was correct. it is whether it was rational. the supreme court held two years ago that the constitution addresses the choice of means primarily through the judgement

of congress. as the court stated in 1934, if it can be seen the means adopted are calculated to obtain the end, the extent to which they can lead to the end, the closeness between the means and in the are matters for congressional determination alone. there is enough evidence for congress to believe insuring all americans carried adequate insurance is critical to regulating the health care market. we come to the final objection. is there something wrong with making people buy something they do not want? if there is, and there probably is, it is not that the compulsion violates the commerce clause. rather, it violates some other constitutional constraints. if the government denied you the right to sell bicycles, that law would be unconstitutional because it violates the first amendment. not because it is not a

regulation of commerce. if congress were to pass an act requiring everyone in america to eat macadamia nuts that are grown in only one state, that would be a regulation of interstate commerce. it would run afoul of substantive due process or the ninth amendment. for congress to force people to in just a substance without having a compelling justification. could congress force you to buy a gm car? that is a popular one now. congress did force you to buy a gm car. we just did not get the car. [laughter] that is what taxation means. [applause] what about the actions/inaction

line? the line is much more complicated. congress can reasonably assume virtually everyone will spend money on health care during their lifetime. the spending itself is clearly economic activity within the reach of congress. the individual mandate regulates the timing of activity forcing people to pay up front as part of a pool rather than gamble they will be able to pay when services are needed or that society will pay for the services if they cannot. that sometimes the most important thing we do is not doing. he was talking about judicial restraint. when you think about the affordable care act, the truth of this statement is driven home in a powerful way. one of the original plaintiffs in the case before the court was mary brown. she asserted in her complaint she did not want to have to buy

insurance for herself or employees of personal business. on december 7 of last year, her lawyers informed the supreme court by letter that her business had closed and mrs. brown had closed a petition for personal bankruptcy. on her schedule s, she lists creditors. you will find unpaid medical expenses. for many americans, and paid an unexpected medical expenses can be the final straw throwing them under water. we all pay mary brown's medical care through taxes and higher premiums for those of us who have bought insurance. when people ask rhetorically if the government can force you to buy insurance, they already have. they have forced me to ensure mary brown. critics have never explained why the distinction should apply to aside from other

powers. congress has required individuals to engage in activities they might otherwise choose not to perform. during service -- jury service and registration for the barack -- for the draft are two examples. the government compels people who do not own computers and do not want to be drafted to buy something they do not want. let me quote from the government website. you can register by mail using a selective service form available att ce a p man can fl it in, it, affix postage, and mail it to seleive service. buying a stamp can be compelled. i am not sure w insurance cannot. for the opponents of the individual mandate that want to return to the term of the framers, here's another example. the militia act required men to provide themselves with muskets

and other equipment. presumably people were not smelting them in their backyard. they have to go out and by the musket. congress required individuals to purchase goods from the market. individual mandate is innovative. i cannot do better in responding to that point then quoting from the justices dissent. he was right then and is right now. the constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory. it is made for people of fundamentally differing views. the findings ought not to conclude judgement on whether it statues in bodying them conflict with the constitution of the united states. thank you very much. [applause] >> we will now have by-minute

rebuttals starting with professor barnett. >> i always enjoy hearing pam. let me go through a couple of the points she made and in the order that she made them. her opening point that this particular proposal is not radical or were not fundamentally change the relationship of citizens to the state, it was formally promoted by republicans and conservatives. i happen to know the guy that promoted this from the heritage foundation. i will say this one thing about stuart butler. >> you know him? >> he is a bridge. i would not expect him to be sensitive to the american constitutional system. it goes to show the fact that

someone is a conservative does not automatically mean they have sound constitutional judgment. [laughter] the fact that someone is a republican might have less correlation with having sound constitutional judgment. [laughter] [applause] it is radical in this sense. i agree it is nationalizing insurance companies to administer in national health care system by making them regulated public utilities. that give massachusetts gets to do this because massachusetts has a ways to power. the court is going to have to say congress has the power, su, and for the court sears said

records tuesday that the government has the power to do with the state's can do is very radical, and this reaffirms the proposition. the second point has to do with mandates and whether mandates can be included under the meaning of regulate. regulate means regulate commerce, and it does mean to propose that the ada to regulate commerce is the power to create commerce you would then regulate is somewhat of a stretch when it comes to constitutional affirmation, notwithstanding the fact of the word may be down the list of synonyms in johnson's dictionary and a fire -- and the fact it had never included this mandate. a word regulation did not held to include the power to

prescribe until the early 20th century. i think they are correct about the inclusion of the word regulate. the court has never decided the power to regulate is included. it is not true congress has an and limited' -- unlimited set of means. we know that is true because in the prince case of commerce was executing its power by mandating the state legislatures to pass laws of certain kinds and as a result of our principal not stated in the constitution. the court held this was an

improper means of executing regulatory power over congress to make a sovereign body exercise its legislative powers, but the power to enter into contracts is each one of our powers. normally contracts require intent. if i was a contract now professor, and they are not supposed to be coerced. -- i was a contract professor, and they are not supposed to be coerced. this violates the 10th amendment, which protects the reserved powers of the people. and finally, i want to talk about why mandates are substantially different. you can see that by considering

the thought experience. suppose i tell you 100 things you may not do tomorrow. you may not ride a bike even. you may not eat broccoli. there would be 100 things you could not do, but there would be an infinite number of things you could do. suppose i have the power to mandate a 100 things you must do. you must buy a car and 100 other things you must do. if i have the power i would have the power to control your life, because you only have a finite amount of time and resources, so mandates are

completely different manner, in the final point i would make has to do with the other mandates. i have never claimed congress does not have the power to mandate to do anything congress has. it has the power to make you fight and die for your country. it has the power to make you serve on juries. it has the power to make you fill out a tax form, and it has the power to join. does that mean that the power of mandate is not problematic? no, because each of these mandates is director related to service of the government. each is directly related to the government, and each constitutes one way or another of what the supreme court characterizes.

it said it was the supreme and noble duty of americans to provide for the country in return of what the country and gives them. these mandates are for the government. they are part of what it means to be an american system. whether you agree or not, that is the way they are decided. because the congress has the power to make you fight and die for your country, it has the power to do anything less than that, and in a power cut has the power to do anything less than that is the power slaveholders have over slaves, and if the government does have the power over us, if i was ever upheld in those terms, would change the fundamental relationship of the citizen to the state, and we would be better off to be called subjects rather than citizens.

[applause] >> let me start with the places we do agree and then get to the places we do not agree. and we both agree there are constraints on what the government can make you do, and we believe those come from important notions of liberty. where we disagree is on two other points. and one is whether this mandate deprives you of some important liberty, and the second is whether those constraints should be smuggled into the definition of what counts as commerce

rather than standing on their own, and i think that is an area of disagreement between randy and me. this is not the case of general police power. this is a case of regulating the economy. the health-care industry occupies a huge percentage of our gross domestic product. ghraib almost every american values health care of some point in the future, so regulating that activity is regulation of the economy, and for those of us who agree with the abandonment of the production of extraction distinction, it is commerce, so it is not a question of can government to regulate health care. of course they can. and the question becomes is this a necessary and proper way of regulating it, and i think the answer is yes because the

standard is asking whether congress can rationally think there's a connection between making people buy insurance and having a health care system that works. they might be right about that. they might be wrong, but everybody agrees our health care system faces a number of crises, and that is why i started with a reference to the earlier health-care plans, not because i was trying to play gotcha, but simply because people are struggling. people could say this was an appropriate way. many do not think this is the best way. this is the regulation of the economy, and and and and is this the first step on the road to slavery?

i think not. i think it is the first step regarding whether americans have access to health care, and it as a firm step making sure they do not force us to pay premiums so they can get health care that we feel they have to get and are unwilling to deny them if they make the wrong economic choices. >> i am going to ask a question, and you have an opportunity to go to the microphones and get ready to pepper our panelists, and my question is for professor karlan. you seem to suggest the government can make you buy macadamia nuts under the commerce clause, and you would

seem to suggest limiting the result can be the cause. is there a limiting principal? could we say it is fundamentally unfair to require us to buy macadamia nuts? >> let me clarify my answer. i think if the government says you must buy macadamia nuts, they are regulating commerce. the problem is not that it is not about commerce in some sense. i venting there are a variety of arguments. although -- i think there are a variety of arguments that they cannot make you eat them pure good -- kesse eat them. i think there are strong governments of the government cannot make you in just a substance.

we know the government in some cases can force you to ingest a substance because we have arguments about forced medication of prisoners. it is not the government cannot do it, but for three people, the government cannot do that, and i am confident there is not a judge in america but would make people eat macadamia nuts, they would not want to eat, so i am confident that is where the regulation is. good >> can you identify yourself and make sure you frame your question in the form of a question? >> this question is directed towards professor karlan. if congress can force you to buy health insurance, how do you make all of the rest of the powers superfluous, and enumerated powers tug congress

of bankruptcy law, and establish post offices -- it seems as they became so specific as to those subjects, how would they force you to buy health insurance to, maybe it is a commerce question in general, but how you prevent from rendering of the other powers superfluous. >> i do not think --those go to the power of congress, not the power to make you buy stamps, so i do not think those would be rendered superfluous by a requirement congress continue to buy something being sold by a market. >> i just had a question. did you mention -- you mentioned obamacare and romneycare, and you talk about police power of the states versus federal government, so is there anything in the

constitution that would protect us from state assertion of power? what are the benefits or drawbacks of having states regulate health care versus the federal government? >> it is an important question. >> one of the reasons states

have a broader power apart from historical reasons is that when any state exercises their broader powers, there is a competition between them and other states. people who don't like it can move to another state without leaving the country that they were born in. as a result, there is a constraint placed on the state. it is precisely to avoid those restraints that legislation gets moved to the federal levels because people who advocate those policies are moved to want to enact its nationally. they force you to leave the entire country to avoid that policy. even having greater powers in the hands of states is checked by other forces that constrained the exercises of those powers that would not exist at the national level.

>> that is a great question. there is a flip side to what we were talking about. the idea that some issues cannot be dealt with on the state level. if you are a state that wanted to create a really robust single payer health system, one of the problems you would face is the bill that system and it is the eight men out theory, if you build it, they will come. you will end up with a field of dreams with everyone moving to your state. part of the answer is moving to the head the of national solutions. state-level solutions -- to the idea of national solutions. state-level solutions would be very hard.

just like kelly moved to a national unemployment insurance. -- just like how we move to national unemployment insurance during the new deal. it is a delicate balance of whether it is better to have federalism or effective solutions at the national level. >> i do think this illustrates one of the many reasons why justice holmes is wrong. that is that the very existence of this competitive federalism does make the united states structure incompatible with certain kinds of political ideologies. we would say they are more all- embracing. to the extent the public does not want them, people are free to flee. that provides a structural check. it was one of the impeti -- is that the word? one of the motivations for why the federal constitution had to be distorted in order to render it more powerful than it otherwise would be so as to avoid the construction of constraints built into our constitution.

>> next. >> the question is for professor carlin. a big part of the justification for health care is that the market is special. is there any limit? is it going to be the case that once they except health care is special, they have to accept all markets as special. if congress says, cars are special, the congress will accept it -- the courts will accept it. >> i do not think it is so much that healthcare is special that supports my argument. my argument is that this is a regulation of congress. congress, having decided to regulate, can decide to have an

individual mandate as part of it. there are people who think health care is totally different. i think there's is a political check that you and not going to see congress passing a law and the other circumstances where they will say, to have to buy the car. they will use the tax power. we did all buy cars. we just did not get them. the government charged you for a car. somebody else bought the car. the health insurance thing, you get the health insurance. >> pam did not make this argument. the government has made that argument. if that were really offered as a real, legal limit in principle, then we who deny that health care is different would be entitled to a hearing. we would have to have a hearing. we could call witnesses and figure out what their health care is different than other industries.

-- figure out whether health care is different than other industries. the very fact that there would be no such hearing, the government ought to make up why medical marijuana in california was important to them. the fact we would get no hearing, there would never be a determination, it indicates it is not a limiting principle. not of the kind which is being asked for, which is judicially administrable. >> i am from the university of florida. this question is directed towards the professor. you mentioned that the word regulate includes the power to force people into transactions they otherwise would not complete.

i think mr. barnett did not can see on your definition. even if he were to have conceded on that point, there remains the question of, what is being regulated? in your view, the failure to purchase a commodity, is it commerce or is it something else? if it is commerce, where would you find support for the proposition that a failure to produce a commodity constitutes commerce? >> i think there are two ways to answer that question. i have oscillated back and forth between them. one is that you regulate commerce in the sense that forcing someone to engage in commerce is regulating commerce. that is one way of answering the question. if i say, let's make a lot that says a state will regulate

education, it forces students to go to school. it forces them to educate -- engage in education they otherwise would not have engaged in. the other way, i oscillate back and forth, even if this is not commerce, the government is entitled to address things that and not the enumerated powers for the purposes of carrying out the enumerated powers. in the united states, the enumerated power goes to whether or not there is a regulation of commerce in the sense of regulating odometers in cars. the proper clause says you can criminalize something that interferes with that commerce. the clause also says you can use prison, put people in prison who violate the law. having prisons will help to deter activities that interfere with interstate commerce. with that way of thinking about

things, even if the individual who is being forced to buy the health care is not engaged in interstate commerce, it would be forcing someone to do something that is necessary for the regulation of the markets in health-care and insurance. >> do you want to respond? >> we can go on. >> do not jump. >> my question is for the professor. you had mentioned the draft as an example for why the individual mandate for health care is constitutional. as you know, there are certain amendments that were added to the bill of rights, specifically to deal with the draft. it was discussed among the founding fathers when they drafted the constitution. my question would be, can you address the constitutionality of the individual mandate through the prism of the fact that it is not mentioned in the constitution that the commerce clause allows mandates? there is no protection for

things, like making us by macadamia nut. -- buy macadamia nuts. why would that not be in the constitution itself? >> they did not even know there was hawaii. the first western people to land in hawaii lynn did the same year as the declaration of independence.

part of this is a disagreement about just how much something has to be expressed in the constitution. i do not think that the framers of our constitution could have foreseen the country became. i think the document they wrote is capacious enough to enable us to solve the problems of our generation in the same way it was capacious enough to solve the problems of the generation before us. it is not because i can find a health care costs or a mandate clause. i cannot do that. i think people who pretend to do that are disingenuous. the constitution was created in part to enable a national government to deal with unforeseen and unforeseeable problems in later generations. it is the oldest written constitution in the world by an order of magnitude. the average national constitution last 17 years and then they write it. -- they rewrite it.

our constitution is more like a redwood. it is, i will use the phrase, it is a living constitution. it is a constitution to deal with the problems of our generation. i think it is broad enough to do that. >> professor, he was saying that you agreed that there are limitations on what -- you were saying that you agreed that there are limitations on what the congress can force you to buy. it seems that could apply to other congress cases. you could have characterized lopez as the liberty to carry guns near schools. that should be its own due process argument. because regulating commerce is broad doc brought in, we defer to commerce.

-- is brought in, we defer to commerce. i am wondering if you think the argument you are making is reconcilable. >> i think it is consistent. the argument was, there is no commerce. there was no buying and selling of anything. i happen to think that the cases are unfortunate cases. i am not sure they were wrongly decided. i think a better case in one way is prince. that was a spending clause case restricted by the 10th amendment. you had to receive funds in order for you to run the checks. let's assume it is a straight up commerce clause. if it were, the argument is not the there is nobody engaging in commerce, people were trying to buy guns. it is that the 10th amendment put a strain on it.

liberty constraints should be called liberty constraints and not try to pretend that a particular constraint is not a regulation of commerce. to go back to the example i gave earlier, if the government denies people the right to engage in commerce that is necessary to their religion, that denies the free exercise clause. i think the same is true here. people are buying health care. the question is, whether they have a liberty interest in not being able to buy it in a particular way. >> i'm the federal society vice president from the university of idaho. you mentioned early on that there was no factually similar case or issue. i was wondering how you would

distinguish the fifth congress of the u.s. passed an act for the release a sick and disabled semen. is it simply -- seaman. >> that was about the regulation of navigation. the regulation of navigation was at the core of the main of commerce. there is all kind of evidence that is true. if you are operating a ship, you have to provide for insurance. you have to provide for health care for some of the people. this is a regulation of economic activity in the sense that -- we are having all kinds of panels on all the millions and billions of economic regulations that say if you are going to do this, you have to do it this way. that is what that was. that example was actually

misconstrued by the court of southeast underwriters when they found that insurance was commerce. they used this example -- they were regulated navigation. this was a means of doing that. the court never said the insurance part of that -- i think the underwriters were wrong. that is water under the bridge. we are not asking the court restored the regional meeting of commerce. >> there is a light in my eyes. i cannot see anyone up there. i will lead glenn lee. >>-- lead blidnly.

>>-- blindly. >> the regulation congress has imposed makes insurance companies a form of public utility. it would give congress the ability to regulate prices, things like that, based on the benefit -- the practical benefit of forcing everyone to get insurance. with that being said, is there a theory than that if insurance companies -- is there a fear then that the government can control what kind of operations can be done just as the government can control which companies are in charge of electricity versus gas? >> i think it is important to know that what is going on here is insurance is being abolished. health-care policy people are well aware of this. they are in favor of this. insurance is a bet.

you abetting you are going to die, the life insurance company is betting you are going to live. there is a risk. that is what your premiums are. that is what the life insurance company is offering you. there has been a lot of movement away from that. the affordable care act makes that illegal. it says you have to take everybody. it says he cannot vary the amount you charge. you can vary it somewhat. it is outlier in traditional insurance. what it is preserving is the ability of insurance companies

to make money. the point is to keep insurance companies in business so they can administer this government program. both because that would get them on board politically, they did not want the insurance company is supposed -- opposing this, it would allow them to continue to exist. they are still going to be able to make a lot of money. this is a transfer from help the citizens to the insurance companies. -- from healthy citizens to the insurance companies. it is not insurance anymore. it might be the best policy. we should not make any bones there. we should not be under any illusions about what the nature of this change is what seems to conceal the fact is that money is going out of your pocket into the pockets of private companies, rather than the traditional way.

the government has to be politically accountable. >> to follow up on part of your question, can the government regulate what procedures and policies -- a policy will provide? the answer is yes, subject to the constraint of equal protection and the first amendment. just to use a case i am sure you are all familiar with, another case with gonzales. they banned a second trimester abortion procedure. the act says it is anyone who performs the procedure. the government can do that. the disagreement would not be that the government is regulating commerce, it is that they are violating the process.

that is why claims about whether something is included or excluded have to be argued, not about -- on the grounds it is about commerce. >> the amazing thing is that in oral argument, justice stevens asked the defendant, what gives congress the power to tell free clinics what they are supposed to do? this was after the case. the solicitor general was too polite to say this, will it was your opinion. instead he said, we have not read it. >> -- briefed it. >> we did file a brief suggesting there was a commerce clause problem.

>> that is the final point i want to make. that shows how the structural constraints are protections of liberty. when the constitution was first enacted, they were the only protection of liberty. there were no amendments. it was sold to the people on the grounds that because congress only has enumerated powers, you do not need a bill of rights. that only makes sense if the congress does have enumerated powers. once you define the power of congress to regulate the economy, you have done away with that important first line of defense to protect liberty. now all you have are the life boats that the anti-federalists insist be put on congress. you are out of this structure that is defined by congress itself. we want to preserve what is left of the structure of the constitution that attacks

liberty. this is the case that gives us the opportunity to say this far and no further. [applause] >> i think we have run out of time. i hope you'll join me in thanking the panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the supreme court will begin hearing oral arguments on the health care law on march 6 -- march 26. we will bring it to you on c- span each of the three days that they are available. >> on "newsmakers," the

virginia attorney general discusses his case against the affordable care at. >> the harbinger of doom for our side. despite the broad language of the necessary and proper case, the last paragraph of the majority opinion brings a broad language down through a then funnel. the federal government cannot get this bill through that final. if that is the requirement, i am confident. there has not been enough time for us to except how he is going to -- >> you can see the entire interview with the a virginia attorney general on "newsmakers"

sunday afternoon at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. it is also available online at c-span.org. >> i thought singing we shall overcome was not an effective way of gaining civil rights. i thought more confrontation was needed. >> economics professor, columnist, and substitute for rush limbaugh, walter williams on be a radical. >> anyone believes -- who believe in personal freedom makes you a radical. i should be able to do my own thing as long as i do not violate the rights of other people. >> more with walter williams on

"q and a." >> she now covers intelligence, the justice department, the department of homeland security. her latest book exposes the new face of terrorism and predicts the source of future threats. it was the first book of its kind since bin laden's death. she calls its al qaeda 2.0. she was the first reporter to " this term. she expose the rising threat of homegrown terrorism and how

social networking is the lifeblood of the digital jihadist. anwar kalikow we was an american cleric -- anwar al-awlaki. she traveled across the united states and yemen to complete an investigation into awlaki. the failed attack on times square in may of 2010 and the cargo bomb of 2010. the washington post described the resulting documentary -- the

resulting documentary as a reason -- an explosive hour. the homeland security committee has opened an official investigation into the american cleric and whether he was an overlooked key player in 9/11 plot. her national security reporting is deeply personal. she is not sitting on the sidelines. her family is feeling the impact. she is the mother of two young children. in 2005, her family made national headlines when she donated part of her liver to her son. she is an advocate for a national organ donation. a graduate of harvard college and the columbia school of journalism, she began her career as a london-based correspondent for abc news. she has reported from

afghanistan, qatar, northern ireland, and new york city on 9/11. she sat in the military courtroom was the court described the-beat self- described 9/11 co-conspirator. please help me welcome catherine herridge to our program. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction. i would like to a acknowledge the sponsors who made the events possible. good morning. thank you for being here and for caring about our nation's security. this book began with a simple question. after the attack at fort hood in

2009, one of my colleagues asked me, how is it that americans old enough to remember 9/11 have turned their back on their own country to about that question gave me pause. each of us remembers where we were when the pentagon was struck, when the twin towers collapsed. what i found through my reporting is that every investigated threats led back to an american, on what awlaki -- fox news -- anwar al-awlaki. he is the leader of the new al qaeda recruits. whether they are e-mail in our blogging, they are like the facebook friends from hell. this could not be more topical. most americans do not realize

that there is a documented case of homegrown terrorism every 2 to 3 weeks. there have been more cases in the last two and a half years than we had in the first 8 years after 9/11. just recently, we had a case in washington, d.c. a young man who had been living in the united states illegally for 12 years was accused of being a suicide bomber. his target was the capitol building. an important threshold had been crossed. he is not the first case of a suicide bomber in the united states. in january, and men in florida faced the same accusation. the next wave was written in -- was published in july of last year. this book has accurately predicted the future. it predicted the spike in hot

rod cases. it predicted that an american citizen, anwar al-awlaki, would be killed at the hands of his own government. he predicted that the future threat hubs would shape up to be yemen and let africa. you will be pleased to hear that this book is not an academic book. it is not a book i wrote to impress people inside the beltway. it is written so that every american can pick it up and educate themselves about an issue that is one of the most pressing facing our country. i wrote it in a way where you can go behind the scenes of our investigation. you can sit in the court room with me at guantanamo bay.

you can go through the documents with me as we connect the dots. what you read in this book will not only shocked you, but it will also expose some of the uncomfortable truths about the way washington works today. this story is literally bookended by scenes at guantanamo bay. i was one of the few reporters that sat in the courtroom not 20 feet away from the co- conspirators. the first chapter is called made in the usa. it is an overview of who these people are. it is now just anwar al-awlaki who went, --who would anwar al- awlaki -- anwar al-awlaki, who went to school in colorado.

there are western states in the al qaeda of italy it. it is a chapter that shows you how this white house was so reluctant to call fort hood an act of terrorism. fort hood was not a drive-by shooting. it was not a convenience store shooting. it was not an example of workplace violence. for good sense the classic example of terrorism. it was an act of violence to promote a political end. one of the ends i -- things i do in the book is to show you how washington works. i take you into a conference call called the background conference call. you see senior administration officials. reporters are allowed to get on the call. you can ask questions of people

in the white house, but you cannot identify them by name. i asked the question during that call and the white house admitted fort hood was an act of terrorism. there was an incredible pile on by the other reporters. and do you know what happened? the call in dick? . -- the call ended. chapter 2 is where i tried to get a message to anwar al- awlaki. he exchanged e-mails from -- with the shooter at fort hood. i was sent to a file sharing website, which is a pornography shot -- pornography site. i opened up the side and i think, i should not be here. and i think the legal department is going to call me at any moment. [laughter] once i got to be filed was that

i found the file had been in cryptic. i needed a password texted to me. the reason i tell that story is that there can be this popular narrative that these individuals are primitive and they are hanging out in their caves and sending their messages. no group is better at marion the best of the old with the best of the new. look at osama bin laden. in his final days, he relied on one of the most ancient forms of communication, a courier. he used that courier to take drives to internet cafes to upload his messages. you meet someone i have deep respect for. he is a legend in the intelligence community. he is someone who had the courage to be the first

government official to publicly identify anwar al-awlaki as a threat to u.s. national security. the internet is the driver of radical islam and radical ideas. it is a digital jihad. this was predicted by the u.s. government in 2007 in something called the national intelligence estimate. this is the intelligence community's most predicted document -- predictive document of the future. this is not a surprise. what you find is that there is some kind of internet component. one of the elements of myrick reporting that has drawn the most outside interests is that i believe there is a generational divide. people who grew up with social networking, people under 30,

seemed to connect with each other in a way that older generations do not. it is a more intimate connection. what i mean by that is that the former cia director said to me that in the old days, pre-9/11, in the intelligence committee, you had to have one-on-one contact to get you over the threshold to violence to become a suicide bomber. but after fort hood, the calculus seemed to change and has continued to do so. the individual i mentioned in washington, d.c. -- there is no evidence that he had any contact with a foreign terrorist organization. he seems to be able to do it all on his own. the third chapter is called slipping through the net.

i explained how this american, anwar al-awlaki, slipped through the cracks of 9/11. the americans interviewed him bad times because he had contact with three of the 9/11 hijackers. what we reported at fox and what has never been disputed by the fbi is that in 04 of 2002, this cleric was held in federal detention by customs agents at jfk international because he was on a watch list. there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. he was released on the say so of an fbi agent even though the warrant for his arrest was still active. anwar al-awlaki makes his way down to washington, d.c. in a few days, he appears in an

fbi investigation with the same agent is one of the principal investigators. i know how the fbi works. that would not be the agent also call, especially if the warrant was still active for his arrest. it would have to be higher up. there are only two investigations. why is that the bureau wanted to track him and get him to contact his associates. the second is that the fbi wanted to work with him. they saw him as a friendly contact. what i show in my reporting is that this incident in 2002, the arrest warrant, the decision to pull the arrest warrant -- none of it was shared with the 9/11 commission or with congress. just take a moment to think how history would have been different by those -- for those families at fort hood if he had been prosecuted in 2002 and not

allowed to walk away. also in that chapter, i take you to the cia and you meet this new generation of analysts'. -- analysts. they look at somalia and north africa. you meet this new generation in the radicalize asian unit. -- radicalization unit. chapter four is called justice delayed. i investigate how we are going to prosecute these cases, especially when americans are involved. one of the uncomfortable truths i lay out in this book is that the obama administration wanted to bring the 9/11 suspects to a federal court where they would

have the presumption of innocence and full constitutional rights of any american citizens. it took an american citizen -- they put anwar al-awlaki on a kill or capture less, making the government the judge and jury, without any constitutional process. i am the first to say anwar al- awlaki was a you know what. he was a bad guy. the threshold has got to be high for an american citizen. they killed him in september. there has never been a public accounting of the evidence that this administration used to make that determination. i am sure there is evidence. but if you want to build consensus for this strategy in the future, you want to tell the public that it is not an

arbitrary decision when the u.s. government kills one of its own citizens. there have been six cases at guantanamo bay. all of them have ended in the plea agreement. these individuals -- close associates of osama bin laden -- have gotten 10 years or less. some of them are already home. americans who are prosecuted in american courts -- simply for making threats on the internet -- are doing 25 years in prison. it is another disconnect. it is another one of the uncomfortable truths because we still do not have a strategy. based on my reporting, i predict we will see more americans in the future who will qualify for the kill or capture a list, who could be placed at guantanamo

bay rather than a federal court. the sixth chapter, i would like to spend a little bit of time discussing in detail. it is one of the most important parts of our reporting. it's called guess who is coming to lunch. it is about anwar al-awlaki's lunch at the pentagon. some of you may have read about this story. we were the people who broke it. he was interviewed by the fbi, and was a guest of the office of the general office at the pentagon. he was invited to speak on middle eastern policy and islam. he was part of their out of reach to moderate muslims. in the book, i have one of the invitations we obtained through foia. i always think it is important

for people to read this information themselves. what you see on the invitation is that the menu included pork. [laughter] i am not sure how the lunch went. my husband is a west point graduate. he was so incensed about this line. he said, there are people who will soar in the military for 20 years and they will never have the chance to have lunch in the executive dining room at the pentagon. there was a question that always bothered the 9/11 investigators. they always wondered why it was that khalid sheikh mohammed would send two of his most important hijackers to southern california, but to san diego in

the early 2000's. these two hijackers were extremely important to the plot. they were the advance team. they were the beach head. they were battle trains jihadists. they had never been to the united states before. they spoke virtually no english. the 9/11 investigators believed there had to be someone here to meet them. they long suspected that someone was the cleric anwar al-awlaki. when the two hijackers arrived, they have what is described as a chance lunch with a saudi at a middle eastern restaurant in los angeles. and senator graham told me they

were also very suspicious of this chance meeting. they hired an actuary to figure out what the statistical likelihood was. two hijackers having a chance meeting with this saudi who was widely believed to be a spy in the community on saudi since. he told me that the statistician can back and said the likelihood was more than 5 million to 1. i'm not a math person, but to me that is statistically impossible. you know what happens at that meeting? the saudi hooks up the two high get -- hijackers with the cleric's wing man. the body height jacks -- drives the two hijackers from los angeles to san diego, and i have been to that neighborhood in san

diego, and in the 1990's, early 2000's, this was the deepest, darkest data. this was check cashing places and hookers. it seemed an unlikely place for you to go unless you want to hide in plain sight. where alaki was the imam was a ranch-style building. i am the kind of reporter who likes to talk to people. i like to hear their point of view. we called the mosque because we wanted to hear what they had to say. they had been a lot in the news after fort hood, and they did not return our phone calls. i said to my producer, let's just go. we went, and when we arrived at

the mosque, the imam came out and he saw us with our camera and he hopped into his car and sped away. i do not know if i brought that reaction from a lot of people, go inside. let's we went to the mosque in the front door was locked. i walked around the side of the building and there is a staircase leading up the back, and as i walked up to the staircase, i saw a little door, and when i opened the door there was a small anteroom. it had only one entrance point, a very low ceiling. it was the kind of place you would go if you want to have a private conversation about important matters. i later learned that was the very room where room wherealak alaki met with the two

hijackers. when they got to san diego, the cleric's friend put them up, found a place to live, got a driver's licenses, got the jobs at the gas station. by early 2001, the cleric was on the move. he went the falls church, ledger -- virginia, and a much larger moscow. he gets some disasters in the spring. one of them is the san diego hijacker, and you know who is with him? one of the pilots. when they go to his moss, you know what happens? they hook up with one of the cleric's contact , and it is a mirror image of san diego. the jordanian finds them a place to live, mines and driver's

licenses, you name it. by early may of 2001, the jordanian goes to the apartment and he now finds that there are four people living there, the two hijackers i mentioned and they have two friends with them. you know who they are? there hijackers who had just come in. they said, we would like to take a tour of the east coast and see six flags. can you help us with that? he drives to connecticut and in paterson, new jersey, and i am sure many of you know the significance of paterson, new jersey. it was the final point in the united states for the hijackers. by late may, early june of 2001, the landlord in paterson, new jersey, reports to the 9/11

commission many years later that there were now six people living in this tiny apartments, and each one of them was a hijacker. and then a seventh person are arrives, and you know who that is? the other hijacker from san diego in alaki's mosque. half the hijackers are in a tiny apartment in new jersey. all with some kind of disconnection to this american. when i have reported that story, some of my fbi contacts say to me, where is the smoking gun? where is the smoking gun? i do not know. that is not enough for you? look at the phone and the banking records. what the phone records show is that the fax number for the

mosques in virginia was found in the personal phone book of one of the 9/11 suspects in the apartment in homburg, germany. that is where the plot was finalized. the fax number is more significant than the phone number, because they understood that you were much better off to send sensitive information via fax, because we were not as good in intercepting that kind of information. ok, there's, well, a fax number at the big mosque. there are banking records, too, because when the hijackers left errors and it with light trading, they were soaked this hideous about their finances, and they had the tilly -- had a utility deposit, $40, and they

told the utility company in arizona please send it to this address in falls church, virginia. you know with the address is to ? t0 alaki's mosque. a man who ultimately came -- became the leader of al qaeda 2.0 was an overlooked a key player in 9/11 himself. his contacts were not a series of consensus. they were really evidence of a purse personal -- purposeful relationship. and i talk about alaki, because it is one thing to kill a man, but thanks to the web, it is quite another thing to kill his ideas. before i take your questions, i would like to tell you about the epilogue in the book. i mentioned we start and finish

at guantanamo bay. it is something to sit in that courtroom with these men. it really is. it is very educational, very instructive. i believe the best reporting is the reporting you do with your own eyes. it was one of a final court appearances for the 9/11 suspects. there were military commissions and then the attorney general said they were going to new york, and that was ultimately reversed. this is one of their final court appearances in the first round of military commissions. the second should come some point this year. as a side that, i wish all of you -- and if you read the book, you'll meet these family members -- and the fact that there has not been a trial for these people in a decade is criminal. these are people who read through their children's cell

phone records up to a moment the towers collapsed as they had to understand their babies' final minutes. royalty -- some say this man is more important than mohammad because he was into the money. he is a small man, very skinny, and he always insisted on sitting on a pillow be as -- because he says the chairs are too hard. he sits on his cushion and the courtroom is stupendous. there are five long defense tables on the left-hand side, and it was custom built for their trial.

each table is almost as long as the tables you're sitting at now because there was a spot for the suspect, then at least one translator, and then a spot for a couple of military attorneys, and then there are civilian attorneys. there are often six, eight, nine people there at the table. wally is in the court and he has a legal pad, and i see him, and he is starting to fold it, and he ends up making this paper airplane. he takes the paper airplane he shoots its at one of the other 9/11 suspects. three guys were in court because mohammad sent word to the judge he could not be bothered coming. one of the other ones is so crazy it would be difficult to get him to court.

balucci opens up this paper airplane and you can see these men not laughing. the sound is controlled by the military, so you cannot hear them, but see that there's something written inside the airplane. when i got back to washington to one of my legal contacts, who had picked up information from the court security officer who had retrieved the airplane, it was written on the inside of the numbers of the tail those jets. the symbolism of the military court room, with a suspect during an airplane with a flight numbers inside after a decade after they murdered 3000 americans, this is a window on who these people are, and it is a very dark window. i often say that people in the government who make decisions

about these people, they are going to prosecute hthe, ought to sit in at 9/11 court room in a guantanamo. a half an hour would be enough. then you really understand what we are up against. with that i would like to take your questions. >> thank you for your presentation trick recent worst -- news stories have spoken about the withdrawal at the eye that training materials that have been found offensive to the brotherhood lobby in this country, along with other things you have mentioned from your reporting. do you have an assessment of

how bad the compromise the fbi is relative to having their eyes open about al qaeda 2.0? >> that is an excellent question. what you see is the fbi has been very effective in breaking up lots inside the united states because in many respects this administration has been very aggressive at try to target individuals through surveillance or through the web. almost all these fbi cases involve some type of informant, and the defense is almost always that it was entrapment. on the one hand the data shows the fbi has been very effective. on the other hand, there is a real reluctance to call this what it is. it took almost two months call for " an act of terrorism. recently i was the reporter who broke the story that the defense department was trying to deal with these context in the context of workplace violence.

if you are able to speak to fbi agents privately, i interviewed one in the book who was generous to do that with me. they speak of their frustration. they speak of an administration in the opinion of this one agent that seems desperate to assimilate these people when it is not possible to do that. and i may be old-fashioned but if you are right to tackle a problem you have to call a spade a spade, because when you go on to the web at and you go into these website, which are run by extremists, they blocked us -- they mock us for offering the all this branch. they mocked us for trying to make peace. the first homeland security secretary said to me years ago

that he always thinks of the issue this way -- we have watches, but they have time. next question. go ahead. >> thank you for your presentation, and i look forward to reading your book. the reason i bring -- i found it interesting, your comment about how alaki went to school in colorado. apparently colorado college is are the sources of a lot of radicalization. the islamist movement is traced back to the university of northern colorado in greeley in the 1940's. i am also eight serving military officer.

after today i will go right to fork -- fort carson to serve my began. i am curious, i would be interested to hear more about how the radicalization is being spread, and it is all the wrong type of self-actualization, and the other issue is i find it an interesting struggle, and we in the military are struggling with this because it is a new kind of war, and we're fighting folks that exploit our witnesses and exploit the fact there is no set battlefield. we as officers are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, and we take that seriously. the way that it gets exploited, and the fact that there -- they are attacking us on our own home territory in ways that are a form of warfare, but not traditional, poses a number of challenges. i wonder if you might address

that, that conflict between how we fight wars traditionally and how we deal with this new form of warfare and attacks on our society and our nation. >> and the colorado issue, i think many of you would be interested to know alaki went to school in fort collins root he was a dual national, but when he entered the united states to go to college, because all good terrorists want an american education, he came here and said he was a foreign student, not an american, so he could qualify for $20,000 in scholarship money that was paid for by the u.s. taxpayer. that is enough there, i think. in terms of the radicalization, i am not a scientist, but what i can tell you from my reporting is this generational divide is important. i think there is a difference for people who grew up with social networking and the way to

connect with each other on the web in a virtual boy, it is far more real and intimate to them than it is to meet. what you have at plate often is what i call small group dynamics. what the web allows people to do is it allows them to identify like-minded people in a very quick way. in the old days, they used to congregate at the 7/11. this was actually the big conversation point. at the mosque in virginia, there is actually a 7-11. -- 7/11. you do not have to do that anymore. you do not have to go to afghanistan or pakistan or yemen or somalia. you can find people who share extreme viewpoints in minutes. you start putting in the right words. it is very confirming and it is

very confirmatory of those extreme point of view. they all believe that the moon is made of green cheese, and you know what? pretty soon you are absolutely committed to the idea that the moon is made from cream cheese, and everybody else who does not believe that is not a blind to what is going on. i believe this component is very important. what i want to mention, and thank you for your service, is one of the most disturbing trends we have seen and the last two years is the increasing targeting of people in the military here in the united states. in fact, about 70% of the plots in the last couple years have targeted members of the military. the reason, as someone in a military family, i find that's a distressing is these people served and they go overseas and then in some cases they become targets at home.

i have a theory as to why that is. it is not scientific, just based on what i have seen in my reporting. al qaeda has tried to sell its message to americans and western europeans since about 2006 when they saw we were profiling people, and they said we can play that game, too. we will find people that do not fit that profile. they started identified people, and they started using the internet as a driver for that. here in united states, when they have been able to convince people of the ideology, to become for will quest to become lone wolves, they have not been able to convince people to hit american civilians hit because these people have bought into this false scenario that the united states government is at

war against their religion, they feel people in uniform are legitimate targets. that is my own assessment based on my reporting. what is troubling is there has been an acceleration in these cases. i mentioned this man in the washington area, the alleged suicide bomber. the target was the capitol building, but in fact he considered several military targets before he settled on the capitol building. initially he wanted to get a building in alexandria that had military offices, and then he wanted a list of army generals. you see it in almost all of these cases now. >> there was a recent case in las vegas where somebody walked into restaurant where military officers in uniform, but armed, made a great target. >> there was a case in arkansas.

may recall the recruitment center shooting. that case was not prosecuted as a terrorism case, even though the young man wrote a letter to the judge saying he committed that shooting on behalf of the cleric's group in yemen. even though this young man track will to yemen for training -- young man traveled to yemen for training, it was prosecuted in state court, like a drive-by shooting. thank you for your question. >> hi. thank you for your talk and a great reporting you have done. has your reporting revealed any connection between local home grown terrorism and iran or

saudi arabia? >> what i found, especially looking into 9/11 and alalki is that there are many saudi contacts. this man in san diego was crazed over the 9/11 report, but not in the congressional inquiry in 2002. one of the sections in the book deals with hezbollah. a year and a half ago, they not only talk about i -- al qaeda, but hezbollah and to what extent it may have a network inside the united states. i say this from my reporting, that is really an unknown, but if you look at recent statements of the director of national intelligence, he is the nation's top intelligence adviser, he has telegraphed two very important things in the last couple months. first, he believes there has

been a change in the calculus by the supreme leader in iran, that they may be willing to retaliate against the united states, striking here in united states, if there was a strike against a facility. secondly, he said publicly that people have only talked about private, he believes there is an alliance between al qaeda and iran, and this is not a popular idea because conventional thinking is thinkingsunnis and sunnis and shias cannot work together. when he was pressed by center portman, whether this was an insurance policy, that if they were attacked they might rely on al qaeda's network to retaliate, he said that was the belief of the government. thank you. >> hello.

i'm a candidate for the second congressional district. i was struck by your comment about the messaging and the stories about four hood, how they would not recognize the facts and avoid discussion what it really meant. it made me think of the story this morning about the agency saying they do not see a move by iran to build a nuclear weapon. to what extent do you think messaging is going on there, or how should we interpret these different narrative's? >> it is important in many respects to be your own reporter, to take the information and try and assess it for yourself. there is a lot of messaging got on. there is always what they are saying and what they really mean. when i was reporting on alaki, people would tell me privately that i was making a very public case about why he should be on

the cia killer capture list. yet i found it bizarre that the u.s. government did not use all of the tools that it had delegitimize him. when he was in the nine states, he was picked up three times for soliciting prostitutes, and their police records that showed this, and gunshots that showed district you can get a month shy of almost any hollywood celebrity, charlie sheen, lindsay low hand, but you cannot get a month shan -- much shot of alaki. -- mug shot of alaki. i could never to understand that, because that is such a power for a piece of evidence. he is picked up for loitering around an elementary school, i assume so, in san diego.

it is a disconnect. i think you have to see what is in the public domain, especially when it comes to iran. you have to see it through a filter, but have to use your own judgment about the message. does that help? >> i think said. their commentary was that they see iran building some capabilities, but not developing an intention. distinction? what are they trying to tell us? >> well, my assessment would be is an effort to minimize the findings of the iaea, who said they had serious concerns about the nuclear program in iran. i know from speaking with the former cia director that he always felt iran was one of the

toughest issues to brief on to the president. in part because our general understanding of the regime is very limited, our intelligence. he said it was very opaque. and that when you have countries that have a limited intelligence and you have a country like iran which is becoming more and more isolated, which is part of your strategy, to try to convince them to abandon their nuclear program, did the come isolated and more out of touch, you do what? you increase the likelihood of a dramatic miscalculation. you have two parties, limited information about each other, and a likelihood for miscalculation is very great. i think that is part of it, as

well. i final point i would make on that is that recently the defense secretary said he believed israel would hit iran in april, may come or june, and one of my contacts on capitol hill said to me, you know what the headline is with the headline is we do not know. we believe. the israelis are not sharing that with us yet. we're not in lockstep. we think we believe, but we do not really know. that is a change of eight years ago. thank you for the question. >> thank you. >> i am running for national delegate.

in 2001 my son was attending csu, and we were told, what is wrong with him, for instance get more money than he can get we were stationed in germany when the war broke out. ell captured near heidelberg. we were trained, to watch for what ever. we got to colorado, and i knew there is a pipeline coming up from mexico, but i began finding out in loveland, greely, i-76, it is no longer migrant workers from mexico. also, these plants, there is a

lot of somalians, iranians. how do we as citizens begin to understand who is friendly and who is not? >> one of the things i tried to tell people is when you look at this problem in the future, i try to remind people that one of the goals of a group like al qaeda or extremists is to try and encourage us to use religion as a dividing line. do you know what i mean by that? to be overly suspicious of people who are muslim, when in fact i think when we want to create a dividing line, we want ask ourselves, we're gonna have terrorist on one side and everyone else on the other. they try to use religion as a wedge, because to do that it is very american -- un-american.

their franchise operations have metastasize, as i mentioned, al qaeda made a policy decision american and western europe because blows the entire profile. one thing that law enforcement says to me often is it is more important to look at who people are falling -- following, because then you understand who the followers are, because it is a broad spectrum of people now. as i said, it is the jihad james./ -- janes. it is the baptists from tennessee. it is not black and white

anymore. that is part of the problem. there's no easy answer. vegas. >> good morning. i live in denver, and for my déjà i work with a social network and digital advertising. it is amazing what we can learn about a person without knowing who they are. a question to you is, given there is over 100 million users for facebook >> and other networks are just as large, how do you balance our ability to mine this information to find the bad guys versus my desire not have the government intrude into my private life? >> that is an excellent question, the leading edge of what we're going. at what point does this hateful speech crossed a line, where it starts to incite violence of the

head of the george washington homeland security policy group said to me recently, we ought to treat this material like child pornography and have filters. what could really comes of this material? then the question becomes, what characteristics do you use to define that -- to what extent do we want the government looking at people on the web all the time? from my reporting, after fourth could come up there is a facebook page -- fort hood, there was a facebook page of alaki, and you had to know when you friended him, you were friending the fbi.

an example of that was "in -- "inspire" magazine. from my reporting at the time, there was a consideration within the government to make him the second american on the killer capture list. this digital magazine is a very select. is is like the "marcus st ewart living." is very western. there were debates between the committee and the british as to whether -- there is a buildup for the release of this magazine, whether they should leave it up and see who goes to get, obvious or whether it was

cut to cause problems and they should take it that. the first version of the magazine, it was all crazy, garbled, on all of these jihadist forms. it has spyware. in fact they were right, because the british said they were taking that that. we do not want it up there. we do not want to see who goes there, see what trouble it causes. you have hit the nail on the head there. i do not know where we draw that line, because one of the goals of these groups is to fundamentally change the way we live our lives. in an effort to protect against the tax in the future, do we want to hand these groups a victory they would not have already, i fundamentally change the way we operate, but fundamentally changing the way the government monitors its own

citizens? it may be that we have to have -- and this was an idea given to me -- a policy debate in this country about the likelihood of small scale or meeting scale terrorist attacks and that may be the price for not having the going into the business of its citizens. >> thank you. i am from adams county. given that we chairs religious liberty in this -- cherished religious liberty, how should we as americans try to engage the muslim population such that we can better assimilate them into our culture second question, if is

related to you see this struggle more as a criminal struggle or as a military struggle? >> i see it to more as a military struggle, less a criminal struggle. in large part, because this is a battle of ideas in the end. it is about an ideology, and while i may see it more as a military sure, it is not a set of ideas you can nuke. what troubles me about taking these cases to the criminal system is that i think there is opportunity to lose intelligence. guantanamo bay was supposed to be closed, as you know, by

january of two dozen 10. that has not happened by a variety of reasons. the compromise is that there has been no new detainees there for several years now. one of the reasons that has happened is because we no longer have to capture policy, we just had a killed policy. people are gun shy about interrogating people now. they are worried about whether they are going to be sued, whether a decision by the justice department under one administration will be thrown out the window by the next, and people are, i know, from speaking to individuals, they are reluctant to get into that business. we're first question, which is a question about america, i come back to this idea that was given to me by britain's equivalent of their homeland security secretary, and they have been living with homegrown terrorists of more than we have.

they try to use a dividing line and not use religion as that divider. one of the great things about our country is you can practice your religion here on encumbered. that is not something i feel -- and this is a personal opinion -- that we want to let go of, because it hands them a victory that they would not otherwise have. there's no denying the data when you look at these cases, especially the young man from the minneapolis area who have gone to somalia to join the al qaeda affiliate there, many of them are naturalized citizens and they came to the united states as very young children. and for what ever reason, they have never felt completely at home here. the case of the suicide bomber that i mentioned in washington, d.c. this is someone who came here as a teenager and lived here for 12

years. never really connected. there is this element of this connection. i'm not sure if i'm smart enough to enter that for you. that was my best shot. thank you. thank you very much. >> next we will take a look at the iraq war and u.s. national security. nationalpresident's security adviser reinforced the administration costs continuing commitment to iraq and the postwar era today. antony blinken says while the conflict is over, work in the country continues. his remarks came during a discussion today on u.s.-iraq relations on the center for american progress. this is 45 minutes. >> good morning. welcome to the center for american progress. i'm rudy deleon, the senior vice president for national security. on back of my colleagues at the center and with the national security program, i want to

welcome you. for the first time in nine years, the united states does not have troops fighting in iraq. president barack obama fulfilled his promise to end the war in iraq as part of an overall strategy to re-balance america's national security priorities. today we will discuss this and have this presentation on the end of the iraq war and america's ongoing engagement in iraq with antony blinken, deputy assistant to president obama and national security adviser to vice president joe biden. our colleague brian has done a brief paper on the back table for all of you who want to make sure you grab a copy. in it he is looking at how the end of the iraq war has strengthened overall u.s. national security, by dedicating more resources to the fight against al qaeda, to restore u.s. military ideals, expand options to face other middle east and threats, and to

reduce the financial burden on defense spending and three- balance u.s. national security and overall. again, that paper is on the back table and it is also on line for those watching on c-span or the video feed. it was last december speaking at fort bragg, north carolina that president obama if stood before u.s. troops. and this was his comment. "it is harder to end a war than to begin one." everything that american troops have done have led to this moment of success. iraq is not a perfect place. it has many challenges ahead, but we are leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self- reliance iraq if with a representative government that was elected by its people. we are building a new partnership between our nations and we are ending a war not with a final battle but with a final march toward home.

this is an extraordinary achievement nearly nine years in the making. today the american people remember everything that the men and women of the armed forces of the united states did to make that moment possible." i think we will have a very interesting program here. and after tony makes his comments, we will take questions from the audience. it is my great pleasure to welcome to the center for american progress antony blinken. [applause] >> thank you all very much. good morning. it is great to be here at the center for american progress. it is particularly good to be here with you, rudy, a colleague of many years, and with john podesta, a great leader at the white house during the clinton administration and a remarkable leader and founder of this

institution. i appreciate the hospitality very much. like many in the administration including i suspect dozens of past alumni currently serving, we look to 4 sound ideas on policy and analysis. this morning sharing with you some of our ideas about iraq. sunday will mark nine years since the start of the iraq war and three months since the last american troops crossed the border into kuwait, ending one of our nation's longest and most divisive conflicts. the wisdom of going to war in iraq is something that will be debated for years. i will leave that debate to this story ends. but what is beyond debate and what news coverage of iraq in my judgment often deals to a knowledge is that iraq today is less violent, more democratic, and more prosperous.

and the u.s. is more deeply engaged there than at any time in recent history. those of us that have been working on iraq a long time, including brian and larry, let done remarkable work on it for years, they know and we know that this progress, while far from complete, is also far from inevitable. it was the result of the extraordinary success and sacrifice of our troops, the resolve and resilience of the iraqi government and its people, and intense engagement of our diplomats and civilians, which continues today. i appreciate the opportunity to take stock of how far we have, and how far iraq has come. the profound challenges that remain and where we have yet to go in building a new and more normal relationship between iraq and the united states. rudy quoted president obama a moment ago. when the president and vice president came to office they

came with a commitment to end the war in iraq responsibly. both parts of that sentence are critical. it meant two things. it meant bringing our troops home after nearly a decade of war. and as important, it meant helping the iraqis build a sovereign, stable self-reliant country with a representative government that could become a partner in the region and not as a safe haven for terrorists. when the u.s. still had 140,000 troops in iraq, president determined to withdraw u.s. forces from iraqi cities by the summer of 2009, to end a combat mission and get down to 50,000 troops in september 2010 and to fulfill president bush' security agreement by withdraw all forces by september 2011.

under the president's leadership and vice-president biden, we followed that path to the letter. at every step along the way, many predicted that violence would return and iraq would slide back into sectarian chaos. at least so far those predictions have proved wrong. over the past three years of violence in iraq has declined and remained at historic lows even after we completed the withdrawal of u.s. forces late last year. weekly security incidents, which is the measure be abused consistently over the years, fell from an average of 1600 in 2007 and 2008 to less than 100 today. and has been a consistent trend over the last couple years. that is a credit to our troops first and foremost to succeeded

at great cost in restoring a measure of stability and pull trains an iraqi army and security forces that now in defiance of many doubters and is demonstrating the ability to provide basic security for its citizens. this did another thing. it created the time and space for what vice-president joe biden has called the most important developments in iraq in recent years. that is the emergence of politics as opposed to violence as the basic means for selling disputes and advancing interests. we all know and have seen and read about it, a series of crises over the election laws, the election itself, the government formation, that have plagued iraq in recent years. but at an earlier time in their history would have erupted into all-out violence. the fact is it did not. each and every time iraqi leaders resolved their differences and at the negotiating table, with the steady support of our embassy, led by one of our most effective diplomats, and jim jeffries. in december passed after more

than eight years president obama kept his promise to end the iraq war responsibly. let me briefly describe a scenario that recently played out in iraq. i think it will sound familiar to many of you. a leading suny arrow political figure is charged with terrorism related offenses by a shia government. a group of lawmakers walked out of parliament grinding the political process to a halt and striking fears of a return to a sectarian war. i know it sounds familiar and it should, but it happens in the summer of 2007 when the culture minister, not to be confused with the current vice president, was accused of ordering the assassination of a fellow politician. similar events took place recently in the wake of our troop withdrawal. the current vice president and members of that the security detail were charged with terrorism-related offenses.

the iraqi government was televised assassination of some of the guards. we heard dire predictions once again of eminent civil war. baseless accusations that u.s. troops leaving was to blame. the standoff caused no increase in violence. the political process continued with the parliament maintaining a quorum. iraqi leaders continued to negotiate across partisan and sectarian divide its. an independent judicial panel was formed to review the evidence against the accused. meanwhile, our embassy worked relentlessly with all sides to prevent escalation. senior washington officials, vice president, and others made

nearly daily phone calls to iraqi leader surging calm, respect for law, and the local process. gradually tensions defused. the main difference in the end between these two incidents, the one in 2007 through 2008 and the one today is that in 2007 the boycott lasted more than eight months when we had 150,000 troops in iraq. this time it lasted less than two months when we had no troops in iraq. this comparison offers context that is largely been lacking from public discourse on iraq since the war ended. if you read the newspapers, listen to the media, it would suggest that as our troops departed iraq, so did american influence and our administration allegedly shifted its focus away from iraq. for example, it has been reported that our ambassador cannot get in to see the prime

minister and that our diplomats cannot leave the embassy compound. here are the facts. our engagement has increased and not decreased since the withdrawal. so far this year, ambassador jeffries has been to see the prime minister nine times. he has seen his top aides dozens of times. that is far more access than virtually all of our ambassadors in other countries get to the senior leadership. our embassy team is engaged with other senior groups, that's virtually every day. our engagement from washington has kept pace. the vice president has made multiple trips, dozens of phone calls. president obama's request, he is also hosted a monthly cabinet level meeting on iraq.

an extraordinary and unprecedented level of engagement by the second most senior u.s. official. to support these efforts, i and other senior washington officials including the deputy national security advisor and the deputy secretary of state and the deputy energy secretary, and others have made multiple trips to iraq during this time. in virtually all of the meetings that we have, including one the prime minister was here in december to meet with president, we have made clear to our iraqi counterparts that continued u.s. support if it requires that a compromise across sectarian lines, respect roadblock, and uphold the constitution. we know from these efforts and from this engagement that despite the troop drawdown, the demand for our engagement from iraqi leaders of all political stripes remains undiminished. i witnessed this firsthand during the lengthy government formation process. the embassy team, senior officials from washington and

shuffled among the parties for months. the president and vice president or deeply engaged. when the deal was sealed, one photograph captured that engagement. there were four people in the room when the deal was sealed. prime minister maliki, another leader, the kurdish region president, and the u.s. ambassador to iraq. during the most recent political standoff, the u.s. remained the indispensable, honest broker pan and the only one trusted by and in regular communication with all the leading block in iraq. much of this engagement takes place quiet late, not advertised. just because you don't see it, just because we don't say it, does not mean we are not doing it. we have also seen, i think, in recent weeks significant progress on a number of issues. every day we are cooperating with iraqis on the security threats that it still faces, on

boosting and protecting the vital energy sector, and supporting its emergence as a member of the international community in good standing, and a responsible regional actor prepares progress on all these fronts. for example, oil production is now about 2.7 million barrels per day. that is up from 1.8 million barrels a day in 2005. over 3 million barrels by the end of this year. oil exports have provided much- needed revenue that enable lawmakers to pass a $100 million budget in february. we have also seen unprecedented steps toward 3 integrating iraq. the appointment of a non- resident saudi ambassador to iraq for the first time since 1990. visits by iraqi national security advisor, ministers of defense, interior, and justice to riad and to baghdad from turkish officials.

an agreement to settle iraqi debts owed to egyptian workers who fled iraq during the first gulf war. and plans to host the arab league summit later in baghdad on march 29. while iran and iraq will inevitably be more inclined than we and many of iraq's neighbors would like, one thing we have learned over more than eight years in iraq is this. the vast majority of its leaders, including the prime minister, are iraqi nationalists and resistance to outside influence from any quarter, including iran. baghdad repeatedly has acted contrary to iran those interests, including with its support for a resolution on syria, pressure on iranian- backed militia to reduce the tax, and the patients it has shown despite repeated pressure from iran during efforts to relocate a camp. all this progress is real, but so is the peril.

iraq faces profound challenges about fundamental issues. we see them with very clear eyes. finding ways to share power and holding all sides to the agreements they make. stamping out the violent extremists to continue launching our raiders attacks on innocent civilians and foreign diplomats just try to do their jobs, and security forces. ensuring the necessary legal and financial framework in place to allow the energy sector to further flourish. the level of violence, while diminished, also remains unacceptable to the iraqi people. enhancing and maintaining iraq pose a commitment to democratic principles of will require hard work and constant vigilance. its regional relationships remain tenuous despite the recent progress and fraught with mistrust and the specter of airtran looms large over iraqi affairs. these and other problems will not simply. be solved simply but i think a

little perspective is in order. given the country posted dramatic and very recent past, more than 30 years of dictatorship, international conflict, economic isolation, sectarian violence, just a few short years ago that nearly tore the country apart, discounting its progress towards a more normal political existence means turning a blind eye to the facts. what about going forward? i would argue that we have the people in place and structures in place to deepen our engagement with iraq. our embassy and strategically located consulates will lead the effort to develop our strategic russia with iraq under the 2008 strategic framework agreement, which continues. in december vice-president joe biden and the prime minister tareq the first reading of the high coordinating committee since 2000 under that oversees a series of smaller committees

that our lead from senior officials on both sides in iraq and in the u.s. on a broad variety of important issues on defense and security, energy, trade and investment, education and culture, politics and diplomacy, law enforcement and judiciary, services, technology, environment, transportation. this work is well under way. let me give you a few examples. to our office of security cooperation, we are helping the iraqis acquire major weapons systems like helicopters, heavy artillery, f-16's. our goal is to have iraq protect itself from external threats. the judicial institute has provided continuing legal education for more than 1700 judges and judicial employees since 2010. the anti-corruption strategy is a work in progress and we provide training to anti- corruption bodies like the commission on integrity.

we also help build the iraqi museum, preserve the historic site of babylon, and we continue to support the iraqi institute for the preservation of antiquities. we expect to bring iraqi students to the u.s. to study. for the first time this year since 1988 we have participated in the baghdad international trade fair. u.s. civilians features 85 companies with combined annual revenues of over $1 trillion, the largest single country. presence in country if that sounds less light war footing and more like the type of programs we have in countries around the world, countries with only have normal relationships, that is the point. our goal is a close strategic partnership with iraq. but we also seek a more normal relationship between two nations bound together by shared sacrifice, by common

interests, and by a commitment to a better future. while our war in iraq is over, i'll work in iraq and with iraq, a country that remains of the center of so many vital american interests, continues. with that, let me stop talking and start listening and take your questions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for your remarks, tony. i think we have some questions that will get right into that. let me ask a few and then we will open it up to our audience. i think you are right, getting the regional politics squared away after almost a decade of attention and then the 30-year reign of sadaam hussein, the 1991 war, the run-iraq war, all these things. so give us your sense of what the strategy going forward is to make sure that this hard- fought security is protected?

>> we have begun to seem iraq's integration into its region in recent months. the fact of the matter is after a period where iraq was frozen out, we are seeing important signs of thaw. we have had now the saudis finally appointing an ambassador to iraq for the first time in years. travel to saudi arabia by the most senior iraqi officials, the progress with kuwait on resolving many longstanding issues. prime minister maliki in kuwait this week. a dispute over airliners that was complicated by sadaam hussein finally resolved.

a commission going forward to work on the remaining outstanding issues. the jordanians and united arab emirates starting all to engage more with iraq. that is critical. grounding iraq in the region as a responsible actor is one of the key ways to stability and security. fiftha lot of this goes to resolving iraq's own conflicts. this is something we continue to work on day in and day out. the united nations working on this as well. and finally, the vice president likes to say oil can be what holds iraq together, but we have a lot of work to do to resolve fundamental problems in the way they decide the allocation of resources and

production resourceso production -- allocation of resources. regional integration, our experts to help build capacity, oil, all that will continue to stableize iraq -- to stabilize iraq. >> i think we are all watching that carefully. but let's stick in the regional neighborhood for a little while and give us your perspective on al qaeda and iran. >> in recent months in terms of violence in iraq we have seen the violence from an iranian- backed shiite muslim groups has dropped dramatically. that's a function of iraqis have made clear to the iranians that violence from these groups is unacceptable and prime minister maliki told the iranians that it considered an attack on americans to be an attack on iraqi interests. the fact that our troops are gone, they say is a rationale for some of these attacks. we have also seen continued attacks from outside in iraq.

the iraqis also have a real capacity the bullet over the years to deal with these problems. a counter-terrorism capacity that is effective answer is significant and security forces that are getting better and better. despite the repeated attacks by al qaeda in iraq and the violence they perpetrate, we have not seen pericycle of sectarian violence spiralled up again. we have not seen sunni sara bareilles to the cause. as bad as some of these attacks are, when you look at the larger factors in that should be something that can be managed and hopefully eventually dealt with. and then, in terms of the shiite militia, some of whom are backed by iran, we have seen a significant lessening of their

activities. it would be good if any groups that are actually reconcilable can be brought into the political system to actually do that, some are beyond that. in recent months that violence has diminished. >> thank you, but let's stick in this neighborhood, because this is a tough neighborhood -- syria. how does the iraqi stance on syria evolved? the arab league summit is scheduled for baghdad. that will certainly be one measure of how closely aligned iraq is with the regional politics and regional diplomacy and u.s. interests in the region. give us your sense on the current view from baghdad as far as syria goes? >> let me for start with something you said. i mentioned the arab league summit is scheduled to take place in baghdad.

that is the remarkable development, march 29. it is a summit that baghdad was up next in the rotation and it had been put off a couple years. it is a profound symbol as well as practical manifestation of iraq pose the increasing integration into the region. syria is incredibly complicated for iraq. they have fears they could see sectarian spillover, that this could agitate the sunni population and create sectarian tensions in iraq. they are very concerned about it. as we have said on numerous occasions to iraqi leaders, the cause of instability in syria and what creates the greatest potential for the spillover is bashar al-assad. once the violence stops and he is gone, there is a much greater potential to avoiding

what iraq hopes to avoid. iraq has supported the arab league consensus on syria. they voted for a saudi-backed u.n. general assembly and they stood at up to some iranian pressure on syria, so they are in a difficult position. thus far they have been with the arab league. i think you'll see at the summit in baghdad the consensus further consolidating on the need to end the violence in syria and for assad to go. >> thank you. i have a few more, but let me start to engage our audience. i will ask you to wait until the microphone is there and then please identify yourself. and so, let's start right here in the front row. >> thank you. i'm with cnn, elise. i was hoping we could pick up on some of the threats, mainly the sectarian issue and how

syria already seems to be affecting the government's position. while it has supported the arab league consensus, it seems to have done so reluctantly. that does seem to have gotten the sunni population in some areas upset and fearful, because they clearly are supporting opposition. do you anticipate iraq making a very sharp break with president assad? and on the sectarian ankle, but there does seem to be still a lot of sectarian tensions in the country as evidenced by the incident with the vice- president over there. even though it did not break into violence, i think there are still lot of fears that sectarianism in the country and there are still lot of calls for federalism.

at one time the vice-president supported. do you see various sects moving farther apart or do you think that al-maliki can bring them closer together? >> the fact of the matter is that iraq is a country that has been divided by sect and by ethnicity in the past. tensions remain significant. figuring out how to share power across political blocs and also across sectarian and ethnic groups is an ongoing challenge. there's no doubt about it. there's also no doubt that it is conceivable that sectarian tension turned into violence and ethnic tension turns into violence. what is so important. is it important. the most profound development

in iraq over the last three years is the emergence of politics as the basic means of transacting business and protecting interests. if you go back and look at each of the crises i mentioned over the election laws, over the the ratification process -- the debathification process, people thought the sky was falling and iraq was about to descend back into a sectarian violence -- each and every time. the iraqis stuck with the political process with some help from us. they used it to resolve their differences and keep moving forward. based on that track record, not of just a couple months but for the last few years, i think that we can take some hope that this will continue and despite the tensions that you are right to allude to, they can be managed as long as the iraqis did with the political system.

this is fraught with difficulty because of the concern of potential spillover and of who might follow bashar al-assad. despite those concerns, iraq has valley to the arab league consensus. the arab league summit is meeting in baghdad in just a couple weeks. and i think you'll see that consensus hold. >> trudy rubin from the philadelphia inquirer. the iraqis who work for our military and our civilians were promised 25,000 visas by congress in 2008. you also know that there's been a terrific bureaucratic blockage over new security requirements. there are thousands of these people, many of them under death threats, and the numbers are not moving.

although u.s. officials have told me for the past eight months that the numbers would increase, they are basically frozen. can you tell me whether there is ever going to be in a serious move to unlock that blockage, which certainly, don't you think would give future allies the reason not to want to work closely with us and to distrust us? and many of these iraqis have had security checks and have worked for our military. i have received e-mails about the terrible conditions they are living in waiting for visas that don't come. >> trudy, we obese people. -- we both these people. -- owe these people.

we have a debt to these people, an obligation to these people. they put their lives on a line for the united states. and we are cognizant of that. we are working on that and acting on that. as you said, it makes sense, because if we don't deal with the problem, it will have a chilling affect on the willingness of people around world to cooperate and to work with our missions. if you go to any embassy, by the way, around the world, a critical component of our ability to work effectively of the foreign service members. it's more than that. it is the fact that they put their lives on the line. this is not something unmoved as fast as we would like. since 2007 issued 70,000 visas overall for iraqis. of those, seventh thousand were

the special immigrant visas for iraqis who worked in some capacity for the united states. that is far fewer than we would have liked. one of the things that happened is security concerns began to emerge about the potential for extremist groups using the refugee program or the special immigrant visa program to get extremists into the united states. so we went back and look very carefully at the program if to make sure we were making good on our obligation and our debt especially to those who worked for us and that we were providing for the security of the united states. last two or three months my colleagues and i led by dennis and john brenan have johnhours in the situation along with all the agencies working through this problem. what i can tell you today is i think we have a way forward now that will show demonstrable progress in bringing more people to the united states while making sure that our security is upheld. in the first part of the most

recent fiscal year we actually issued more visas than all the previous fiscal years. so there's been movement. what we have done recently will demonstrate in the months ahead real progress with more people getting visas and that will become clear as we go forward. >> 114 visas were granted in february. there are thousands on the waiting list. the 7000 also includes family members. there are far fewer in primary visas. so there are only perhaps a low 4000 member for primary visas even though 25,000 were promised. can you give more detail about what is going to be done now that is going to make the situation there and from the past eight months since officials have been allegedly working very hard on this all this time and yet the numbers still don't budge? >> all i can tell you at this point, trudy, is what weapons. my firm prediction is that you will see a significant step forward in the issuance of visas and people coming to the

u.s. under the program in the months ahead, but in a way that also preserves our security. all i can say is to watch this in a few months. if i'm wrong, i'm sure you will let me know. >> let me take a second and impose a question. we spoke briefly about iraqi oil production coming up. that could have a significant impact on global oil markets as the sanctions program against iran continues to have real teeth. give us your sense of how close --you mentioned encouraging numbers coming from iraq. give us your assessment? >> the potential is tremendous as well as the problems. we have seen real progress over the last five or six years in terms of. iraqi of up to about 2.7 million barrels a day. the trend, if it continues, and the projections are it will top

3 million barrels a day by the end of this year. we have done a very careful assessment. we have sent out a very senior officials including the deputy secretary of energy and others and we have a very good team in place at the embassy. they look at this carefully and worked closely with the iraqis. the good news is the potential over the next couple years is probably for iraq to get up to maybe as much as 4 million barrels a day. that is the good news. the bad news is, absent significant investment in infrastructure and financing, it is going to be hard to move beyond that. and so, the iraqis need to do a number of things. first, they need to finally resolve the question of their oil law.. that is who decides on contracts, how the proceeds are

distributed. a lot of this is happening as a practical matter on a day in and day out basis. but the lack a law continues -- but the lack of a law continues to cause tension with the kurds. there's been some suggestion of movement, but we have seen that in the past. second, if the financing system for the energy sector needs to change. the profit potential needs to be made more attractive for the companies that would invest. many of them are investing on the basis of service contracts that don't give them the kind of returns they would get in other places. and openness to financing systems that are used around the world that are not in place in iraq also needs to happen. the good news is we have

already seen progress that is significant. and has helped iraq tremendously. a $100 million budget this past year in export revenues. it has helped world oil markets and creates a greater sense of stability in those markets. they will make further progress in the months ahead, but you hit a ceiling at some point. . they are able to get beyond that ceiling -- and the jury is out on that -- then as profound strategic implications for the region, including iraqi production surpassing iranian production. there are not there yet. >> thank you. let's continue with questions from the audience. sir. >> arms from the capital trust group. antony, if we bring into the account the future for conflict in iran, what are the consequences to the iraqi oil industry if there is a military attack on iran?

can that make oil prices go up? >> i will not speculate on the potential of conflict, but the president has been clear. we believe there is time for the diplomatic effort backed by increasing pressure on iran to succeed in dealing with the international community not pose the concerns about iran posing nuclear program and we are very focused on maks. he has also made clear that we are determined to keep iran from acquiring nuclear arms and have no intention of getting into a containment policy with iran. right now the focus is on increasing pressure. we are seeing sanctions on iran taking an enormous bit -- more than $60 billion in projects have ended. dozens of leading companies in the world have stopped doing business with iran. significant impact on the iranian economy. all this is going to get even

worse for the iranians in among said as sanctions that have recently been decided, particularly in europe in the oil sector and on the central bank, will begin to take effect. i don't want to speculate right now on what might happen. all i can say is focus on dealing with the problem through a diplomatic process and in the time it takes to do that. >> we have time for one last question. >> thank you. i have a question. we know that iraq -- [unintelligible] how do you assess the drawdown process in afghanistan? and president karzai blast of americans today.

what is your reaction? >> i will leave afghanistan to my colleagues of the white house. i'm sure that will be discussed later today. let me say this. when president obama took office we faced three significant all-consuming challenges. two wars in iraq and of an extended and going on for a decade. a resurgence in al qaeda -- of al qaeda. and alliances that had been afraid to the breaking point around the world. we put enormous efforts led by the president and the vice president into ending these wars responsible. we have ended one of them in iraq and another in afghanistan. we have taken on all, and have dealt with bin laden. al qaeda is on its heels. our alliances are in better

shape with old partners and new partners than they have been at any time in recent memory. that has created tremendous space for us to deal with russia, china, india, brazil, including dealing with energy, the environment, and many other things. if you step back and look at the big picture of the challenges we face when we took office and what we have been able to do to reorient our foreign policy and to give us opportunities to make america stronger going forward, i think we are in a good position. and let me end with this, because it goes to what i was talking about earlier, it is understandable that we all get caught up in the day to day of who did what and said what today and what violent incident there was, whether it is in iraq or afghanistan. that is understandable, but it is also necessary to step beck and look at the long-term picture, look at the trends, where's this moving, what do we see.

in iraq the big trends, despite the problems, the big trend is the emergence of politics as a way of doing business for all of the iraqi blocks and factions. that is a very significant development, because it has tremendous promise for iraq working through their problems. in afghanistan we have seen a trend line of handing over responsibility to the afghans for their own security over the next couple years. thank you. >> let me thank our guest antony >> saturday on "washington journal," a discussion of young voters on the upcoming election. then new york times banking and finance reporter talks about the ethics and goals of investment banks. he responds to be greg smith op- ed calling goldman smith -- goldman sachs a toxic environment.

georgetown university law professor explains how it works. washington journal on c-span. state department spokesman victorian noonan said today that north korea's intention to launch a satellite into space next month is in direct violation with the agreement north korea made with the united states. her comments are about 20 minutes. >> a north korean launch of a satellite would be highly provocative. the u.n. security council resolution 1718 and 1874 very clearly and unequivocally require north korea to suspend all activities related to their missile program including the conduct of launches. resolution 1874 actually says in the text that they not conduct

any further nuclear tests or launches using ballistic missile technology. so, our concern about this, as you know, coming so quickly after the leap day agreement for the moratorium is that this calls into question whether when they entered into that agreement, they thought this was ok. at the time, we warned them that a satellite launch of this type would be a violation of the agreement. >> were they told there would be consequences? in particular, i am wondering about food aid because you have gone to great lengths to separate the nuclear issue from the humanitarian side. at the same time, they made a

distinct linkage between the two. without being inconsistent on your part, is it something you could rethink now, food aid, because they have violated their part of -- announced that they are going to violate their part of the agreement. >> as you say, we make it a priority not we do want to assist the north korean people, particularly those the regime has chosen to neglect. a launch of this kind, which would abrogate our agreement, which would call into question the credibility the dprk has made to us and has made in general. it goes to the question of

monitoring and insuring that any food we would provide would go to the needy and not to be regime it -- elite. if we were to have a lot, it would create tensions and that would make the implementation of any kind of agreement quite difficult. it would imperil the environment. if they were to go forward with this launch, it is hard to imagine how we would be able to move forward with a regime whose word we have no confidence in and which has violated the international community's >> file that under hypothetical questions you are willing to answer. >> correct. >> [unintelligible]

>> if we have a satellite launch, it is hard to imagine we would have confidence in the monitoring of arrangements we are trying to make with them, or that the environment would be such an sufficiently tension free that we would be able to implement those agreements. it is hard to imagine how we would be a will to move forward. -- would be able to move forward. >> when did it become apparent? was there any head of given to you that they would make an announcement at this time? was the statement cobbled together in the last couple of hours? have the north koreans been told what you told us about the assistance for food program? >> in the context of working on the leap day agreement, we made

clear unequivocally that we considered any satellite launch would be a deal breaker. on the front end, they understood that. we were called yesterday. we were contacted through the new york channel and advised late in the afternoon yesterday that they were likely to move forward with this. i obviously, the individuals who took the message was unobstructed at that time, but made clear what he considered the implications of this to be. just a few hours after words, the statement was released by the north korean news service, which is why we felt we had to respond almost immediately. hence, the notification you got at 4:00 in the morning. from our perspective, they

should -- there should not be any doubt what the implications would be if they go forward. >> you said he explained the rationale. can you give us the jist of what their point is? >> i will not characterize their view. >> you said this launch would be a violation of the u.n. resolution. is it correct to consider this a violation to the agreement you made on february 29? >> it certainly constitutes an abrogation of the agreement. yes. >> have you assuredly not koreans that there will be a cut off of food to notes 3? the continued flow of cheap --

cut off all food to north korea. >> i do not have any particular comment on that. >> the recovery of u.s. servicemen in not korea. that was not on the agreement announced february 29. i wonder if this will be impacted by the north korean announcement today. >> i will send you to the department of defense. it is their primary program. >> nuclear facilities? >> we are not clear what this means in terms of the commitments they made. >> you said the north korean missile launch is not linked to humanitarian aid. why not?

>> humanitarian aid is designed to meet a humanitarian need. we do not explicitly link political issues with the delivery of humanitarian food stuffs. the problem becomes, as you know, in order to get those food stuffs in, you have to work with the government. that takes you to the question of what you can trust the government's word. that takes you to where i started this. the issues are not linked and we do not consider them linked. but there are complications in dealing with the government where we are not sure they are acting in good faith. in the back. >> you mentioned this is a missile launch. the usa is considering this a

missile launch or a rocket launch? >> the dprk talks about a satellite launch. however, it requires the use of missile technology to launch a satellite. it is the use of the missile technology that is an explicit violation of u.n. security council resolution 1874. it is a semantic issue if you say it is a missile or a satellite. in the back. >> has the u.s. been in contact with japan or korea. ? what has been the subject of these conversations? >> we have. our special advisor on these issues was on the phone with each of the six party talk's

counterparts. he has spoken with all of them and had spoken by the time it was daylight in washington. he has not spoken to the north koreans. the only contact was the contact we had in new york last night. >> what is the next step? will you contact the north koreans? >> in the context of the six party talks we had in washington, the agreement is for everyone to use their influence with the dprk to encourage them not to make this launch and not to violate their international obligations and to recommit to the leap day agreement. >> it has been getting close to being done after the meeting in beijing. does that mean you have put that

on hold until the north koreans say, never mind. we will not do this launch? or is it can so completely? how do we describe where the food aid is now? >> you can describe the concern i articulate at the beginning here about what they are acting in good faith and the fact that all of those things need to be clarified. we were relatively far advanced. king was in rome talking to the world food program about delivery. we are going to take a pause and see what happens. we need more reassurance now. >> you have reached an announced the february 29 agreement. it has only taken 17 days for

the north koreans to file late it -- violate, as they have violated many agreements in the past. >> they have not actually had the launch. they have announced a launch. the agreement that was a reached -- reached on leap day was something we had been talking about since august. we have had no-we had three rounds of talks. we had -- we had three rounds of talks. there was nothing rushed or unthought-through on that agreement from our perspective. we had a change of leadership in the middle. our expectation on the day when

we issue our statement and the dprk issued their statement, the statement was representative of the regime. the secretary made clear that it was a first step. we had to get the iaea in there to verify. at no time did we considered that this was a done deal or clear sailing. it was only a first step. obviously, it is of concern that we worked so hard together on these parallel statements. we thought that would be a first step to getting ourselves back to a solid, station with the dprk about meeting its

international obligations. >> my question was not what it was rushed or whether it was not considered. it did take a long time. i am sure you did considered it. the question is more what is the utility of this particular agreement given the history that the north koreans have of violating many agreements that they have reached, notably the framework and the 2005 agreement to abandon all nuclear programs, which was followed by their first nuclear test. >> particularly given that history, that is why we were so intent when the two statements were issued to say, good first step. the moratorium to be real.

only thereafter will we be able to decide what this means about the process of getting back to the six parties. even on the day -- leap day, nobody was jumping for joy and predicting this was a mass of turning of the page. the statement we had today from the dprk -- it is difficult to figure out where we move from here. >> the talks and meetings taking place -- was everyone told to stand down? >> we were working with the iaea on how they might plant their trip to inspect. that does not seem to make a lot of sense until we get more clarity. we will see on the assistance side. we are working with the world food program and others on how

the monitoring agreement might be implemented and who might actually deliver. as i said, we need to take a pause and see what happens. >> [unintelligible] >> it does not seem to make a lot of sense in the context of the potential that this deal might be abrogated that we would expect the iaea to get on a plane. >> why isn't there utility even if they said they would violate one aspect of the agreement? why isn't there utility in testing another one would would give youiaea -- give you iaea boots on the grounds? >> it is a good point. we need to think about what makes sense. >> general question.

this is a new regime. is there any way this was handled that is different from the way north korean has handled things before, anything that seemed a little high. you are saying it does not make sense and you are not sure. we have heard phrases like that before. is it the same modus operandi ? >> are you talking about how things are going before the leadership change versus after the leadership change? >> anything more strange about this one? >> i do not think i have any particular insight into what may or may not have a change in the inner workings. you know how close that system is. i do not think there was anything particularly different,

as our envoy has said. many of the individuals working on this deal in august were the same ones working in february. obviously, there is a question of what is going on. let's finish north korea. >> in the past week have been doing these deals, they never announced anything like a missile launch in the middle of the deal. what do you think it means that they actually went ahead and announced just as you are on the cost of finishing a two day deal? -- cusp two day deal? >> i am not in the position to analyze their motives. >> your sixth party partners

assure you they stand on your side. humanitarian aid is offered to north korean. >> the i am not going to get into the substance of each individual call. the sense that we had was that there wasn't anybody was not caught by some surprise by this decision by the dprk. now the question is for all of the six party members to make clear that this is not the way to go forward if they want to work with us. >> in secretary sherman's meeting, will these issues we discussed? >> i did not have that. i am sure this issue will come up. >> who is supporting the north as far as missiles and technology are concerned? are you in touch with china.

when they have new leadership and security in the region is concerned -- leadership in north korea. what happened? >> we have spoken to the chinese and we will continue to work with them. they are the chair of the sixth party talks. they have a particular relationship with the dprk and quite a bit of influence. i cannot remember what your second question was. >> security in the region, especially with south korea. >> as we mentioned, it is always a matter of having to test assumptions. that has not changed. still on notes. ? -- north korea?

yes? >> how would you describe the february 29 agreement gemma -- february 29 agreement? >> i think i have spoken to that. they have not done it. they have said they are going to do it. >> saturday on "washington journal," a discussion of young voters in the 2012 elections. then the new york times banking and finance reporter will talk about the ethics and goals of investment banks. he responds to the out and calling goldman sachs a toxic environment. and the history of the davis- bacon act. a georgetown university law professor explains how it works. "washington journal," every day

starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

they will go into negotiations and hope to have a markup session within a few weeks. they want to put a bill before the senate. and what they have to do is work out a new policy, spending less money, and getting rid of

the direct payments that the crop producers have been giving for the last 15 years. then, we will see if it goes to the senate floor. then there will be another set in the house. host: to understand the reason they are getting rid of the subsidy payments for commodities is because of the budget debate in sequestration process? guest: there are two factors driving it. these direct payments were put in at a time when the government was going to get out of agriculture. of course, agriculture always goes up and downs of the government has not gotten out of agriculture. those payments have continued. now that prices are very high, they are very unpopular with the public. the decision has been made to get rid of those payments. that is about $5 billion per year. at the same time, there is pressure on every committee in congress to cut spending. in agriculture, that is also true. there is pretty much in agreement that agriculture will be cut by at least $23 billion over 10 years. host: the total number they are working with is? guest: it is hard to tell. host: moving target? [laughter] guest: it depends on what you include.

between $100 billion and $200 billion. host: the numbers are on the screen. you can e-mail us or send us a tweet. let us start with a look at what has happened to the number of farms in the u.s. over the past 10 years. looks like overall, after a dip in the mid part of last year, it is fairly safe. guest: we started trending down from 2000 to 2006 and then moving into 2007 from a year that we conducted a census of

agriculture, we saw a bump in farm numbers. that is because we have included horse farms. there is a change that included short rotation cops and maple syrup. those operations were moved into an agriculture. host: the accounting change, not the overall number of forms? guest: a little bit. we made an effort for the 2007 census of agriculture to work with community-based organizations to make sure that all of the smaller minority producers were included. we wanted to make sure we had a very inclusive census of agriculture that reflects all segments. host: this is a long-term picture. this is very different than the stability all over the past 10 years. i dealers said the number of

farms and the u.s. from 1960 when the numbers were 4 million to 2011, 2.1 million. significant guest: changes happened during that decade. we had a strong migration to urban areas. a number of the farms were merged. we had a lot of highway construction during that time. we had some very hectic things happening in agriculture. we also saw a significant increase in the size of farms during that 10-year span. host: what has, jerry hagstrom, been driving this structure of american arms? guest: one of the big drivers would be technological efficiency. farm equipment gets bigger and it is easier to produce more with a bigger tractors, the bigger harvesting equipment. people operate on bigger acreage is. also, the margins for farming are always low.

as people retire, the number of farmers decrease. the number of acres does not vary that much. it goes down some because of the conversion of land for other uses, but that is a big factor. host: is there a connection between subsidies and the number of farms? guest: that is a subject of debate. the number in the 1930's was much larger and there are critics of farm policy to say that the bigger farmers to get more subsidies use that money to build bigger operations, either buying more land or being able to buy bigger equipment. host: the next slide looks at the size and scale of farms. what are we looking at? host: there are two stories you

want to look at. you have a lot of small operations. 84% of the farms only produce 7% of the sales. the operations from 100,000 to 500,000 and above, you have 16% of the arms that produce 93% of the value of sales. quite a story. host: that helps highlight what you were saying about the trends. there's been a barbell effect. are more and more small farmers rising up? is that a fair observation? guest: yes. there are a lot of people who love to farm. farming is something people love to do. people do it after they retire. they contribute to part of the

production. if you look at those numbers in the middle, you have had the declines in what we used to think of as the middle-sized farms because it is harder to make a living that way. also, part of the reason that you have more of these big producers is the value of the crops are elevated. host: this blue line right here, these are farmers who produce $10,000 or less annually? only 0.8% of the sales. guest: it is more of a lifestyle choice. people will retire and they have capital. this is part of a lifestyle they have chosen. host: you cannot live on $10,000 or less. that is supplementing other income. let us take some callers into the conversation.

we begin with barbara in washington. good morning. you are on the air. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i'm calling to mix the last speaker. my family has an 80-acre farm in nebraska. we are only about 50 miles away from the proposed xlv pipeline. that is worrying us sick. i was wondering if your organization is taking a stand on that or if they do ruin the aquifer, where will we purchase our water? will it be more expensive than oil?

host: is the department of agriculture advising on the impact of the keystone xl pipeline debate? guest: our role is to provide the basic statistical informations about agriculture. for the policy makers to have this information to make informed decisions. host: no? you have been covering it, i am sure. guest: i have been coming to a degree. the administration has taken a position that they have to do another assessment of this pipeline. as in agriculture reporter, i would say that i am very surprised at the increasing conflict in rural america over energy and agriculture. in the past, people have then in favor of both kinds of development, but i am seeing more and more situations where there is conflict over whether the energy development is good or bad. host: next call is from minneapolis. ron, good morning. caller: good morning. a couple of comments -- i farm

large, but with no help. my sons help a little bit. we never asked for these programs, like a crop insurance? that was for the insurance companies. we do not need that. we have contracts and all of this stuff that is just nonsense. if you want to get the gas price down, come out and -- the president can say that we need to put ethanol into the gasoline. host: what do you farm? caller: corn and beans. 1,200 acres each. we have been here 170 years. i spend thousands on

conservation practices. host: can you give us a sense of what your gross revenues are? caller: expenses are $500,000. the last few years, we have been doing good because we have contracted. we are doing great. host: thank you so much. appreciate your call. we will look at corn production over all. he talks about ethanol as one way to improve profit. guest: yes, i would say ethanol has improved profits for farmers. but in terms of his statement that the farmers never asked for crop insurance or these other subsidy programs, i would have to say that i and do not find that to be the case. if you have been at the senate

agriculture committee, you have heard a lot of farmers say the crop insurance is the most important tool. host: this is a chart. it is the total land in the u.s. and for protection. look at how those numbers are going down. what is happening? guest: we have seen a fairly steady decline until you move down to 2007 and beyond where we have seen a stabilization of those numbers. down to 500 million acres for the past year.

that is a very large percentage of the acreage of the u.s., 40% of the total acres involved in the u.s. we have seen the larger producers of $500,000 of sales or more, those operations have continued to grow larger. but, there is a strong competition out there for agricultural land right now. we have seen a stabilization of those numbers right now. host: since then economic crisis and the recapturing of farm land for housing development -- guest: when you see the amount of land that is staying in farming, i would say the crisis in 2008 and continuing problems in the housing market are the reason for that. those of us who are watching agriculture are wondering now what is going to happen as the economy improves -- will more land taken out of production? there is a movement around the country to keep land in farming, to use the powers of government to try to keep land in protection as opposed to have it converted to residential or industrial use.

host: next is michigan. john on the farm line. caller: good morning. our family here in detroit and texas, we own a small farm. it is west of minneapolis. it is in minnesota. it is 160 acres. the operator has been there for 25 years. he has been operating that land and raising soybeans and corn. as a seller, i have talked to the senator's office and i have talked to an attorney and to an appraiser and other people in that note and i have heard the word bubble. in terms of the value of farmland.

i know that warren buffett last year on cnbc said he would all rather own all of the farm land than gold. the point was made clear that way it is valuable. at the line of people waiting to purchase it is going to decrease. do you have comments about that? host: before you answer, i have a question on statistics. we look at the amount of farmland. does the department of agriculture keep the trend line of average valuation of farmland so we can see what is happening? guest: we have an annual report on the value of cropland and all other land in agriculture. we estimate a steady increase in the prices.

host: even since 2008? guest: yes. guest: speaking of 2008, one of the incredible things about agriculture has been that while the rest of the economy has been in terrible trouble, agriculture has been doing well. that is because of the continued demand from china and india and indonesia and other asian countries for food. compared with times in the past, it looks left side there is a bubble this time. the land, as far as the experts can tell, is valued at this point. host: the next call is from new york. good morning. caller: i am what you call a boutique farm. there is no help with the texas or implements and seed and stuff for the small boutique farmer. they say you do not making up or produce enough. we cannot even sell our product on the roadside because they can but it cheaper because it was raised overseas or by a big farm. we cannot get the write-off for

tractors. host: what is your product? guest: everything. potatoes, corn are my biggest crop. host: why do you stay in this business? guest: i love it. i have done it for over 30 years. host: thank you for your call. guest: the obama administration has something called the know your former know your food initiative. they have been helping farmers during courage farmers markets. he is right.

in terms of the taxes and things like that, i am afraid those are just the cost of doing business. host: we have had some farmers from new york and minnesota. this is a u.s. map and a dark reddish areas tell us what? guest: the areas where you have significant agricultural production. the upper-midwest, the heartland areas of the u.s. are the very heavy livestock and grain producing areas that really show important in agriculture. if you look out west in california, fruit and vegetable production are very important. if you look down in florida, we have the citrus production. those areas really show where the dollars are in agriculture. the median size for each producer in the u.s. is only $29,117.

these are the areas that really show agriculture. host: this goes all the way back to 2007. has it changed a lot? guest: this is from the census of agriculture and those data are still pretty accurate today if you lay a map on top of it. host: if we have looked 50 years ago? guest: if you look 50 years ago, you'd see major corn production in the midwest, livestock production for hogs. fruit and vegetable production in california, largest state to produce agriculture. host: our next call is from connecticut. hello, frank. caller: part of the problem is that most of this has gotten way too large. that is why we have all of the salmonella outbreaks and all this other baloney that is happening with our food and now we hear about the pig slime that someone allowed to be

processed and sold. i have a friend that owns a slaughterhouse. a small family operation that has been in business for over 50 years. every time you turn around, and for a while they were fda inspected, but they are no longer. these people did not want to work to begin with and secondly, one time, they had a hog and to be slaughtered and this guy who was supposedly a meat inspector says, you have to put that in the isolation tank because you cannot kill it. it has an abscess on its rear end. that was a pore. he didn't even know what they were slaughtering. if you go to tyson, they have won our two people watching 10,000 people work. not fair.

host: thank you. guest: i do not believe the number of meat inspectors have declined. really, meat inspection is very well done in the country. these problems have to do with the non-meat products because the food and drug administration never has the resources it needs to inspect seafood and fruits and vegetables on his regular a basis as it should. host: here is a chart that looks at the top crops in the u.s. they are cattle, corn, poultry, soybeans, milk. what else should we know about this? guest: this is 2010 data. one thing you might mention or notice, though less graphic talked about the most important states. california sticks out with grapes. texas with cattle. iowa with corn. this shows the diversity of agriculture and a wide spectrum that is available for producers out there to be involved. host: if we were to look at federal process programs, with a matched the largest areas of production? guest: no. most of the subsidies go to crop farmers.

that is corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, etc. the other kinds of products get different types of help. with the cattle and the meat, the government pays for meat inspection. with a freeze and vegetables, they are getting more help than in the past. there is a lot of research being done that promotes these products. we have more programs to purchase them for children in the public schools. host: we have a special line set up for farmers. our other lines are divided east/west. we're talking about american agriculture. it is on our table every morning. it is an important product in the u.s. and an import and export for our economy. we would like to hear your questions and comments, particularly those from farmers.

but we have about 15 minutes left. next is from texas. you are on the air. caller: yes, thank you. right now live in a place where poultry farms -- these companies are going to contract farms. we have seven company farms left. we have about a contract farms that are up for sale that nobody wants to buy.

we have to update if we buy it. everything is too expensive for one person to do on their own. what are they going to do to help to try to help contract farmers out to be able to make host: : how long has your family in farming? caller: i work for a company. i have been their two years. right now, we are on the verge of selling them all off. companies do not want to bother with them because they say it is too expensive. host: thank you. guest: the poultry business has been troubled in the last couple of years, partly by increased competition from brazil and increase feed costs. russia wants to develop its own industry. there is a problem at the top level.

the issue of contract farming and poultry is one of the most difficult in american agriculture. there are constant complaints that the contractors are not treated properly. the obama administration has attempted to rewrite the rules surrounding the regulation and the antitrust issues with this business. they did some work, but there was also a lot of push back from the meat industry on this rule. host: next is alabama. robert, good morning. caller: good morning. i have wondered two questions. a woman called in earlier about the pipeline going across nebraska and was worried about the water. my question is, how much water does it take to make ethanol? how much energy is used to make ethanol? there is a man earlier who said he would like to see ethanol go to 20%.

are we wasting more money making the ethanol then what the ethanol is worth in our cars? guest: what the debate. [laughter] i quote the two sides. i cannot come to the conclusion about this. the critics of ethanol, who often include the people who would rather use the corn for feed or rather there be more pure gasoline, they say the use of water is too high. other people defend it. i cannot reach any conclusion on that this morning. host: here is a tweet -- are you able to capture this for people who grow their own food?

guest: they have to sell $1,000 worth of agriculture products. home consumption is not part of this. host: do you know if there is a trend? guest: there is. part of it has been motivated by a michelle obama's white house kitchen garden. the sales of garden seeds have gone up in this era. when misses obama plant a garden, she was already sitting in with a trend that had started. she is definitely right. one of the strange things now is that we are also seeing more and more people who want to raise animals in the backyard. i have not figured out how these people are going to slaughter these animals or how these barnyards smells will go over in the urban areas, but is

the latest trend. host: this is a caller named joe. hi. you are on. caller: i wanted to comment on a question about warren buffett saying he would rather have land of them gold. concerning that smell out there where they cut the water off to the farmers to run them off their lands, that would the prime solar panel land. would there be any ccorruption in the epa? guest: i do not know anything about that. i would say that i do not think the solar industry is profitable enough for there to be a lot of kick back. host: we have a chart here that looks at the u.s. cattle inventory. this is over 1952 to current times.

guest: what is happening? guest: we are at a 50-year low. 91 million heads of cattle. these peaks and valleys on the charts demonstrate the cattle cycle. generally, looking across 1950 and above, we had tenure cattle cycles where it took about 10 years for the cattle to peak. if you move over to the right side of the raft and go down to cattle cycles that peak at about five years and then it takes three years to get to the bottom of that cycle, we have had a lot of reasons and factors that really have encouraged some producers to sell their cattle. the peaks are lower now but the cattle prices are very strong. some of the operations have decided to liquidate their

herds. host: these numbers carry into current time and we have seen those horrific droughts in texas. are those numbers reflected here? guest: corn prices are very high. more input cost for the cattle producers so that is really spurring this trend. host: people are eating less beef? guest: i do not know how much debt is affected by this, but people are eating less beef. they are becoming more diet conscious. host: is that an international or domestic trent? guest: i would bet that consumption is growing. i would say would be a trend in the developed countries. host: why do i need to know about this slide? march 30, prospective planting report.

farmers are waiting for this. guest: this is an important report that is coming out on march 30. first i would like to think the farmers and ranchers corporate dissipating in this survey. we are going to contact over 85,000 producers. this is the first look at crop prospects for the next year. the industry will have a chance to look at what the grain supplies are for the coming year, implications on price and the like. this information is very important. we will collect information on crops like corn, soybeans, wheat. we will also have grain stocks at this report. it is a very significant report and a first look at the coming year's profits. host: facebook -- someone said farmers have their own version of march madness. i t was a great play on the

march madness in the rest of the country. guest: that is true. i would like to make gay point that other than the food inspections, i think that this collection of data, which includes the u.s. as well as from other countries, is probably the most important work that usda does. the statistics are the gold standard worldwide for what is going on with agriculture supply and demand. host: i would like to go through these commodities, if we could. this is prospective plantings and final corn a critz from the last decade. corn is up. soybeans dipped in 2006, but now they up. what is happening to wheat?

guest: the shows the difference between forecasting and what is actually planted. last year, we had floods in the midwest. producers in north dakota and those areas were not able to get their wheat in. weather and price of the determining factors. the weather was the big story last year. host: what is the cause and effect for consumers when wheat goes down? guest: if it goes up, the price of flour goes up. the price of bread, one of the most basic of foods, those up, as well. host: bushels per acre, crop yields. 1936 year present time for the three commodities.

corn is the blue one. lookit that catastrophic -- huge rise. soybeans and wheat rising, but more consistently. is this another subsidy? guest: no. with the corn yield going up, that is the result of agriculture research. basic research on corn improvements and also the biotechnology. corn has skyrocketed in terms of the number of bushels per acre. host: this is an efficiency graph here. we're looking at how much an acre of land produces. guest: that is right. we have had an increase in the plant population and genetic engineering. that is the technology and research behind car production. host: are there not efforts going on for soybeans and wheat? guest: there are, but you have seen more than incremental increase in yields.

you have seen yields in all of the commodities increase, but corn and is the leader. host: that is a good number, rather than the word catastrophic, which is what i said before. let us go to illinois. steve is a farmer. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i appreciate you. host: thank you for watching. caller: i am enjoying the show. thank goodness for small family farms. that is what built this country. and gave us a platform to all of the industrial revolution. we need to step paving over the family farms and turning them into subdivisions. i hate to think if we cannot produce our own crops and export them, i hate to think what happened. family farms do not want governments to intervene. this came under a democratic

president despite all the critics on the other side. host: thank you. we are going to take a call from another farmer in missouri. you are on. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. the federal government picks winners and losers. we run cattle. we are involved in a family farm in iowa. when you have a government that, that these guys get subsidies and these people do not, then you are picking winners and losers similar to solyndra. why? guest: well, first of all, if you are going to compare the meat industry and the corn and

soybean producers, it would be true that corn and soybean producers have gotten subsidies while the meat industry has not. although, for many years, there were laws that kept a lot of imports out of the u.s. that is not true today. with the subsidies, the meat producers have benefited because they have had a stable and fair cheap cost of feeding. host: the next charts look at who is forming. the number of women is up? guest: yes. there is a dramatic increase from 1978 through the 2007 census of agriculture where we are picking women farmers at about 306,000 producers. about 14% of the total. host: the age of farmers is going up.

guest: the age of farmers peaked at 58.1. between 2002 and 2007, the producers 70 years and older increased by 20%. host: young people are not staying in the business. guest: i am not sure about this. the a of the operators is going up. -- age of the operators is going up. it does not count the sons and daughters. host: this has to be our last question. what is going on with ethnicity? guest: this graphic shows that from 2000 to to 2007 -- 2002 to 2007, all categories increased. host: that