how does that damage our side? particularly when an apology is needed? on november 26, which killed 24 pakistani soldiers. there is an investigation is needed? -- on november 26, which killed 24 pakistani soldiers. there is an investigation on both sides of the border about what happened. as is often the case in war, there was miscommunication on both sides. at the end of the day, pakistan is supposed to be one of our allies. president obama has not apologized for that. to me, that is the opposite mistake. even if it is inadvertent, it is ok to apologize, in my view. concerned not really about the apology in and of itself. i just worry about the measure -- worry that it is a measure of of sporadic attention on the part of the president. to peter's pakistan point, worse -- the only thing worse

than having to deal with people like hamid karzai -- the pakistan army's neglected doing so. what i would like to see is more active engagement. i worry that we are not managing the people who really are our allies, for better or worse, as well as we might do. >> in that case you are referring to pakistan? >> well, both. we -- defer to peter -- actually have a balance, a coalition in afghanistan that could be sustainable but, again, requires a certain amount of energy to put together. >> let's go back to the audience now. you. right here in front. >> thanks, hi.

elizabeth weingarten with thenew america foundation. similarly, i am wondering if we can talk it a little bit about the extent to which the subject of america's rule in the world is being talked about on the campaign trail, and i wonder if any of you see the gop candidates of doing a -- as doing a particularly good job of thinking about for addressing this issue aside from putting out reactive comments about afghanistan and syria. >> the most comprehensive position is ron paul's. i think the republican candidates have a very consistent problem, which goes to what we have discussed already -- you can critique around the edges on afghanistan, but at the end of the day, there were 30,000 troops in afghanistan in 2008 and went up to 100,000 going down this year. -- that we are drawing down this year. what would you say? we are going to put 400,000 troops in, stay for decades?

there's not much you can say to critique it. same with pakistan. obama tripled the number of drone -- obama quintupled the number of drone strikes. would the republican candidate in office quintuple the quintuple? it is hard to criticize someone who has been quite aggressive, similarly in yemen and somalia. no one has proposed what the syrian military intervention would look like, a lease on the republican candidate side -- at least on the republican candidate side. >> [inaudible] romney, i think he has done an excellent job. [laughter] now, in fact, he has laid out a comprehensive, by far the most comprehensive approach to foreign policy. perrylawn white paper, given a big speech on the subject -- he has a very long white paper, given a big speech on the subject. as is the nature of most primary campaigns, it has not been the topic du jour. you do not get a chance to lay out your vision of foreign

policy when you are debating contraception and all the other important topics they are debating. i think you'll see more. the better time to ask this question will be in the general election, because then i think there will be a discussion about american foreign policy. i think there has been room for criticism of the obama administration. i know that one of the major approaches of governor romney, for instance, is that for quite some time in various parts of the world, president obama has not been great with a number of our allies. he is now, by the way, scrambling to repair that image. is meeting with david cameron is intended to undo the slyke was allegedly committed when he

returned -- the slight that was allegedly committed when he returned a bust of winston churchill. he has had to work very hard to prove he is a friend of israel. there is the case to be made that in much of the administration's early out reached adversaries and potential competitors, the reset with russia, the outreach to iran, inevitably some of that has come at the expense of traditional allies who may have been themselves competitors and adversaries of those players. that is a legitimate criticism. >> let richard go first. >> if i could add one thing in terms of the foreign policy debate, having worked for the presidential candidate in 2008 that didn't win, i have some insight into how these debates take shape. this time around, "everybody knows" that this will be an economy election and foreign policy and national-security issues don't matter. we around the table have a vested interest in that not being the case, but it has the added virtue of not being true. both candidates will have to convince voters that they are the commander in chief who at

the end of the day can be trusted with preserving the national security of this country. that is why you are going to see all kinds of speeches and activities to bolster their case for that. even now you see the press pay most attention to the economy, behind the scenes, at a minimum, you will see a real debate on national security matters, and it will matter at the end of the day. >> not to criticize the press, but at every one of these debates, the number of foreign policy questions asked by the media as opposed to the infidelity questions asked by the media -- the ratio is low. >> one attempt to add something of value -- one way to look at this divide is not so much partisan war hawks versus doves. -- not so much partisan or

hawks versus doves. to me it is a generational split the differences tend to be -- senator mccain and senator lieberman being the uber- examples of this, guys with the traditional and conventional view of america's foreign policy and it will, versus a host of younger politicians, post-cold war politicians, much who hav a diverse and coherent set of -- incoherent set of policy views -- >> [unintelligible] >> no -- ok -- right and left. the point is that they have not congealed around the consistencies and traditional habits, and it has been some time now. in many ways, it has been a continuity of the things we saw during the clinton years, for a

whole host of reasons. >> center for a new american security. this is very much a follow-on question. all the panelists address this in part, by not explicitly. -- have addressed this in part, but not explicitly. what are the issues that will define how the national security will be determined? how will that come down in terms of one, two, or three issues? >> quickly down the line here. >> any president has to deal with the cards that have been dealt, and the cards that have been dealt this president and the next president are what is happening in the arab world. the most substantial event of our current period is the arab awakening, the arab spring, what ever you want to call it, because however it shakes out is going to reshape that part of the world, which remains a very important part of the world. i would think that managing as

best we can, understanding the limitations of our ability to manage it, ought to be at least in the top two. i do think that how the united states -- you are saying beyond levels global leadership, but the defense budget, given the sequestration issue, really needs to be way up there. add more.thers >> i would put iran first, because i think that the candidates will draw a distinction on their approach to preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. then the war in afghanistan,even if the debate is on the margins, that will be an element in the debate, because we're seeing so much in the news on this. third, i agree that the middle east and the way the middle east is added. -- headed. >> some people have predicted that china is going to be a big

issue, certainly in the context of trade difficulties. >> it would be an issue -- maybe if i had four rather than three, i would put china as four. [laughter] of the content of the debate i would put behind those three. >> the 4 big issues we are addressing are serious. -- we are addressing in our series. anyone who deviates from that is out of the triumvirate. yeah, write that down. look, we're living in a world that we made. nobody can unmake it or change it better than we can, for better or worse. in historical terms, all the challenges of there are relatively manageable -- out there are relatively manageable, compared to, say, napoleonic france, the rise of germany, or something like that.

there are many better reasons to think of a good outcome with regard to china. there are many problems in the middle east, and the iranian nuclear one could be a transformative one that would shift to this collection of issues that we've been able to manage into something sort of -- that gets out of hand. but there doesn't seem to be anything that is beyond our ability, particularly because we are starting from such a position of inherent strength, a century's worth of success establishing this world -- i guess i wanted to start with this framing issue. >> five years ago on this panel it would have been al qaeda and jihadi terrorism. we're not even been discussing that today. al qaeda is basically out of business. since that is my area of professional expertise -- a sovietologist in 1989 -- i need

to find something else. something we tend to forget in these discussions is that pakistan is going to be the fifth largest country and it has the fastest growing nuclear programs. it will have more nuclear weapons than britain. weapons. managing our relationship in pakistan is a very difficult and important. and one of the challenges for president obama, president romney, who ever it is, is mumbai 2. by which i mean attack on india and that provokes -- the idea that tourists can buy or acquire nuclear weapons is the area of fantasy. what is not fantasies triggering -- is not fantasy is a terrorist triggering war in a place like afghanistan. pakistan has tactical nuclear weapons. you can sketch out the scenario. that is a major foreign policy challenge that any president

will have to be thinking of a carefully in the future. >> we have time for one more question. >> i am interning at the cato institute. my question is about the nature of diplomacy. as you saw through 2000, the rise of the status of violence, -- of stateless violence, al qaeda and what not, and also, obama's massive escalation of drone warfare. we were always hyper-diplomatic. that was the great fear. but in a time when you are not necessarily talking to nation states, and violence can be a lot more anonymous, and anybody -- much more anonymous in the sense of drone where faiwarfared anybody can be attacked by

anybody, it seems, a big leveling of the playing field, how does that change our diplomatic priorities, first of all? we saw obama attack in pakistan without contacting the state first. it seems like diplomacy might be taking the back end to simply american policy. is this something you noticed? do you share these anxieties? >> very interesting question. whither diplomacy? >> the new complexion of the international system is something we have been talking about for well over a decade. without minimizing the issues you have raised, i am actually under whelmed by how revolutionary it has all been. i find state to state relations it remarkably relevant in the current era. thenot overwhelmed by presence of non-state actors in the international system.

we have obviously dealt with al qaeda and others and will continue to deal with them. but as i look around dealing with most of the crises that people are dealing with, they are very much about state-to- state cooperation, and that includes dealing with weapons of mass destruction, which is about cooperation among the states on the high seas, protection, shared intelligence resources. that is very much about diplomacy. i continue to believe that diplomacy is still of the greatest value. hasn't really think it changed. >> just today we have seen that the swift organization has agreed to sanction iranian banks. the front page of "the financial times" had a story about iran at's oil output being at a decade ago. as far as the conflict with iran is concerned, diplomacy is front and center.

>> even on this question of drone strikes, diplomacy is critically important. you want to have drone strikes? drones after takeoff from -- drones have to take off from somewhere. most of the time we are securing the rights from foreign governments to do certain things. it is the rare case that we are doing something unilaterally completely on our own. overflight rights, landing in bases, intelligence cooperation, diplomatic and coordination, all those sorts of things get at the heart of what we're doing diplomatically with countries. even in the case of drone strikes, diplomacy's critically important. >> tom, peter, final thoughts? >> actually, everything has been said, it just hasn't been set by me -- said by me. [laughter] we have covered the landscape

extraordinarily well. >> all right, thank you all for coming. bob's book is "the world america made." i cannot believe you are not selling it here. >> it is not all about money. [laughter] >> it is about promoting your message. a very readable, very well written, very well thought out. i like to thank my panelists -- i'd like to thank my panelists. paul kagan, -- bob kagan, peter bergen, richard fontaine -- from rival think tanks. best of luck to you in the series. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

look at some of the upcoming republican presidential primary contests. puerto rico is holding its republican primary today. 23 delegates at stake. we will bring you updates as we can on the c-span networks. looking ahead, illinois holds its primary on tuesday. that is where we will spend some time this afternoon on the "road to the white house" mitt romney. we will have live coverage of his remarks, which are scheduled to start at 5:00 eastern. next, a political roundtable on the political round -- on the republican contest from today's "washington journal." host: welcome. "open convention" -- what is the possibility of it?

guest: it is still march. if it was later, i would say we could have a repeat of 1976 or even 82. it is march. we still have a 50% of the primary still to come. a lot of them will be winner- take-all after april. it is possible any with momentum -- host: the essence is that the party is preparing for the possibility -- advising campaigns and the rnc about what their rules state can and cannot happen. host: it is possible. you cannot rule it out. you have a strong second candidate. you have newt gingrich in the race. he wants to bring it to tampa, which is where they will have the convention. you can see the possibility of people refusing to drop out. if mitt romney can come up with the right number of delegates before then, which he very well

may, this argument will end right there. guest: that is exactly what the rick santorum forces are trying to push. mitt romney may have 1 million more votes than rick santorum ord newt gingrich or ron paul and he may have more delegates than the other candidates combined but when you come to tampa, anything goes. like when ted kennedy tried to make an open convention in 1980 against jimmy carter, the re santorum delegates will say we

need somebody who will beat president obama. if it's not going to be mitt romney, it should be us. host: the headline from "the chicago tribune" -- guest: illinois will be the big fight. it is an industrial state and they stay where rick santorum -- and a state where rick santorum needs to prove he can win yet mitt romney is really favre. mitt romney loses, that is a huge loss but they will split these delegates. each of them will walk away with some delegates but it is a big prize. guest: we talk about how thwhetr money is important or not. rick santorum didn't have th e money to file and the organization to file

-- file and all 18 congressional districts in illinois. even if he does well in illinois, he will be shut down several congressional district because it does not have ballots there. guest: this has happened before. he was not on the ballot in virginia. this is a problem that demonstrates how mitt romney is out of debt financing these other candidates. host: from "the washington examiner" -- guest: york to get rid of newt -- if you were to get rid of newt gingrich, all those voters would come to wreck santorum and if -- rick santorum. if you combine with the two of them have, they would be ahead of mitt romney in half of these primaries but that is not necessarily true because if you look at some of the polling that has been done, it suggests that only some of the votes for newt gingrich would go to santorum if he were to drop out. some would go to romney. other people just would not bode bank at all. -- would not vote at all. it is not a guarantee that rick santorum would get ahead of mitt romney if newt gingrich dropped

out but the two of them are competing to be the sole alternative, a conservative alternative to mitt romney. host: wreck santorum made this -- rick santorum made this prediction yesterday in new jersey -- [video clip] >> this is a primary and turnout is everything. you do your job. you do your job. this is the pledge -- if we are able to come out with a huge or surprise win, i guarantee you, i guarantee you that we will win this nomination. we will nominate a conservative and it would nominate a -- if we nominate a conservative, we will obama in the fall election. host: reaction? guest: we have heard predictions before a new gingrich insisted he will be the nominee and south carolina and we have not heard from him since. it will be a big story oif rick santorum wins illinois. we keep saying that mitt romney has to win florida or he is finished. so, he wins florida.

he has to win ohio, he has to win michigan. he wins them but we have to say he needs to be better and better. every time rick santorum pulls off a victory, the headlines are big. while mitt romney talking about the inevitability and numbers, rex and torn keeps saying momentum. -- rick santorum keeps saying momentum. host: many view this as a weak field. especially if mitt romney cannot get beyond newt gingrich and rick santorum. guest: this demonstrates that there is a big divided the republican party of what kind of candidate they want. mitt romney comes across in moderate some ways and as more of a centrist. then you've got conservatives like santorum and gingrich who are to the right. the party is divided. that is not too unusual. the party is not all in lockstep. it is demonstrating there is some divide over which candidate should best represent the party going into the fall election. some people backing santorum saying you need to have a big contrast.

we need someone who is willing to show they are different from obama. others say mitt romney will track that key independent -- the tract that he, independent -- others say that mitt romney will attract that key independent segment of the voting population. mitt romney may be better at winning them over. host: one of our viewers says -- guest: somberly think that in the party. -- some really think that in the party. there are people that back newt gingrich that say they are tired of the gop establishment saying they should tell them who they should vote for. many people say that. they are tired of being told and being forced to pick a candidate they don't like. they like newt gingrich as a big ideas kind of person and a great debater they think he would be the per person to go up against barack obama in the fall. -- the perfect person to go up against barack obama in the

fall. depends who you ask. they think he is a spoiler. host: he can also be a kingmaker, rick santorum. guest: you don't get to 1140 quick enough and in that sense, -- 1144 quick enough and, in that sense, newt gingrich could make a difference of it gets to tampa. -- if it gets to tampa. if you look at the arithmetic, it looks like mitt romney could very well have these numbers in hand by the end of the primaries on june 5. host: let's go back to the party rules. there are some changes from 2008 on the republican national committee rules. no winner-take-all. guest: originally, they looked at what happened in 2008 and how exciting that was and hillary clinton and barack obama, they could not stop talking about it. it was a great and exciting

race. the republicans looked at that and said that would not be so bad for us. they set the example of this -- they set this thing up so that it would be more protracted. i think there is a lot of regret by the republic is that this thing could be over by now but by their own design, they have it set up so it has allowed santorum and gingrich to pick up delegates along the way even though they are not winning all the states. it is retracted until we get -- it is protracted until we get into the winner-take-all and that is where it will order -- really matter. santorum have to win if he was to keep winning delegates. host: the president will have five campaign fund rises. -- fund-raisers. this is what he had to say in illinois. [video clip] >> you might have noticed that we have some guests in illinois this week. apparently, things have not quite wrapped up on the other side. [laughter] so there's actually some interest in the primary we have here on tuesday.

my message to all the candidates is welcome to the land of lincoln. because i am thinking maybe some lincoln will rub off on them while they are here. [applause] licoln, the first republican president knew that if we as a nation through our federal government did not act to facilitate these things, then they likely would not happen. as a result, we would all be worse off. he understood that we are a people that takes great pride in our self-reliance and independence and we're also one nation and one people and that we rise or fall together. host: the president on the campaign trail friday raising money for his own reelection effort. yesterday was st. patrick's day. about a block and a half from

here, the president going to one of the well-known irish pubs, the dubliner and this is what the scene looked like as the president was greeted. he had about 3/4 of his guinness before he departed. guest: that is why he spells his nameo'bama. -- name o'bama. he fit in perfectly. the rules are different but the party is different. look at what happened in 2010 with the advent of the tea party with more conservative candidates elected to the house and that is reflected in the electorate in the 2012 caucus's and -- caucuses and primaries. host: tuscaloosa, alabama, good morning. caller: i may c-span junkie. -- i am a c-span junkie. i am african-american. my fore-parents were under that

institution of slavery. you talk about christians. pascrell were the people who -- ask who were the people who brought the institution of slavery into the united states. the election of president barack obama let the world know what our people lived under for 400 years. i will say another thing -- i love this president but if he had not had a white mother and he had gone through the institution of slavery as our forefathers did, he never would -- foreparents did, he never would have gotten elected in this country. there was some young intelligent white people whose grandparents voted for this man because they are not as prejudiced as the 60-year-old and opera there are -- the 60-year-old and up. there are some good ones but the good white people do not often get elected to office. do this for us -- to this for me as an african-american -- when you say that the solid south for the republican party -- that is not true for black people.

host: he pointed out that the president's race is the subject of this story inside " the new york times." "as black as we wish to be." it is about mixed-race americans having an ethical obligation to identify as black. any comment on the caller's view? guest: barack obama did not campaign as an african-american. he campaigned as an american who happen to be an african- american. you can talk about the jesse jackson, jr. campaigns of the campaignssse jackson, j of the past. barack obama said in 2008 that all the issues that affect the economy, unemployment, job growth affects blacks and whites. i think his race and color was not a big issue. it may have been more of an issue for the voters and may be a big issue in 2012.

guest: he was the post-racial candidate. of course, we are not beyond that. barack obama ran as that would not be a big issue and that helped him. guest: there were other issues to worry about in 2008, the wars, the collapse of the financial system, but perhaps there will be other directions this year. that could be race. host: dan ball writing in illinois for "the washington post." guest: he has got to play hardball right now. guest: mitt romney is ahead in illinois and it doesn't win,

this is an opportunity for rick santorum to pick up more momentum. more people to vote for him in the next election, more money. mitt romney is aware of this and he has to win this in the same way he had to win michigan and some of the other states outside the south. he wanted to win the south. those were much harder states for him. he has to win these other states. these are big industrial states or he will not look like a viable candidate. it will look terrible if he loses. host: if mitt romney loses illinois, what does that mean? guest: it is more doubts about mitt romney as the inevitable nominee? it is more doubts that the conservatives will ever warm-up to him. it is now up and tucked between himself and rick santorum. they're still -- is people are still preparing for a united republican party to take on obama but if he is seen as a social conservative, he could -- a suspect conservative, he could have problems. caller: good morning, gentlemen and the lady. i want to be quick.

anybody from the republican party, anybody can beat obama. mr. obama kept only one promise since the election, redistributing wealth. everything for mr. obama, if you pay attention, everything is a joke. he has a little smirk. any time he comments about the republicans, he makes a joke. all the people that vote for obama, 70% of the white people, will wake up and say we made the biggest mistake and it is time for change. real change. thank you, guys, have a nice day. guest: this caller and the callers that were phoning into the show earlier. there is a big

-- there is a big divide over the direction the country should be going in the and whether we should be pursuing policies that seem to be redistributing the wealth or should we pursue more aggressive policies to straighten out the economy that would result in pro-business kind of measures. i think you really see that divide especially when you talk to voters. everybody has a different philosophy on what the government's role should be. as we move into the general election, in the primary season, is less an issue and wants to move into a general election that will have a can trust -- and we have a contrast between the democrats and republicans, we will talk more about what the different parties want to do to move the country forward. host: how are we doing? guest: if we are talking about jobs, you can make the case that 220,000 jobs were created last month and is a president obama's numbers move up. he was up to 50 percent but we also see a continuing drag on employment numbers. 8.3% unemployment and no

president since fdr has been elected on those numbers. his numbers have come down again. every month, the numbers go up and down for president obama depending on the news that way. -- that week. if present obama is beatable and -- president obama is beatable and it is about what he accomplished, he could have a tough battle. if he frames the issue of us against what the republicans are suggesting, he has a better shot. host: this is our sunday roundtable, independent line, good morning. caller: i would like to clear something up. the lady who is your guess there was referring to mr. gingrich -- guests there was referring to mr. gingrich as a conservative. i live in the 23rd congressional district and four years ago we had an election here. we had a very conservative candidate and we had a democrat and a third candidate who was a progressive.

mr. gingrich is a progressive, not a conservative. rick santorum is the only conservative and he's the one his policies will be the best -- he is the one whose policies will be the best contrast to obama. thank you. host: thanks for the call. susan? guest: newt gingrich has definitely had some issues with people taking moderate stance is -- with people accusing him of taking some moderate stance is in -- stances in the past. he did that commercial. they filmed like public-service advertisements with the former speaker nancy pelosi where the two been talked about climate change. that hurt him. things like that that mitt romney used and ron paul used

more effectively and i want to really hurts newt gingrich in that state. it made it impossible for him to win just by highlighting some of the things he has done in the past that show maybe he is not such a conservative candidate. after he left office, he has a bit of a checkered past in terms of embracing moderate views and it has come back to haunt him. it was most important in iowa where he was unable -- he lost all of his momentum and his campaign was damaged. host: this is from one of our twitter followers -- guest: the republican party got more religious after 1980 but it has always been a white and conservative party. the question is is it losing female voters as well. with all the debates and language on contraception and reproductive rights and planned parenthood, that may play well to the base but many independent women are looking at this and saying we're not sure which way to go. the mitt romney numbers in

women and independent voters have collapsed in the wake of all of this of this rhetoric going on in the debate. the is something republicans need to recapture. host: trivia question -- how many campaign button dos do you own? guest: i have about 70,000. but i don't have them all. you can send me your buttons and send me yours. guest: going back to what year? host: going back to 1876. where do you keep 70,000 buttons? guest: is privileged information. host: i have a button room and everything is organized. 1896-2012, statewide stuff to

miami, all that stuff. host: it sounds like we should visit. let me go back to an issue that will drive this election, health care. "cq weekly" -- the audio from each day's prdceed -- proceedings will be released each day. we will have a chance to hear how this debate is unfolding. guest: it will be a fascinating debate. we will see how they will debate on states having to buy insurance to be a citizen in the united states and that will be the big anchor of the argument from opponents that say this thing should be overturned. the big question is whether this will be overturned and when and will it happen. it will be a huge issue in the coming general election season

depending on who the nominee is. some republicans don't like mitt romney because they feel he endorsed the individual mandate as governor of massachusetts. they feel like he would be weaker candidate because how could you contrast his ideas about health care reform with the obama ideas when obama has talked about mitt romney as a person whose ideas about health care reform or the basis for the national health care reform law that the democrats put forward. that will be a big issue once we get into the general election. host: this is in the outlook sectio of "the washington post." -- in this section of the "the washington post." many think that anthony kennedy is the most important conservative. he has been in the majority more than 80% of the core's 5-4 decisions. -- court's 5-4 decisions.

guest: anthony kennedy has become the sarah -- sandra day o'connor and the modern-day court. you get kennedy on your side, you get the majority of the court. guest: it will be fascinating and this could really shape what election, too, because what do people think of the health care law. some people love it and some people can't stand it and it will decide to the next president will be, frankly. host: susan ferrechio writes for "the washington examiner." he has this point -- guest: he voted for some things that republicans said expanded the debt ceiling for one. that increased our bar wing and put us further into debt. there are things he has voted

for the people think did not go the standard republican voting history. he calls and selfish -- he calls himself a conservative. he has worked on things that are really important for the conservative base like welfare reform. some people consider him the most conservative of the three candidates. host: franklin, new york, democrats line -- caller: morning, everybody. i believe in a brokered convention and i think they will bring in governor petechia after -- governor pataki after the first votes. host: governor pataki? caller: is strong in the northeast. the other three candidates are all damaged. ont gingrich flip-flops' o marriage three times and on the

issues. you have romney. a position onand i every issue, 4-against -- for- against, for-against. rick santorum is far off to the right. i cannot imagine a woman voting for him. your guests said the republican party has always been a white party. if another history of lincoln, 99% of the african-americans always voted republican up until the 1930's and 1940's. that has changed due to the flip-floping of the democratic and republican party. host: thank the for the call. -- thanks for the call. george pataki. >> guest: we had these fantasies that someone will come in and save the party. it will not happen and when these candidates get in the race, they get tarred and feathered. ted kennedy was the ideal candidate in 1979. please run.

please save the party from jimmy carter. he runs and a moment he announces his candidacy, he went downhill. in the fantasy world, these other non-candidates would be great but once they come in, they need to be vetted all over again. host: "politico" has a story about a conversation that mitt romney had with rick santorum and newt gingrich and it was an agreement that they would vote for each other if one should drop out. they would not vote for somebody outside of the current field. guest: why would any of them agree after spending the money they spent on the campaign trail, millions of dollars, will they let someone else walk away with it? no way. it is natural for the three of them to get together to agree on this one thing. we're not letting somebody else take this. host: donna is joining us from louisiana, good morning. with susan ferrechio and ken rudin. caller: good morning, i was

curious about this campaign and what is politically correct and not correct with republicans. they are no longer kissing babies. obama, on the other hand, every woman for the last three years have pulled let him to them and kissed them very that is -- kissed him. that is improper for president of united states. host: you are smiling. guest: we have seen a lot of strange things in 2012 but the thought of the president kissing babies, that is one of the perks of being president. host: -- host: let me share this from the campaign ads. newt gingrich's campaign is putting a lot of effort into this. this is more from team gingrich[video clip] >> it means that anybody who can tell you can drill our way out of this problem does not know what they're talking about or just is not telling you the truth. [no audio]

>> if you would like to have national energy has a national aergy policy, never bowed toboo saudi king and pay $2.50 for gas, newt gingrich will be your candidate. [applause] host: on this issue, $2.50 per gallon, the president has been going after new gingrich and -- newt gingrich and others on his strategy. louisiana is next for the new gingrich campaign. guest: newt gingrich needs a win. he has south carolina, georgia. the south -- this is ripe territory for him to pick up a win. louisiana is perfect. the drilling issue is perfect down there. he has the bus with the campaign slogan, $2.50 per gallon on, on

it. he proposes that if we just go for the energy sources we have here through drilling and other means of getting out fossil fuels that will deliver the gas prices and america and he is going full bore with his campaign strategy and he will do it in louisiana which is the perfect state where more july is certainly supported by many people there. it is the south. he was not able to win and the two southern primaries a week ago and that was a big blow to his campaign but he said they are not giving up and they will go for winning more states and louisiana is prime territory. what you just showed is the perfect example of the way newt gingrich has been trying to pick up voters by showing the way he has this drill here and now strategy. that is what he is using as his big campaign push. we will see how that works in louisiana. host: roy from illinois, independent line, will you vote on tuesday? caller: yes, probably will. i am hoping that mitt romney loses.

he is spending a fortune here in southern illinois. i cannot watch a television program or pick up my telephone without hearing from somebody that is related to him or 1 cent to be elected. -- or wants him to be elected. i wonder what the panel thinks about this superpacs. -- the super pacs. are they going to be here forever? will we be in bark -- bombarded by them forever? i have never seen anything like this. i think obama is a slam-dunk in the fall because of these people that are running. that's all i got to say, thank you. host: thanks for the call. guest: that is interesting. the super-pacs a big story in this primary. agree.e you would they're propping up newt gingrich in some cases and resort -- and rick santorum because they have the money and

a way to put forward the message. they are behind a lot of these calls and a lot of these ads. host: this is the latest from the mitt romney campaign in illinois. [video clip] >> who can turn around the economy and beeper barack obama. not rich sent thornberry his -- not rick santorum. santorum's weakness is the economy. he has never run a business or a state. his plan -- economic illiteracy, the worst idea of any gop candidate, rick santorum, another economic light weight. mitt romney is ready to lead the nation to a new era with the ball this gop agenda since -- boldest gop agenda since reagan. >> i am mitt romney and i approved this message. host: we have had a tweet and an e-mail of being inundated with television advertising. you have been studying this. at what point do you get to the law of diminishing returns? guest: may have happened in some states already. having spent some time in iowa and new hampshire, you could not turn on the tv without one

candidate bombarding the other. romney was anti-gingrich, gingrich was anti-romney. you cannot get away from them. if you had the impression that mitt romney is buying the election and all you see ouare mitt romney commercials or these super-pac ads, it may boomerang on him very you need to -- on him. but at the same time, you need money to win. you need to overwhelm them because of mitt -- if mitt romney does not have a conservative message that conservatives want to hear, he will have to attack on the airwaves. host: this is a political story about mitt romney approaching rick santorum and newt gingrich. he was the one that initiated the conversation and said it has to be one of us, no late entries into this race. guest: if we are still having this conversation in june, things could change. this is still march. we still have 25 -- 24 states to go and things could change.

one way or the other. we have plenty of time to look to another candidate who might be thinking of coming in. host: you even have buttons for 1976. guest: when ronald reagan wanted more delegates to surpass gerald ford, talking about who liberals are -- guest: these guys are not liberals but when ronald reagan tried to win the nomination in 1976, he picked a liberal , albeit pro-life senator, hoping that that would get the pennsylvania delegate on his side and that failed. host: this gives you a sense of what was like in 1976. this is the picture from "the new york times." it has nancy reagan, ronald reagan, president ford, rockefeller. this gives you a moment of what it was like and potentially what we might be able to see in tampa this year. [video clip] >> i think he was a vice chairman of one of those delegations.

>> and what happened? >> [unintelligible] >>what reason did he give? >> don't know. >> which phone is that? where does that go? >> it represents a lot of states. >> that goes next to the trailer. >> of the ford trailer? >> yes. >> and whenever my other phone is damaged, that, too. host: you see ronald reagan watching the proceedings. there was a lot of back-and- forth and horsetrading. going into that convention, it was not clear that gerald ford would have enough delegates on the first ballot. if that did not happen, potentially pandemonium wit would have spread through that convention hall.

guest: yes, they would have made the party structure in november and they were only off by 2%. given all the things that gerald ford had coming in, a disastrous debate, a debatable choice as bob dole as a running mate and the debates that went on where ford embarrassed himself, yet he only lost by 2points. -- 2 points. ultimately, voters don't decide until late october and that could be the case this year. host: headline from " the new york times"--- many viewers say this is a media fantasy. guest: mitt romney is way ahead in delegates. he is a couple ahead of santorum and several hundred ahead of gingrich. his lead will increase as time goes on and we move into these winner-take-all states like connecticut, delaware, new york, pennsylvania, rhode island. these take place after winner- take-alls. these are the states are highly favorable toward mitt romney.

you keep going down the list. it comes to the point where he will start getting so far ahead that the rest will be trailing. i think will make it more difficult for them to have financial support. guest: has to win. >> guest: that's right. i'm assuming he will win in illinois and will continue to win in states that technically favor him in polling numbers. if that does not happen, that is when we get more into this looking more fuzzy. at this point in time, it is hard to imagine this of thwill a brokered convention. there is a chance, but i think it is a small chance. look host: and at that video for 1976 -- kathleen on the phone from chicago, good morning. caller: i almost forgot what i had to say. if the republican party does not like the people they have

running in their own party, why in the world do they think democrat, independence, and some -- democrats, independents, and some republicans who will vote for president barack obama, not obama, president barack obama -- i don't understand. these republican candidates, mitt romney, he said around -- sits around talking about obama care. there is no suspect. -- is no such thing as obama care. it is the affordable act health care. we have been looking for health care for 70 years and why is it such a nasty were all the -- nasty word all the sudden the same model that he has, the president almost endorsed his. how could you get rid of something that you said was good for your steak but is not good -- your state, but it is not good enough for the whole country? if it is good enough for one state, we are all in the same union. host: to the call and that is --

thank you for the call. that is what rick santorum has been talking about with red mitt romney and it was in -- and it is an issue that will come up in -- in the general election. guest: rick santorum says the precursor of obama care was romney care. i do not think romney like that term either. host: republic in line, welcome -- the republican line. welcome to the program. caller: i have at least two points. host: we will not cut you off. caller: i voted for newt gingrich and i hope the day to -- he takes it all the way to the convention. mitt romney and rick santorum wants to raise the age in which you collect social security to age 70 and only newt gingrich is in favor of keeping the age the same. i rememberduring the last presidential -- i remember,

during the last presidential election, john mccain took his 90-year-old mother on the campaign trail with them. they had the primary debate and i remember them asking, what would you do about social security? mitt romney gave the an imaginative response, i would increase the age at which to collect it is 70. a member of my family cracked -- if they keep increasing the -- the age brother, the only person -- the age further, the only person agency further, the only person that will be eligible to collect will be senator mccain's mom. the other thing has to do with the rules -- in this country along with our name, our vote is one of the most sacred things with our person's good name. our vote is one of the most precious things we own. i have concerns about whether the republican establishment is trying to push the boavote toward mitt romney.

in iowa, i think they said eight districts lost their vote. how you lose your vote in eight districts? host: who are you supporting in this republican primary? caller: i am supporting newt gingrich. i voted for him. can i say one other thing? they lost district in maine and -- districts in maine and florida. i don't get it. they said mitt romney got all the votes. host: we will stop you there and say goodbye and thank you for the call. guest: she makes some good points. and tell the programs are in -- entitlement programs are in trouble. democrats agree that there has to be some kind of get back on entitlement programs. at the same time, democrats insist the republicans need to give something as well and that could be tax increases. that is a no-no on the republican side. as far as continuing with the vote, it is precious and important but the establishment

.oes not vote for it 1 millio 1 million more republicans voted for mitt romney rather than the other candidates. ultimately, you either make the choice whether it is more important to beat barack obama and did you think mitt romney if it is ideological purity, mitt romney is not the best candidate. host: he was in pennsylvania yesterday campaigning in pittsburgh and participating in the st. patrick's day parade. the headline posted that obama campaign ready to battle in pennsylvania. they are putting in an effort in ohio. republican -- no republican has

won the presidency without winning ohio. guest: the swing states. which way are they going to go? the big fights over voters will be which way they will go. you may remember back in 2004, it boiled down to what was going to happen in ohio. you look at it this time around, pennsylvania is an important state, ohio, florida. virginia is going to be big this year. look where the president is doing fundraisers and endorsing his own agenda and talking to the public. he will be going to these important states, these battleground states making these points. these are the voters he needs to win over if he will be a second term president.

host: here is what the president said friday in chicago on that point. [video clip] >> our politics may be divided. the matter where we come from, we rise and fall as one nation, one people. that is what is at stake in this election. that is what we are fighting for. as much as 2008 was exciting, as much as all of us saw that night at grant park as the culmination of something, it was the beginning of what we are fighting for.

guest: he is trying to create a narrative that this is just a work in progress. he needs to get people away from thinking, this is the first term. things are not looking great. he gave a speech in atlanta yesterday. he talks about that issue. we are only part of the way there. he needs a second term to finish the job. it is a smart narrative for him. it changes people's thinking. the economy is still struggling. gas prices are rising. he is trying to change the direction of people's thinking. we are part of the way there. help me fix it all up by the end of my second term. that was what you were hearing in atlanta. host: the broker occur benton

plays into the hands of -- brokered convention plays into the hands of the wall -- ron paul strategy. guest: even 1976 was not really a convention where anything went. here you have the possibility of other candidates coming in. ron paul or newt gingrich or how many delegates they have been the power brokers who could decide this thing. the ultimate dream is of the republican establishment. this is the nightmare. host: a caller from new york on the independent line. caller: i am and 80 year-old independent voter. i am appalled at the mentality level of so many people in this country. if you were to ask the public

who runs the country, they would say the government. i think it is wall street and k street who send their lobbyists to congress who run this country. look at all our single issue voters. if hitler was alive and running for office as anti-gay and anti-abortion, people would all take for him. on the supreme court, you have five conservatives and four liberals. why shouldn't people -- why should people tell 320 million people what they can and cannot do? host: next week, oral arguments over the president's health care plan.

>> we saw the theory advanced after the 2000 election. all supreme court justices are appointed by the president. they are either ideologically conservative or liberal. in the case of fdr and the case of ray again and it is the case today. host: this is from the detroit free press. rodney's campaign has scaled back expenses and, in some cases, began to count more on free media sources. guest: he has had to spend money where i do not think the campaign predicted he would have to spend money. he has had to fight harder than anyone predicted he would have in some of these states. as we look ahead to illinois, they will have to spend a lot more money to hang onto that

state. this is getting expensive for the romney campaign. host: in maine, the news that olympia snowe is stepping down. guest: this changes the dynamic a little bit. at first the democrats were gleeful because olympia snowe is stepping down. an independent is the front runner. he has scared away the strong democratic candidates in maine. he looks like the likely successor to olympia snowe. he is not committed to voting with the democrats. bob kerrey was exciting for the democrats in nebraska. that would give them a shot of hanging onto the seat of ben nelson. he is behind in the polls. that is scary for democrats early. he has got to close that gap significantly if he is going to be a legitimate candidate in

this race. if democrats have any shot at that see, it would be through former senator bob kerrey. host: he has not lived in the state 10 years. that bank people are looking upon that skeptically. he -- people -- guest: people are looking at that skeptically. guest: to come to nebraska, which is not an back to you and say, i will be the successor to ben nelson, -- nebraska, and said i will be the successor to ben nelson, that does not go over well. host: ken and susan, thank you

for being with us. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," the role of social issues on the campaign. the co-founder of no labels talks about reducing polarization in congress. an analyst for the congressional research service reduce the funding for the federal emergency management association. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. nuclear regulatory commissioners testified thursday on efforts to implement safety rules. u.s. plants would have up to five years to comply with the new rules on the emergency power and natural disaster preparedness. this is just under 02 hours.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> the fukushima and that she nuclear plant was hit hard. it lost power and gas explosions tore apart reactor buildings. three nuclear reactors melted down. radiation poured out into the environment. people's lives were uprooted by evacuations to avoid the threat of radiation poisoning. many of these men women and children have yet to return to their homes. some may never be able to go back. i know our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of japan and the victims of this catastrophe. the purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight 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 would like to take a moment to discuss a safety issue from california. after i learned from increased deterioration from two that carry water into the steam generators, i wrote to the nrc and asked our focus on resolving the safety issue. radiation could be released at levels that exceed safety standards. today the nrc is flying down a special team to conduct -- conduct a more intensive evaluation of the plant. i have 9 million people living within 50 miles of that plant. it is critical that the nrc review the safely -- safety implications of that problem and

that the nrc keep me up to date on its investigation. today is the sixth time that members of the panel had gathered to conduct hearings on the nrc. in july 2011, the task force made 12 safety recommendations to help reduce the impact of such a disaster in the united states. they prioritize these recommendations and said they should be implemented without delay. there were three orders requiring these safety improvements. a couple of days ago, he took this important action.

they have enough equipment to address emergencies. the third order requires the boiling reactors to improve our installed hinting systems -- install venting systems and to recapitalize earthquake and flood the risks to assess their ability to safely operate and their capacity to communicate with a prolonged loss of power and to address the emergencies that more than one reactor. the nrc will issue two notices on steps to take its plans louis electric power and to improve emergency procedures. i am encouraged that the nrc has

moved forward. it shows the public that they are reacting on information gathered since the fukushima disaster. i am concerned about the timeline for requiring plants to meet the safety standards. the commission asked the commission to implement information within five years. some of the provisions allow plants to avoid meeting safety improvements for longer than five years. you have done good work. but make it happen in the field. according to fema, but it 20 million people live within 15 -- within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor. i also want to take this

opportunity to say that your actions on sanofree are pleasing to me. i have had a history here of having to push hard. i should not have to do that in this case. since i have been critical, i go -- i owe you a thank you. that not only comes from me, but it comes from the people who are counting on you. they do not know your faces. they appreciate the fact that you care enough about them to send an investigative team out there today to make sure you understand what is happening with these two and why they are failing. they are too new to fail. something is happening there. whether it is the chemistry of the water, we do not know. with that, i will turn to

senator sessions. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. senator inhofe is at the armed services committee. good morning. i think all of you for being here. i appreciate the work being done to deal with the aftermath of the fukushima incident. we need to we do that carefully. it is an important challenge for us. from everything i see, you have been focused and working hard on it. 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. that is true of oil and gas production and with nuclear power. he says he is committed to restarting the nuclear industry but the record indicates

otherwise. i am disappointed that the president's appointment as chairman of the nrc was the only member to all day against the plant in georgia. you cannot delay these things forever and ever. they drive up the costs and will kill the restart of nuclear power in america, which we need for energy and for the economy and for the environment. the chairman has played a central role in the administration's efforts to close down yacca -- yucca mountain. on december 15, we heard testimony about the abusive behavior of the chairman. his withholding of information from other members of the

commission and his abusive personal behavior and intimidation of staff. we heard testimony about the troubling circumstances that led the other four commissioners to write a letter to the white house to tell the president that the chairman's actions are causing serious damage to the nrc. five months after that letter was sent, the president has not responded in a responsible manner. instead of seeking to get to the bottom of these facts, the democrats have circled the wagons to protect the chairman from can it -- from accountability. i am concerned. there are serious problems in the leadership of the commission in the chairman's office. it needs to be confronted. one other thing i would like to say. i think president obama should

act soon to ensure that commissioner svinicki is not forced from the commission in june. she is a nuclear engineer. she has worked at various levels in the federal government. she held an important staff role for senator john warner on the armed services committee. she is a hard worker and confident and of sound character. she was willing to sign the letter that blew the whistle on the problems in the commission. nrc needs a full panel of the experience, qualified commissioners. i am convinced that commissioner svinicki should not be forced to leave. i urge the president to renominate her. she had the support of the

republican leader. it would be a tragedy if we reached the situation that serviceoner svinicki's is allowed to expire and we keep the chairman who has created so much controversy. i do not intend to let that happen. i am not going to let that happen if i had anything to do about it even if we have to bring the senate to a grinding halt. chairman, thank you for having us here. you have been a theory chairman. i know you are still celebrating that the highway bill. i was pleased to work with you. he demonstrated a tremendous amount of energy in bringing people together on that highway bill. you deserve great credit. >> i want to remind everybody of

the title of this hearing just to focus ourselves. lessons from took a shima one year later. nrc's recommendations for enhancing nuclear safety. with that, i turned to senator carper. >> i would like to say of my friend from alabama -- a lot of time we call each other as friends. commissionere -- svinicki is great and i hope she will be read nominated. --renominated. we had a public come to jesus meeting. my sense is that maybe it had a

positive effect. we have seen the license issued for the first two nuclear power plants built in this country in 20 or 30 years. i hope this hearing focuses on what we can learn from the awful events of fukushima. what are we doing about what we have learned? what is the timetable to make sure the lessons learned are implemented in a timely and effective way. >> senator barrasso. >> thank you, madam chairwoman.

people want to know there will not be a vp of nuclear disaster here in the united states. the nuclear regulatory commission is tasked with protecting us. the incident at fukushima has led to a process of developing recommendations to improve nuclear safety here in the united states. this process should be allowed to continue free of partisan politics. we learned from four commissioners who said the agency is not working as effectively as it could under this chairman's leadership. it is my hope that once the report is released, it is thoroughly reviewed. we also need to have a full slate of commissioners that is stocked with the best and most experienced men and women in the field.

as senator sessions and senator carper had said in a bipartisan way, among those is commissioner svinicki. i told her nomination is not being stalled by the white house for political reason. that will not serve to keep people safe. i agree in a bipartisan way that commissioner svinicki is a critical member of this commission. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure that happens. in a speech in what the bill, maryland, the chairman spoke of two futures for the nuclear industry. he spoke of one future 20 years from now. the construction of new reactors. the other future was one where,

20 years from now, we would see an industry dominated by the process 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 country to follow. we need to provide energy for seniors, working families, and small business owners. the president, if he is serious, he will join those of us who seek to strengthen this important energy source was qualified and experienced people. i thank you madam chairwoman and i look forward to the testimony. >> thank you. senator sanders. >> thank you, members of the commission for being here.

clearly, we must continue to focus on the need to -- need for safety reforms after the unthinkable disaster in japan hatband. one of the issues we always have to be aware of is that 99.9% say it is not good enough. tens of thousands of people remain evacuated from their homes. near the three reactors that suffered meltdowns. i thought it interesting that my friend from alabama use the word incident. i suggest you were talking about the fukushima disaster. for the people of japan, it was not quite an incident. it was a disaster impacting their country. we have got to understand how serious we must be in the making sure the nuclear power in this country is safe. in a letter to the president

calling fukushima, i called for a moratorium on license renewals until we could examine what happened and implement reforms. i am concerned about that. in the southern part of my state, we have nuclear power plant with a similar design. we have 23 reactors in the united states with the same design as fukushima. but license extensions continue without accounting for lessons learned. officials expressed concern about this design in the early 1970's. mark 1official said, na reactors had a chance of bursting should be fewer reactors over it. -- fuel reactors over heat.

we license a reactor for 20 years without examining the implications of fukushima. the nrc has granted 71 license renewals and has never rejected one. 71-0. in every single instance, the nrcthe nrc also voted 3-2 in set to -- in liturgy against vermonts energy future. in my strong view, safety, that is what your job is paired 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 desire to go with sustainable energy. if we want to move to

sustainable energy and not contain an aging and troubled nuclear power plant, which should be allowed to do that. finally, i am allowed that a year from fukushima, they moved to go for with the first nuclear plant in this country since three-mile island, recommended by the panel of experts in the nrc staff. the last time we had a hearing with the nrc, we heard from the chairman and we heard it again today. interestingly enough, there was a four-one vote on whether or not to go forward with three licensing the new plant in georgia and there was a division. i would suggest, as i did at the last meeting, that maybe the difference that is taking place here is not the personality flaws of the chairman, but a

philosophical difference which exists about how the nrc should proceed. i look forward to the questioning by the chair. >> thank you. >> senator merkel, welcome. >> thank you, madam chair. is it my turn? >> yes. >> i wanted to ask a couple of things. particularly around the venting of gases, one of your orders is requiring improvement replacement -- >> this is your time for an opening statement. >> i want to pass on the opening statement. [laughter] >> that is fair enough. we will turn to our seen panel and start with their honorable chairman and he will have five minutes and each member will have three minutes. >> chairman boxer, chairman, on

behalf of the commission, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to provide enough of the nrc implementation of safety enhancements of the focus jima nuclear accident. -- of the firm kajima -- of the fukushima nuclear accident. our assessment of the events 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 against extreme phenomenal advance. tier one consists of action to be taken without delay and for which sufficient resource flexibility including the availability of critical skills sets exists.

tier two actions can be initiated as soon as sufficient resources or critical skill sets become available. finally, tier 3 recommendations require further staff study or shorter term actions be taken first. i would stress that this is not in a priority order. while there may be required additional staff study, there are no studies that are less important to safety. as a result, public meetings with state college, including the industry with the public and the ribeyes rate committee, there have been a number of enhancements. on march 12, the commission issued immediately orders. the orders reflect a tremendous effort on the part of the nrc staff and the commission to produce a comprehensive passage in an expedited manner. the first order requires the plan to better protect after

the 9/11 terrorist attacks. the second order requires a plan to install enhanced equipment for monitoring levels. and a third order apply salt only two reactors that have marked one or more to come statement -- containment issues. for all three of these orders, licensees are required to submit their plans for implementing their programs to the nrc and have full implementation by december 31, 2016. additionally, licensees are required to provide periodic status reports so the staff can monitor their progress. in addition to these three orders, which also issued a

request for information. there were asked to assess the seismic reactors and identify actions that are planned to address the vulnerability. licensees were requested to develop a methodology and acceptance criteria and perform seismic walk-downs'. as part of this initiative, they are also requested to a stand -- to assess staffing levels needed to respond to large-scale event and implement strategies in the emergency plans. the end station blackrock rule is a hard party -- the station and blackout rule is of high priority and the staff has

recently provided and are finalizing the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for that. we anticipate beginning work on tiered to recommendations and we have the necessary recommendation from the tier one activities and we can free of critical resources from these efforts. the issuance of the orders and letters on march 12 is a significant step forward on our post-foot version of efforts. we're making strong progress and i continue to be impressed by staff dedication and expertise. there is still a great deal of work ahead of us for both the commission and the staff. this past year was very challenging for the nrc. but it was also a very productive year force. the agency expects to meet new and unanticipated challenges. we're confident that the nrc will continue to ensure the secure operation of licensed facilities while ensuring the safe construction and operation of nuclear plants.

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 to this challenge. the chairman's already outlined the details of our response so i won't repeat that now, but let me ultimately say that while we have moved quickly i'm very confident the decisions we have made to date are appropriate and fully implemented will address the large portion of any risk revealed by our insights gained from studying the fukushima event. this week we met with many of our international colleagues at the 24th regulatory information conference. through my conversations with our colleagues, it's clear that many of the world's regulators have viewed these issues in much the same way and i expect the response of fukushima across the world will have considerable similarities in many countries. the n.r.c. staff has performed an outstanding fashion in pursuit of this outcome. they have worked tirelessly to review these issues working with our many stakeholders and consulting with the advisory

committee on reactor safeguards. i'd like to recognize the invaluable contributions provided by marty who serve as chairman of the steering committee that leads this overall effort at the agency. he recently announced he will soon require after 34 years with the agency and his leadership will be missed. finally, i want to conclude by sending my thoughts and encouragement to the citizens of japan as they continue to recover from last year's earthquake and tsunami. commissioner ostendorff and i visited the site in january and saw firsthand how hard or friends in japan are working to deal with the aftermath what they now call 3-11. that term is deep and enduring resonance that the americans understand quite well. i wish our japanese colleagues the very best and success in their efforts. thank you for your attention. i look forward to the questions. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner ostendorff. >> thank you, madam chairman. chairman carper, ranking member barrasso, members of the committee. just over one year since an earthquake and tsunami devastated japan, led to severe accidents at fukushima daiichi.

last july the fukushima task force at the n.r.c. concluded that the sequence of events, the united states similar to that in japan is unlikely. the task force also concluded there is no imminent risk for continued operation of u.s. nuclear power plants. i believe those conclusions remain true today. no less i continue to support the n.r.c.'s actions to make our plants even safer. the n.r.c. has taken positive, concrete steps to strengthen the n.r.c.'s regulatory framework in response to fukushima. i join my colleagues here at this table and also commending the men and women of the n.r.c. for their hard work. i also appreciate the chance to engage with my four colleagues to the right. since i last appeared before this committee in december i voted to approve of three orders submitted to the commission in february. as mentioned by others, those orders were issued earlier this week.

i think it's important for this committee to note while we may have had slightly different variations on the basis of these orders, all five of us in a unanimous act approved all three orders. i think that's a significant statement. >> it is. >> to me these three orders represent sound policy decisions for nuclear safety and as commissioner magwood mentioned, i think we saw in our visit to fukushima, the importance of us taking strong, decisive actions as regulators. i am confident the path the n.r.c. is on today. i think we are taking responsible actions. i appreciate the fans to appear before this feet and look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. commissioner magwood you said our nuclear plants are safe. i just wanted to point out that's what the japanese said before fukushima. i think we need to be cautious. when i think the answer is, we are doing everything in our power to ensure they are safe. that is crucial. i have some questions. chairman jaczko, the n.r.c.

staff has proposed two rule makes to implement high priority recommendations. i'm glad to hear everybody's support of these. it's very, very heartening to me personally. one of those rules would require plants have the ability to safely operate when they lose all electric power. a station blackout. another rule would require new emergency operating procedures and guidelines to address severe accidents. chairman, when will the n.r.c. propose and finalize these rules? >> right now the station blackout rule, the first proposal, what we call an advanced notice of proposed rule making, is due this week to be finalized and released to the public. the emergency operating procedure, the second rule you referred to, an advance notice is also planned for next month. the station blackout rule the commission has asked for that to be done in about 24 months.

from now. and that would put it somewhere in the 2014 time frame. the second rule right now i think is on a much later schedule to be finalized closer to 2016 or some time in 2016. i feel comfortable we are on a good track with the station blackout rule. that is a high priority. the commission has recognized that. i certainly could have concerns that the second rule will be a challenge for us to not only complete the rule itself but the implementations within the five years that i think the commission has laid out. again i think part of our work in the next couple years is to figure out ways we can get some of this worked on timely. >> as i understand it the safety commission recommended that these all be done in five years, is that correct? >> the commission itself encouraged the efforts to get these things done within five years and we did have our advisory committee on reactor safeguards to encourage some of

the rule makings be accept rated because it's such an important piece. >> do you feel comfortable on this issue you are speaking for everyone when you say you are striving to meet that 2014 and 2016 date? you're striving? i want to just ask -- let me put you on the spot. you can't speak for everyone. does anyone disagree those two rules should -- you should do everything in your power to implement the first one, 2014, station blackout, and second one, 2016? is there any dissent from that? ok. the n.r.c. staff has stated that high priority safety recommendations should be implemented without delay. we talked about them, the n.r.c. told its staff to strive by 2016. so i just want to make sure that you would keep us up to date, our committee, on the progress being made so that if there's slippage we would know about it. would you do that commission?

if you see things slipping. otherwise we are going to assume it's on track unless you tell us -- i don't want to be surprised and find out it's going to take 12 years or 14. because that's what happened the last time. after 9/11, the recommendations took 10 years or more. >> chairman boxer, if i could just add right now, one of the areas where i do have some concern is with the efforts to re-examine the seismic hazards at the nuclear power plants. this is an effort right now that would probably push out to the earliest completion date around sometime 2017. the latest completion date for some of the lower risk plants into 2019. so that is one that at this point does appear to be off target a little bit. and given the importance of seismic hazards, i think commissioner apostolakis said, this is an area which we recognize that there is new information that tells us the plants may not be designed to the right seismic standard.

for this one to be taking so long is a bit of a concern to me. >> i agree with you. another time and place, and also i'll work with all of you, this is very concerning because in california we have updated reports that are not good that say there's been a lot of change. did you want to add something? >> i'd like to add something. first of all i agree with the chairman's statement, but there will be a lot of activities related to seismic upgrades. and right now the focus is on the plants east of the rocky mountains where the u.s. geological survey has issued new seismic data. and the staff will prioritize in terms of risk the activities there. so a lot of it will have been accomplished before these dates after the 15 years.

staff- according to the and my understanding, it's the plants with low risk that will have to do some upgrades, perhaps, that will take longer. and the california plants, by the way, according to what i know today, will complete their upgrades before the five years. >> good. one last question. chairman jaczko, when the fukushima reactors released large amounts of radiation people were evacuated and many have yet to return home. does the n.r.c. consider harmful impacts beyond the radiation including such things as evacuations, cleanup of contamination when determining to require safety measures at our nuclear reactors? in other words the cost and benefit ratio would change, it seems to me, if the n.r.c. considered what it would take, just look at my southern california plant.

there's almost nine million people living within 50 miles. so i am interested in to whether or not you consider harmful impacts beyond the public radiation when you determine the cost benefit of improvement. >> we really don't. our focus is really primarily on the direct and short-term and longer term direct health impacts from radiation exposure when we are making our safety judgments. this is clearly an area that is, i think we need to look at and need to examine because as you look at the fukushima event, that's really, right now, what is going to be the long-term impact. it is significant. >> it is. when i asked -- i'm going to give everybody an extra two minutes because i have gone over. when i asked the sheriff near my plant what she thought, she said, i said how do you get people out of here? she said, well, if it were to happen an earthquake were to happen during rush hour, this is the road.

you can't even move on that road. so it seems to me there needs to be more work done because radiation is the worst of the things that could happen, but being homeless and is a whole other situation. not being able to evacuate. i would like to work with all of you on that. would you-all agree you would be open to looking at that as far as cost benefit ratio? thank you. i see everybody nodding. senator barrasso, you go forward with seven minutes, sir. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. i think we have heard good news. u.s. plants are safe. there are steps to make them safer. we are on the right path. i have heard that across the board. views have evolved. there have been lessons learned. i do have a couple of questions specifically there was actually a critical report that came out by a group called the union of concerned scientists. critical of the n.r.c.'s

response to address protecting u.s. plants. the report goes on, i'm going to ask commissioners to comment on it. it said that u.s. reactors, says, remains vulnerable to fukushima like disasters. the n.r.c. does have a plan to reduce vulnerabilities, but plus proceed expeditiously to implement the lessons learned from fukushima. there are critical report goes on to say, unless n.r.c. strengthens measures to mitigate beyond such design basis accidents, it may be only a matter of time before a similar disaster happens here. i know you are very thoughtful on this. the views have evolved. maybe start with commissioner magwood and tell me what your thoughts are on this report that seems to be critical. >> let me overstate sort of the defensive reaction to that. it's easy to be defensive in these things.

i think that the thought that u.c.s. is putting out which is we need to take action is an appropriate thought. the commission fully agrees with that. we have already agreed to take steps as a body and agency that will enhance the safety of u.s. plants to make sure that fukushima-type scenario doesn't unfold. that said, i think that our infrastructure, our regulatory approach, our practices at plants, our equipment, our configuration, our design basis would prevent fukushima from occurring under similar circumstances at a u.s. plant. would don't think it happen. we can still improve and we are going to improve. >> thank you. commissioner svinicki. >> senator barrasso, i agree with my colleagues. i think the chairman has outlined the action that is we are taking in response to just that concern to learn the lessons to move forward. i would say on the timelines i think the commission to a person ha